Are the new timings constructive in creating popular appeal to spectators?

[SwordSoul]

i've got it: we give epee a constant priority coin-toss and a shot clock!

[Gav]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Epee being difficult: wow. We should do a pseudo-scientific poll w/ non-fencers. Have them watch a bout, or clips, and then fill out a questionnaire. I am always surprised by how people view the sport.

My own poll was very inscienfic. They understood what they were seeing. They understood the rules. But what seemed to happen was a lot of jockeying for position and then BAM!. Amongst the viewers this was often followed by a series of "WTF!" type comments. No-one was more surprised than me. I always thought that Epee was the most watchable, the most Errol Flynn-like. Seemed to be related to the blink of an eye change of [high level] Epee pace. Actually I suspect were I to show more Epee then the average person would get over this extremely quickly.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Sabre. Based on the Olympics, I also thought that sabre would be the most interesting for non-fencers to watch. Though Olympic coverage showed American fencers, and though it was highly televised (comparatively) in the USA, to my vast surprise, acquaintances were telling me how it was too fast or confusing. People were "crashing together and sometimes there was a point."

I had the exact opposite. I kept hearing comments like - that "looks cool - like a fight". They seemed to get ROW much quicker with Sabre, they could see the attack coming and see who got the hit. I also suspect that they actually bought into the match on an emotional level - especially the Russia v US match. I also remember Sabre how it used to be and those were changes that were hotly contested when they came in but really have changed Sabre for the better.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

So in my meagre sampling, pro- was outweighed by con- by a slim but measurable margin. Regardless, sabre is perfect the way it is (was) -- if there is going to be a big rule change, sabre isn't a candidate because it's already on the right track.

Epee. Epee is also perfect at what it is. It's pared-down, simple-but-complex, and almost self-directing. But the subtle games that involve patience don't always transfer well to TV.

Agreed

Originally Posted by wflaschka

So Foil. It's not blazingly fast like sabre, and it doesn't have to be fenced so that two fencers crash together. Being a RoW weapon, it allows for moments of click-click-click bladework. So the FIE is trying the right things. Give foil a little more of the clarity of epee, a little less of the flash-n-smash of sabre. Try to find something that increases the back-and-forth exchanges, and re-introduces a variety of foil blade actions, and rewards conversational bladework.

If the timing changes turn out to be constructive, then viewers will immediately find a mental analogy to The Three Musketeers: Fencing will meet their expectations (for once!). Viewers won't find this mental analogy in epee and sabre, only foil. For viewers, foil would be everything they expect -- the surprise wouldn't be that fencing is incomprehensibly different from popular portrayal, the surprise would be that it's so alive and exciting (with screaming and sweat).

Finally, foil was ripe for change. Foil had a big, vocal segment of fencers that were complaining bitterly about how the weapon was degraded, unrealistic, and ugly (under the old timings). They hated the flick, or absence of blade attacks, or whatever. Spectators watching the old foil could watch a fencer hit, turn on a light, stand up, and then get scored upon by a slow-but-continuous riposte. So foil had a built-in fan-base for change.

Yes, I agree. I think some of the analysis of the new timings that I've read misses the point somewhat. I agree with a lot of the comments people have made but I think they miss the point and I am sympathetic. If the rules were enforced better this would never have happened but this was never going to happen. It's suits some federations to have the rues interpretations as they are. If Foil had gotten its house in order these timing changes would never have come about. It's the nature of an evolving sport to see changes. I don't think we've heard the last about Foil timing changes from the FIE.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Finally, foil was ripe for change. Foil had a big, vocal segment of fencers that were complaining bitterly about how the weapon was degraded, unrealistic, and ugly (under the old timings). They hated the flick, or absence of blade attacks, or whatever. Spectators watching the old foil could watch a fencer hit, turn on a light, stand up, and then get scored upon by a slow-but-continuous riposte. So foil had a built-in fan-base for change.

???

Where do you foil ?

I was seeing plenty of foilists happy to attack and flick apart from some
nostalgic of Romankov or Magnan.

If the ripost respect the convention and the "fencing time" where was the problem ?

And again foil had already changed.

It is the nostalgic of the Romankov time which want prevent it fron changing
by trying to adopt these test timings instead of the official timings.

Please do not confuse whose who have accepted the changes
and modern foil with those who want to stop the changes by
technical means which fail completly even to stop flicks !

[keith]

Originally Posted by Alan

???

Where do you foil ?

I was seeing plenty of foilists happy to attack and flick apart from some
nostalgic of Romankov or Magnan.

Check out some of the old threads here on the way the italians fenced at the olympics.

Originally Posted by Alan

If the ripost respect the convention and the "fencing time" where was the problem ?

{snip}

Please do not confuse whose who have accepted the changes
and modern foil with those who want to stop the changes by
technical means which fail completly even to stop flicks !
[/b]

We are probably using 'flicks' to loosely - most posters here are not of the opinion that all flicks are bad. The new changes have not removed well timed flicks delivered at appropriate distance, which is a good thing IMHO.

The changes appear to have been designed to force fencers to respect distance - you can no longer make up for a sudden collapse of distance with an extreme blade action. This type of 'flick' is gone, and this action could never have been controlled by the refs - an attack is an attack on the basis of the extension of the arm not due to the means of manipulating the point onto the target. I would like to hear any opinions on how these actions could have been controlled - without introducing some drastic changes to the conventions of the weapon.

It is these types of actions, arm pumping prep/attacks that people seem so worked up about (and not just at the FIE).

Just imagine what foil would be like if instead of the timing changes they had demanded that the attack could only be delivered with a straight arm

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Alan

???

