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

[Red #40]

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? 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...

We definitly should pursue it, but the set up of tournaments will have to change. The spectators would have to be handled the way they are at Tennis or Boxing tournaments, give them bleachers and a snack bar and keep them separate from the fencers.

As for the timings, I think they make a diference, I watched foil at the last summer nationals and found it boring, it was just two fencers running at each other trying to flick and if they missed they both stood on their toes about 6 inches from each other and sawed away with their foils hoping to hit something. Now when I watch it people actually try to fence. But thats just my 2 cents..

[Coup de Grace]

Popularity has its trade-offs of course. But it works both ways. Increased popularity pushes up the demand curve. Where there is a demand there should be a supply to respond to the marketplace. I don't expect to see crass commercialism in Fencing, but a little commercialism would not hurt.

Look at Olympic figure skaters for example. There is a whole market of made for TV competitions and performances for skaters after their Olympic careers are finished. Yet it has not impacted the Olympic sport at all. There are market demands for both. Why not a similar format for Fencing?

[Alan]

Experiment :


- find a non fencer who likes watching sport on tv
(the idea is to test popular appeal)

-show him a video of Guyart vs Cassara in Athens

- show him the final of La Corugna

guess which one he will prefer ...

[MikeHarm]

Every time I've done such tests with non fencers they couldn't follow anything and asked why we weren't watching football or basketball instead.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

Every time I've done such tests with non fencers they couldn't follow anything and asked why we weren't watching football or basketball instead.

I don't agree with you. During Athens i have seen many non fencers
appreciate fencing and modern foil on TV.

But even if you are right, this proves that there is no need to pervert foil
in an impossible quest for "telegeny".

[Coup de Grace]

Here's my personal example: At the last Winter Olympics, on a whim, I decided to watch the Curling competiton. I knew nothing about it, other than there was somebody with a broom. I must say, the television coverage made this sport interesting to watch and viewed the entire Final competition.

I did not bcome a Curling groupie, but I'll watch it at the next Winter Olympics.

Why not Fencing?

[MikeHarm]

Actually, I took a different spin on it. There are many different aspects of fencing that are hampering it becoming popular for tv with non fencers potentially.

I've had non fencers say that the flicks didn't really look like people were sword fighting and they didn't like it, that it was more like people were smacking each other with antennas or something instead of stabbing each other so I would probably agree its a factor to be worked on and a positive thing to get away from that.

However changing the format of things into a way that non fencers could follow it, understand basically who is coming out on top and what is going on and having good announcing would be 100 times as effective.

Like lets use the horse race analogy.

You go to a horse race, you see all the horses in a row..they race down the track you see one is ahead there you go, you sort of understand whats going on.

Imagine if instead of one race you had 100, and they all were going on at the same time, and you couldn't tell wether one horse coming ahead in a particular race meant it was heading for a win relative to the other horses in the other races, and you see horses coming in ahead of other ones and still losing to them without understanding why.

Thats how fencing is now for a non fencer to watch if they haven't been 'trained' to follow fencing by a fencer.

Make fencing into a watchable sport, and you'll get all the interest you could stand and then some.



Alan: I don't agree with you. During Athens i have seen many non fencers
appreciate fencing and modern foil on TV.

But even if you are right, this proves that there is no need to pervert foil
in an impossible quest for "telegeny".

[Alan]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

.

I've had non fencers say that the flicks didn't really look like people were sword fighting and they didn't like it, that it was more like people were smacking each other with antennas or something instead of stabbing each other so I would probably agree its a factor to be worked on and a positive thing to get away from that.

I have to disagree here. I see often non fencers find that the flicks are the more spectacular actions.

I've heard also a remark from a cadet fencer very angry against the test timings " i have come to foil because i liked the way it is with flicks. If they keep these timings, i may quit"

[MikeHarm]

If he gives up so easilly he wasn't meant to be a fencer.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

If he gives up so easilly he wasn't meant to be a fencer.

He is a foilist not a Foilepeist !!!

And he will not give up.

But the strange thing is that a majority of foilists prefer the official timings
and because of some Romankov nostalgics, they will have less pleasure
praticising *their* sport.

[Red #40]

I agree that the olympic foil is more watchable than the La Corugna videos, but thats only because the olympic foil was professionally produced and has commentary. Its that kind of production value that will make fencing into a TV sport if it ever happens.
The best thing the FIE could do to accomplish that would be to hire a professional sports production company to film the events.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Red #40

I agree that the olympic foil is more watchable than the La Corugna videos, but thats only because the olympic foil was professionally produced and has commentary. Its that kind of production value that will make fencing into a TV sport if it ever happens.
.

