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

[telkanuru]

Didn't this thread already happen like, three times? I have the strangest feeling of deja vu...

[foilz]

Originally Posted by 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?

Fencing is about the doing -- the doing that fencers do. That's why we fence.

Unfortunately, to sustain the sport (and support the national federations that make the sport happen) Olympic money is a big deal. It makes a huge difference.

And the Olympics are sustaining in other ways. For most sports, no Olympics means no global credibility, maybe no sport, and certainly no growth.

Just ask salle owners when new interest in fencing is generated. It's not during the Nationals or the Worlds. It's during (and immediately after) the Olympics.

For all the flak he receives, Roch is genuinely trying to make fencing Olympic-proof. It's a tough act. Rogge and the IOC want to make fencing robustly objective, totally referee-proof, and a compelling television tour de force. Roch is responding as best he can. He has to.

Like you, I disagree with some of the things the FIE are considering. I don't want the sport corrupted for the benefit of spectators. And I dislike what Rogge is doing to remove humans and make fencing a totally clinical digital universe.

Fencing is fencing. It's not a video game.

But if fencing "works" on television, more people will watch. More viewers means more commercials, as well as a higher ticket price for the spots that run. That means more money for NBC, more money for IOC, and more money for USFA.

Like it or not, that's what's happening.

If fencers in other countries are telling Roch what fencers on this forum are saying, I am convinced that he and his technical advisors will get the message. The world believes the new timings are imperfect.

Therefore, the test was valid.

Therefore, timings need to be modified. Welding masks are doofus. Manplates are a girlie thing ...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by 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?

You are completely right. The majority of adult *foilists*
(not the majority of countries ...) should decide what they want to do.
And if they like flicks ... amen.

I call this democracy.

(alas the poll is the FIE democratic, shows that the FIE is more like an autocracy ...)

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by foilz

But if fencing "works" on television, more people will watch. More viewers means more commercials, as well as a higher ticket price for the spots that run. That means more money for NBC, more money for IOC, and more money for USFA.

This makes me wonder... has anyone even tried to run 2 hours of fencing footage with (competent) commentary on North American TV? Is it a guaranteed flop, or is it something that's just never been done and people are afraid to try it?

Instead of trying to get viewers interested by changing the sport to "appeal to spectators", why don't they try immersing viewers in it? It works for laundry soap, underwear, and plug in air fresheners...

I personally don't care one way or the other about the new timings - I'm so bad at fencing that it makes no difference to me. But... you need money to make money, and maybe what the FIE or USFA (I'm taking a US-centric view here, sorry) need to do is actually buy some TV time or some newspaper space and expose regular people to fencing. Not "Ultimate Swordsmasters" or "Reality Dueling", or "World's Most Terrible Fencing Accidents", but real, honest fencing. See if someone takes notice.

When I first told my parents about me joining a fencing club, they didn't seem very interested. They just came to watch my first tournament, and LOVED it. I mean, loved it to the point where I would come up to them between bouts and have trouble getting their attention, as they were watching all the other people fencing, too... it was a real eye-opener.

[nahouw]

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.

Absolutely agreed!! Epee is conducted in fractions of seconds compared to the foil lockout -- hell, within the foil lockout time, any World Classed Epeeist could probably execute 4 actions (wrist, lower arm, upper arm, body -- the classical German method).

Now, in foil, with the new timings, I can set up great second intentions -- it is fabulous!! Makes my life easier. Catching fencers who rely on their old tricks is wonderful -- they just fall into my traps.

What is happenning now with the new timings is that those who only relied on whippy blades and the extended timing for lighting a light are now seeing that it just doesn't work. Now, it is actual technique that matters. Their aggressive attacks are badly formed, so they are now afraid to attack. Of course, they should be, because a perfectly timed counter-attack into a badly formed attack will always win out -- that is the reason for the conventions -- to make sure you attack correctly.

