Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gav Are they? I've yet to see a scientific analysis from anyone, from either side of the debate, that verifies this. Major change is always painful. Barry's point is quite valid - whether you agree with the timings validity or not - that people who have been successful in one environment, who have been taught to fence in that environment, will obviously not like anything that they perceive puts them at a disadvantage. There is nothing surprising about this. Barry's other point about Fencers lacking in depth [or maybe just an unwillingness to adapt?] seems to also be true.
The one argument that I have seen, that I think has merit, from a Fencers personal view is that, "They have trained all their lives; only to have the game they love taken away." I see that point. But that point does not make the timings less valid. I think that the better approach is to look creatively at the issue and be constructive. This is the approach that is being led by the federations. This approach is the one that is the most likely to yield results.
Why are you so obsessed with the top 150? Are you in the top 150?
No you didn't. You just repeated, parrot fashion, what you have said before. You have not addressed his comments regarding: lack of Fencing depth or poor Refereeing. Both of which seem, to me, to be the main problem. Especially the poor refereeing part.
HOW? This is an absurd notion. Why do you have referee's in the first place? Because people's expectation of Fencing is different - in fact it's quite personal. To dispassionately adjudicate. What makes you think that those on the inside, with a vested interest in the status quo, will be able to seperate the emotional from the rational response? How do you propose to make things more democratic? By balloting every Foilist? The fact is that the FIE is quite democratic, just differently democratic from your expectation. Personally I think that there are big problems with this set up, but you have to work with what you've got. And also, for the record, I think that sorting the referee's, in some way, would have been far more beneficial to the sport than these timings (on which I am neutral).
Try and seperate out your points.
Those who like Romankoc era Fencing are not necessarily the same as those you accuse of not caring about Foilists. I've no idea if Roch has actually ever fenced (anyone?). But just because some liked Foil then, does not mean that they are against Foilists, or even Foil as you would like to see it. In fact I would say that they care as much about this sport; as much as you. |
I don't want to repeat again and again that i have already said : in short i have always said that if there was a problem with flicks and row it should be solved by refereing reforms and not by changing the timings.
Now the disastrous effects of the broken test timings on the foil events all over this year confirm completely that.
In short again, King René has in my opinion proved and said numerous times
that in fact he does not care about foil. He is only interested in gadgets
(clear visors being one example) and technical solutions to simplify refereing
so that fencing can be accessible to the average tv spectator (and alas
the average is quite "low"). If these reforms pervert foil or even coondamn it on the sake of the unique arm, amen.
Just one point : asking the foilists if they prefer the official timings or the broken test timings and let them decide is neither absurd or impossible to do.
It would be easy to ask them (whatever the ranking) to "vote" on that subject then they come to foil events and centralize this on the FIE site
using the unique ID of each foilist.
( I am not saying here that the vote of the active foilists should be the only
thing to consider but it is an important one)
Of course King René will not dare to organize such a consultation because he knows what the results will be.
On another point : i have read somewhere that King René practised Sabre
with some results at Universitary Championships.
Linear Mode