I cannot disagree more. You could hire Spielberg to realize the Foilepee
practised in La Corugna, it will still be far less interesting than the
matches we have seen in Athens.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

If I'm not mistaken, part of the goal of the new timings was to make fencing more friendly for the spectator to understand. By enhancing the sport for the spectator, we become televised more often and gain power.

IMHO, spectators would be more drawn to foil with the old timings: the actions were more extreme in nature. Like a fencer could make a prime parry, flick the opponent's back in a riposte while fleching. That looks pretty awesome!

The new timings seem to be more comprehensible, but not as drawing to the spectator's eye. For example, actions seem to be more like attack no, counter attack yes, remise. Or attack parry remise riposte not in time. I have not seen much of the new timings but this is the general understanding I have of these actions. Perhaps my assumptions on these actions are wrong? Do the real professionals continue to make some real eye-drawing actions under the new timings?

So my question for everyone is: Do you feel the new timings are more, or less constructive in creating popular appeal for the spectator?

Yes, you are mistaken. The purpose of the new timings was to eliminate the marching flick attack because the referrees were loathe to call a bent arm a preparation.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Alan

He is a foilist not a Foilepeist !!!

And he will not give up.

But the strange thing is that a majority of foilists prefer the official timings
and because of some Romankov nostalgics, they will have less pleasure
praticising *their* sport.

This whole "foilepee" stuff is stupid. The new timings don't make foil anything like epee. There is much more attack, parry, repost in foil now than there is in epee.

And the preference for the new timings has nothing to do with nostalgia. I have much more pleasure with the more intense bladework and footwork than i ever had taking turns chasing each other down the strip with the marching flick attack.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Alan

I have to disagree here. I see often non fencers find that the flicks are the more spectacular actions.

I've heard also a remark from a cadet fencer very angry against the test timings " i have come to foil because i liked the way it is with flicks. If they keep these timings, i may quit"

Good, let him quit. Just the kind of fencer we don't need.
Go start a new sport called "flicko" or something.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

The new timings don't make foil anything like epee.

Yes. Yes they do. Large differences granted, but the new timings have GREATLY increased the effectiveness of remises and counter-attacks.

Go to a national event and check it out. People aren't just making **** up.

That aside, flicks are still landing; more so than 10% for crying out loud. The flicks that are gone are the absolutely ridiculous flicks to the way deep back or crappy flicks done by people who bought 10 dollar blades. If someone is attacking you and looks like they're going to flick you, standing there like an idiot with your tip out is going to get you hit. And your's a counter-attack, not an AIP.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

This whole "foilepee" stuff is stupid. The new timings don't make foil anything like epee. There is much more attack, parry, repost in foil now than there is in epee.

And the preference for the new timings has nothing to do with nostalgia. I have much more pleasure with the more intense bladework and footwork than i ever had taking turns chasing each other down the strip with the marching flick attack.

That's your opinion. Many foilists including Guyart, Cassara, Sanzo, Lothellier,
etc .. think just the opposite.

And again, let's the majority decide not Danimi ...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

This whole "foilepee" stuff is stupid.
.

Completly agree. This Foilepee wanted by his majesty is plain stupid.

Let us just forget these test timings and go back to modern foil.

[jBirch]

I think the new timings are actually only slightly relevent to how watchable fencing is. What's hurting more is ROW, bad ref calls, no news coverage, staccato bouts, poor filming and poor commentary. The new timings help by basically preventing the ref from having to make a decision but they don't do anything to help the rest of it.

When a light goes off, as a spectator, you shouldn't have to guess who's point it is. And foil in particular, with its off-target, is slooooooow. Allez! Attack. Touche. Off-target. A Vous Pres? Allez! Attack. Touche. Off-target. A vous pres? Ad nauseum.

Slower then epee, where at least the opponents are trying to get touches and, as a spectator, you can feel the strategy playing out.

Simultaneous in sabre is annoying too. Attack, together. Allez. Attack, together. Allez. There should be NO slack in the timing. One light is one light. A goal is a goal. If you hit a millisecond earlier then your opponent, then you hit first and you get the attack, not your opponent.

Better replays and knowledgeable commentators with an understanding of the strategy playing out is a first step (better then the timings in fact). Plus excitement. You ever hear the guy that does Grand Prix racing? Talk about a boring sport without him. When he's calling the race, a pit stop is an excrutiatingly exciting moment, the preparation to pass, like foreplay, fuel concerns are like cash on a date. Why can't fencing be like that?

[Inquartata]

The problem with that line of reasoning is...fencing is not about the effing spectators, or what they want, or what they need, or what they can best understand. It's about the DOING, not the watching; or it's supposed to be. I do not care to have people like Roch mucking about with an activity I enjoy DOING so as to please the great unwashed. Does anyone here really think that the spectators' convenience ought to be a higher priority than the enjoyment of the participants?