This will eventually bring foil fencing back to what it should be. What we are seeing on the top level is the correction period -- fencers are being cautious until they get their attacks correct in form. The coaches will adjust. Give it several more World Cups, and you will see the adjustment and the superior fencers shine.

[foilz]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

This makes me wonder... has anyone even tried to run 2 hours of fencing footage with (competent) commentary on North American TV? Is it a guaranteed flop, or is it something that's just never been done and people are afraid to try it?

Great questions.

There are two television scenarios: One is classic Olympic coverage (hopefully live coverage) broadcast during the Olympics.

Clearly FIE, IOC and NBC want this to be easy to watch, easily understood, and as entertaining and informative as any other sport presented during the Games.

This calls for NFL-quality video, action replay, and the ability to isolate those pesky metal blades in the video field so we can see them (through creative lighting, digital enhancement, whatever). Plus entertaining and informative play-by-play and color commentary. Plus up-close-and-personal segments. Plus a little drama and controversy. You know, everything you'd expect from great sports coverage.

Frankly, it should be eminently do-able -- without fencing being corrupted, fencers being alienated, or the whole thing turned into a circus.

If FIE (or anyone else) wanted to invest in fencing, finding a sponsor to underwrite a percentage of those video costs and their development would be an exceptionally intelligent decision. It would make NBC happy, and at the same time help Roch and Rogge achieve their goals.

The second scenario is trickier.

Unless there's a big shift in the public's tastes (at least in the U.S.) finding anybody to sponsor, underwrite, or support fencing on regular television -- or on cable sports channels -- is a huge, huge challenge.

Viewer interest just isn't there (at least today). Without potential viewers, you can forget advertisers. And fencing just doesn't have enough money to pay for everything, including the airtime.

But it's worth trying.

If the video construct can be perfected (for Beijing, let's say) then arguably it could be applied to regular fencing after the Games -- for Nationals and Worlds (at least).

Making this happen would be a viable discussion/exploration/experiment that USFA could enter into with NBC and its cable partners.

The argument could conceivably be -- we helped perfect the technology, we made fencing work on television, people loved it, now help us make it a part of your programming.

Icing on the cake would be securing a sponsor to help underwrite the production costs.

That would make NBC happy (again) and it would make USFA a partner and a player in the enterprise.

It's a long shot. It absolutely has to deliver viewers. But yes, it's worth a try.

Apologies for long post.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by nahouw

Their aggressive attacks are badly formed, so they are now afraid to attack.

You must be *very* good to find that Guyart's attacks (for instance) are badly formed ...

[Coup de Grace]

Foilz- Your comments are right on target. This can be done if there is a desire and a willingness. I think the trade-offs are minimal and no more than any other sport that has gone "prime time".

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Alan

You must be *very* good to find that Guyart's attacks (for instance) are badly formed ...

Let this read "Guyart's attacks are badly formed in relation to the new timings". Many of the assumptions he makes when he forms an attack are based around rules that no longer exist (or exist in a modified form), hence the difficulty.

[Irensaga]

FIE has been dinking around with stupid details, hoping that they will somehow boost viewership, for years. Timing rules, uniform changes, clear face-plates ...

FIE seems to be convinced that this kind of stuff actually makes a difference.

It doesn't.

The only thing that will boost viewers is if more people take up fencing at the grass-roots level. As someone said earlier in this post, fencing is not an easy sport to watch if you haven't done it yourself for a while.

Of course, baseball and football are also fairly complex and there certainly aren't many obviously exciting moments in golf. Yet LOTS of people watch those sports. The reason is that people actually participate (or participated) in those sports. If enough people are doing it, fencing will be just as popular as any sport out there.

That's the only route to success.

Especially, there should be a focus on youth programs. If you focus your club on only people in their 20s or 30s, I can almost guarantee you that fencing in your city will never grow beyond 15 to 20 people. You have to reach out to kids between 7 to 18 if you ever want the sport to grow in your area.

Short answer: no, I don't think that the FIE rulings are going to change anything for the spectators.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Irensaga

FIE has been dinking around with stupid details, hoping that they will somehow boost viewership, for years. Timing rules, uniform changes, clear face-plates ...

