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

[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?

[mrbiggs]

This is for foil, right?

If so, I think that the TV-friendlyness part was secondary, though it was an objective. The most important part was the removal of cheesy flicks. And that was accomplished, but unfortunately, they FIE removed quite a few good attacks as well.

[C.J.]

Yes for sabre, no for foil.

[Cipher]

Well since there are some points that won't get counted it's like watching bouts to 20 instead of 15.... maybe that's what they were thinking...

[Epee Scherma]

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify. I'm speaking about foil specifically.

[telkanuru]

Hahaha, 0 yea, 13 nay right now. Well, another resounding, popular success.

[akaiyuki]

Opps, I meant to vote for no >.>
-1 vote for yes and +1 vote for no please

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

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

Much less. As seen at the CIP.

Another interesting thing for the spectators was that with the old timings
attack and defense were balanced. Now there is a big advantage for defense.

So the matches are more Epee like (sorry i personally prefer seeing a foil match) with the 2 opponents waiting and not daring to attack.

Also a foil match with the old timings was never finished before the end :
i mean sensational come backs were possible. You could see a point
taking 30 s or even one minute and you could also see 3 points in 3 seconds

I have seen once a come back from 9-0 to win 10-9.

I doubt this would be possible with the new timings.

[veeco]

I voted no, not because I think that the old timings are detrimental to spectator appeal, but because I think that they don't change much (this is for foil, as I have not seen sabre with the new timings).

[Gav]

I'm voting no because despite what the FIE say changing the timing has no effect on spectator appeal. Spectators who are not Fencers do not care about the timings.

Raising awareness, educating the public and making sure that rules are enforced consistently might.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

spectators do not care about the timings. If we want spectators to watch the sport, we need to wear cool, colorful uniforms.

[parrythis]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

spectators do not care about the timings. If we want spectators to watch the sport, we need to wear cool, colorful uniforms.

Yes, and have cheerleaders... and beer commercials. ("We now take a time-out in this bout for a word from our sponsor...")

But seriously... I think it is a moot point. IMHO, fencing is not a spectator sport unless the spectator is a fencer. The action is too fast and the movements too subtle for the average spectator to follow.

[wflaschka]

I voted yes. But just barely.

Any change that clarifies foil will be helpful for popular appeal. And to be blunt, changing the rules is all the FIE can do to boost the sport. Boosting the sport is vital, and there's nothing else they can do.

Improving directing? Refs already have vast skill and knowledge. But they esteem the FIE like we do, and they won't necessarily change their ideas about fencing just because the FIE wants them to. We fencers won't even do that, apparently, based on the recent new-timing discussions.

Better TV announcers? Demanding that TV networks spend big money to explain our sport for us -- also not going to happen.

Xeroxed flyers? Better websites? Not enough.

If popular appeal is the goal, then the rules are what the FIE can change. Furthermore, if there's a weapon that can be changed as an experiment in mass appeal, it is foil. Sabre and epee don't fit the bill, and foil is (was) ripe for a change.

So it depends on whether you believe the timing changes are clarifying for foil (a different discussion). If you think they are, then the changes were 'constructive.' I think the changes are constructive, but I dunno how constructive -- it could be just a smidge.

[Safir]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

If popular appeal is the goal, then the rules are what the FIE can change. Furthermore, if there's a weapon that can be changed as an experiment in mass appeal, it is foil. Sabre and epee don't fit the bill, and foil is (was) ripe for a change.

Of course i don't agree. During Ahtens i have seen many non fencers
watch fencing.

Guess what ? They prefered watching foil above all because there was
more movement, because of the come-backs which are always possible
and because of the "beauty" of the flicks !!!

Non fencers are less sensible to this balde conversation which seems
to be the panacea nowadays.

Not trying to depreciate other arms here. Just saying that foil with
the official timings used in Athens can be appreciated by anybody.


Just need a good person to comment.

[Gav]

I also watched Fencing with a lot of non-fencers and I must say that they were all the most enthusiastic about Sabre. They genuienly liked it. Especially the Russia v US team bout - that one went down a storm. In fact they constantly commented how Foil made no sense and that Epee was difficult[!] to follow (because there seemed to be a lot of moving up and down followed with a flurry of movement that was hard to follow [I found this the most surprising comment]).

Even my completely anti-Fencing girlfriend watched a whole DVD of Athens 2004 Sabre footage with me and said how enjoyable it was to watch.

[Safir]

Originally Posted by Gav

fact they constantly commented how Foil made no sense

I am very surprised by that? What did they mean by made no sense ?

[Gav]

Quite often they saw that an action was started and the other guy still got the hit. I explained ROW and they settled down about that. The thing that they hated the most were attacks which in their opinion didn't look like attacks. They enjoyed the Sabre, they liked the way it seemed consistent. They like the drama. They even liked the fact that I kept referring to Sabreurs as Fencing Daleks [a UK joke I suppose] and said I was being unkind. They understood the rules of Epee but found it hard to follow. Foil; they just didn't like.

[Safir]

Originally Posted by Gav

Quite often they saw that an action was started and the other guy still got the hit. I explained ROW and they settled down about that. The thing that they hated the most were attacks which in their opinion didn't look like attacks. They enjoyed the Sabre, they liked the way it seemed consistent. They like the drama. They even liked the fact that I kept referring to Sabreurs as Fencing Daleks [a UK joke I suppose] and said I was being unkind. They understood the rules of Epee but found it hard to follow. Foil; they just didn't like.

Strange, just the opposite in France. Well i mean they liked all three arms
and foil best.
Maybe a problem of comments.

I am surprised that non fencers can see attacks which are not attacks in their opinion. They usually don't know what is a valid attack ...

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Gav

I also watched Fencing with a lot of non-fencers and I must say that they were all the most enthusiastic about Sabre. They genuienly liked it. Especially the Russia v US team bout - that one went down a storm. In fact they constantly commented how Foil made no sense and that Epee was difficult[!]

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.

In terms of picking just one weapon to screw with and promote:

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."

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.

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.

[Gav]

No, they don't know what a valid attack is. That has to be communicated to them. Unlike Football, where the offside rule is only invoked where appopriate, ROW is constant. As it is constant [who has the attack often shifts back and forth] they constantly have to evaluate ROW with what they see. For novices this is difficult. Sabre appears much more clear cut and is a very dramatic weapon [at that level] and so is appealing to the eye. It may be a culture thing - but I wonder how many of your novice viewers were actually related to Fencers or exposed to Fencing before Athens?