Where do you foil ?

I was seeing plenty of foilists happy to attack and flick apart from some
nostalgic of Romankov or Magnan.

If the ripost respect the convention and the "fencing time" where was the problem ?

And again foil had already changed.

It is the nostalgic of the Romankov time which want prevent it fron changing
by trying to adopt these test timings instead of the official timings.

Please do not confuse whose who have accepted the changes
and modern foil with those who want to stop the changes by
technical means which fail completly even to stop flicks !

Saying things in bold does not make them more true, and is visually annoying. Please refrain?

[scrapinpeg]

If you're going to make foil more visually interesting to a TV audience, why not make the blades more visible on screen? What's wrong with bright neon colors? Encase the blade in a colorful sheath below the tip, and you can lose the tape as well. Won't affect the game, but will make it easier to see what's happening.

multi-angle closeups, helmet cams and slo-mo instant replays wouldn't hurt, either.

[telkanuru]

Because then people will say "WTF, lightsabres!" and it's all downhill from there...

[keith]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Because then people will say "WTF, lightsabres!" and it's all downhill from there...

Its called cross marketing, LeonPaul could sell masks painted as you favourite Jedi or Sith.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

If you're going to make foil more visually interesting to a TV audience, why not make the blades more visible on screen? What's wrong with bright neon colors? Encase the blade in a colorful sheath below the tip, and you can lose the tape as well. Won't affect the game, but will make it easier to see what's happening.

Two words:

Fox Puck

[mrbiggs]

In regards to the incomprehensibility of epee for non-fencers, I'm not surprised at it at all. Before I started fencing epee, international-level epee bouts were simple-looking. Two guys jump back and forth. One of them fleches, the other counterattacks. A light goes on, apparently someone hit. Touch. Now that I fence epee, I know what's going on more, and with the occaisional assistance of slow-motion, I can see that, oh, he faked for the shoulder, then did an opposition, then fell short, and his opponent hit him in the mask.
To be fair, this is with low-quality online video, but I think the premise can be extended to TV with non-fencers.

[Coup de Grace]

You can regulary view the following sports on cable/satellite television:
1. Pro Bowlers Tour
2. World Poker Championships
3. Darts
4. Dodgeball
5. Billiards

I don't know the ratings for viewership of these programs but they seem to have a dedicated fan base. You can find creative marketing for these shows along with advertising sponsors. My long-winded point here is that the popular appeal of fencing would increase if the similar techniques were adopted. I don't believe timing changes will have enough impact. Color, slo-motion, advertising should be considered. A fan base will follow.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Coup de Grace

4. Dodgeball

I thought that was a spoof! You can't really watch dodgeball (pronounced Dodgeyball over here in Scotland) can you?

[Insipiens]

I have seen and competed in several MF competitions in the UK under the new timings, and personally prosepered by the lack of b********* flicking to my shoulder (). However, in terms of visual appeal to fencers (including but not limited to foilists), foil is definitely less elegant, exciting and fluid to watch.

But this poll is about spectators, and the assumption is that they are non-fencing TV watchers. I still don't think foil will look better under the new timings because (so far at least) the speed, fluidity and style of foil under the old timings has not been replaced by interesting bladework and to and fro - it has been replaced by a lot more counter-attacking, dodging and unstylish fencing.

Even if it did encourage a lot more blade work how easy would that be to follow? I tend to think technological advances and better exposition and explanation would have more effect.

[demon_fencer]

Originally Posted by Gav

I thought that was a spoof! You can't really watch dodgeball (pronounced Dodgeyball over here in Scotland) can you?

Yup. I don't know why I watched it, but I did. Once. Its kind of like an unathletic American Gladiators episode. Teams usually had one ringer that was really good at hitting people with the ball and 4 other people that ran around trying not to get hit.

[Coup de Grace]

'tis true, Gav. It is called "Extreme Dodgeball" and apparently there is a following for it. It's a drag, because I know fencing could enjoy that level of popularity if given the opportunity. But, the sport would have to make some compromises to increase viewership.

What a world! You can watch dodgeball regularly, but cant' see one of oldest and noblest sports in the history of mankind.

[Inquartata]

Perhaps the question ought to be: SHOULD we pursue the goal of increasing spectator appeal? I mean, which of us got into this sport to be watched by crowds? And do we really want hordes of clueless people taking up all the floor space in our venues, adding to the press when the pool assignments are posted, raising the ambient noise levels, eyeing all the fencing gear and valuables we leave in our bags, spilling things, monopolizing the available parking spaces, etc? I don't believe I do...

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Perhaps the question ought to be: SHOULD we pursue the goal of increasing spectator appeal? I mean, which of us got into this sport to be watched by crowds?

That's a good point, but I think fencing is forever safe from cotton candy-eating throngs. When bigwigs talk about increasing popular appeal, I think it's more along the line of getting the same amount of airtime as curling, or making it so that a dedicated sports viewer sees at least a little fencing in his lifespan. The aspirations are miniscule compared to the huge crowds of the popular sports, but they will result in more new fencers, and firmer footing with the Olympic committee.

[Inquartata]

I'm sure that's the hope, but I don't think they really have an empirical leg to stand on. All of the things they've done thus far have had about zero effect as far as I can tell. Meanwhile they're throwing monkey wrenches at the people whom fencing is SUPPOSED to be about: the fencers. The bad is real and measurable, the good is purely theoretical and fervently wished for. What kind of a rational trade-off is that?

[Schiavona]

Now, the FIE won't listen to me, but I know two things that would really make a difference in increasing spectator apeal. Beer and cheerleaders.

In other words-Americanize tournaments.