FIE seems to be convinced that this kind of stuff actually makes a difference.

It doesn't.

The only thing that will boost viewers is if more people take up fencing at the grass-roots level. As someone said earlier in this post, fencing is not an easy sport to watch if you haven't done it yourself for a while.
...
Short answer: no, I don't think that the FIE rulings are going to change anything for the spectators.

I agree with your short answer, and the any of the changes will boost viewership. The changes are minor cosmetic changes, that while may appeal to TV advertisers (colors, faces, etc...) won't boost viewers.

I also doubt that veracity that the only way to increase viewership is through increasing grassroots fencing. Take a look at the soccer phenomenom in the US. Soccer moms everywhere, kids growing up with it, but the sport fails to draw significant viewers in the US. In fact most kids now a days play it while young, but drop it completely as they get older.

I remember reading an ESPN article during the Olympics basically saying that Olympic events chance for attention is once every four years. That none of them will be able to go mainstream. The best they can hope for is that, unless an American does the impossible, like Lance Armstrong, and makes history.

While I believe that the big sports will change, it's going to take a lot for a sport to get significant TV coverage. Then again, I did see the Arm Wrestling National Champiohsips on ESPN2 the other day.

Sigh. Maybe one day...

[mrbiggs]

I'm going to do my best to remember everything I've observed.

Keep in mind that I'm a lower-level fencer and that what I see has nothing to do with international or even national level fencing.

1. Attacks

Attacks with the new timings are, for obvious reasons, less common. With the flick harder to execute, target area has nearly been cut in half. Parries are easier (somewhat, see the "Parries" section), and therefore, many fencers are afraid to attack. In addition, the randomness of the lights on straight attacks cause fencers to be afraid to attack, because a "miss" usually means a lost touch. Preparation isn't being CALLED more strictly, but people fence as if it is. I think that this might be because of rushing. With the old timings, you could finish nearly any attack by extending into a flick. That doesn't work. Now, fencers that are caught off-guard need to scramble to get the point on, and I think that the "oh, crap, I screwed up" kind of action tips off the director to the fact that it was prep. (That prep stuff only applies to lower level fencers.) People who attack with stabs, where they hit their opponent with alot of force, are finding that their attacks register less often. Some fencers are adapting to this, some aren't.

2. Attack in prep

As I said before, attack in prep has been improved by the new timing partly because an offensive fencer has to scrable if caught off guard. But the new timings also open up other preparation opportunities. If, for example, a fencer swings their blade out to pointing beyond your back every touch, you can step in without worrying that he'll be able to hit you, without the flick. Because of this, I, not very good at attack in prep, was able to get several one-lighters that might have confused refs on the old timings. At the same time, blantant counterattacks are also getting the one-lighters, forcing people to slow down their attacks. More on that later.

3. Parries

It took me 6 months to realize how much parries have changed with the new timings. People say that their ripostes are getting locked out, but I'm not so sure anymore that that's always true. With the new timings, a glancing hit doesn't work. That means that a riposte must be more or less a straight on hit, or a very well-done flick. Therefore, for the most part, a good parryer will never let the point leave their opponent's body, OR, they must remove their opponent's point from their body completely before riposting. This was true in theory before, but it's absolutely necessary now. Foilists who parry like epeeists can still parry. Those who don't are having problems. I've seen alot of fencers just fleche blindly and stab at their opponent, regardless of attempts to parry. These fleches are nearly always successful with those who do weak oppositions or large parry 4's, and almost never successful with those that do small parry 4's and strong oppositions. In other words, with the new timings, foilists have to change the nature of their parries.

4. Counterattacks

In my most recent tournament, I lost, on the new timings, to a lefty who went out and bought himself a lame about 4 sizes too small for him, and developed two parries and a chest flick. He demolished me, mostly on counterattacks. This kind of fencing is what many are complaining about--fencers who are RoW retarded getting touches just "because of the new timings", and the better ones amoung them are WINNING tournaments where they should hardly have placed in the top half. There are several options to the fencer--slow down his attack, take the blade, get better at fencing, etc. But one option that makes sense to me is to enlarge the target area. Remember back when these new timings were "proposals", and along with them was a conductive bib? (And a conductive mask and forearm, but neither of these was really considered practical). It's not much new target, but it might be enough to get more attacks back into foil. Just a suggestion.

I'll probably think of 1 or 2 things later, but this is good for now. Post if you agree or disagree.

Sorry for the long post. It's not in my nature, but I want to know if I'm correct in this.

[Gem]

Earlier in the thread the TV viewing of poker, darts, etc was mentioned. Does anyone know how these sports/activities maintain a TV audience. Surely fencing could generate enough of an audience for one hour a week if a network would give it a try. After watching snooker, poker and dats recently on cable TV in Australia I noticed that there is hardly any sponsorship advertising. The only reason that I can think of is what was also mentioned earlier... Fencing is difficult to follow for non fencers. Here is the dillemma. More viewers would mean more interest generated from the networks, leading to more interest in fencing from viewers, which means greater numbers in the clubs, which in turn leads to more viewers. The problem is that to get the TV coverage we first need the viewers and to get the viewers the FIE is looking towards the TV networks. Perhaps we should look at petitioning a network for a small segment each week and/or look at other methods of recruiting viewers.

If snooker/poker/darts can maintain a place on cable TV, so can we.

[Genjuro]

Well, are those the right sports for comparisment?
I think it's also a bit cultural, regarding the difference in popularity of
soccer between the US and Europe. (and of course vice versa, sports like baseball, football)
Take a (relatively) popular sport like squash, I don't see that very much on
European tv. Or Judo, also quite popular, but it doesn't seem to be a major sport on tv. And did (since Lance Armstrong) cycling become very popular in the US?
Doesn't fencing still has this exclusive image, that of a gentlemen sport, like polo, golf, tennis, etc?
I don't see the foam sabres or a 'fencing kit for kids' (including two electric plastic foils and two masks) beeing sold in a toy or a sportshop. Maybe there's an interesting market for these kind of things...

[Alan]

Interesting advice read today in the French forum.

In essence :

"The goal of the FIE is not to reform foil but to desorganize it completely
in order to be able to remove it from the Olympics. The CIO wants to suppress
2 fencing events."

If that is the real goal, it is indeed a success if we look at the result
of this poll.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Alan

Interesting advice read today in the French forum.

In essence :

"The goal of the FIE is not to reform foil but to desorganize it completely
in order to be able to remove it from the Olympics. The CIO wants to suppress
2 fencing events."

If that is the real goal, it is indeed a success if we look at the result
of this poll.

Where exactly has Rene Roch said this? Why would he want to? Where is the proof? What is the source of this ... conspiracy theory?

Do I have to restate that you do your cause no justice by posting rubbish such as this.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Alan

Interesting advice read today in the French forum.

In essence :

"The goal of the FIE is not to reform foil but to desorganize it completely
in order to be able to remove it from the Olympics. The CIO wants to suppress
2 fencing events."

If that is the real goal, it is indeed a success if we look at the result
of this poll.

just out of curiosity;

who do you think shot JFK?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Gav

Where exactly has Rene Roch said this? Why would he want to? Where is the proof? What is the source of this ... conspiracy theory?

I have given my source :

http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...e=flat&order=0

Originally Posted by Gav

Do I have to restate that you do your cause no justice by posting rubbish such as this.

That's your opinion.

I have not said that i shared the view of the French poster (who says he is a Maitre d'Armes in his profile).

Nevertheless when you read the different interviews of his majesty during the past years in the different issues of "Roch Magazine", you can understand that some people come to these kind of conclusions.

If only his majesty and his excellency cared more about the opinion
of a majority of foilists, this would not happen.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by keith

just out of curiosity;

who do you think shot JFK?

Jean-François Kahn ?

He has been shot ? I don't think so.