MF, ME, MS and WS teams in Beijing Olympics?!

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Mo

They like people that win. Women Sabrists are winning. They are earning medals. Mariel Z won the first GOLD medal that had been won ever by a US Person and Sada J and Mariel Z won the first fencing medals for anyone in 100 years.

While your overall point is one I agree with (US corporations and US broadcast revenue are the dominant financing method for the Olympics and the IOC, and Americans like watching Americans win, so having Americans do well is a strong positive financially for a sport, etc., etc.), your argument is weakened considerably when you include "facts" like the above that are incorrect.

The US won a gold medal in fencing in 1904 (single sticks), making it 100 years since the last (and only other) US fencing gold. The US has won other Olympic fencing medals since then (most recently Westbrook's bronze in 84).

Doesn't affect your argument, but having factual flaws gives an opening for people who disagree with your true points. Doesn't matter that it's a side-issue and irrelevant to the main point.

-B :)

[sabreman]

>>
And as for getting big corporations interested, the only ads I see on TV that include fencers feature the Smarts. Neither of whom won a medal, and neither is a woman sabrist.

>>

I agree. It seems to me that the PWF has done the best job of marketing fencing in the US.

>>
The FIE needs to get on the ball, bribe the IOC (or whatever), and get extra events added. No dropping WF, no dropping WE, no dropping of any (men's or women's) event. Until then, we won't have equality, fairness, we'll just have division, with you accusing everyone of being sexist.
>>

IMHO from reading the FIE posting WS Team was added for 2008 because WE and WF Team were in the 2000 OG. This means some other Women's team will get the nod in 2112 (WF?).

>>The US has won other Olympic fencing medals since then (most recently Westbrook's bronze in 84).

Peter actually got a lot pub back then and has taken advantage of it with the PWF. His medal bout was covered by TV and I actually taped it. They had AA doing color on the broadcast. LOL!

[Boo Boo]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I remember the women's foilists protested heavily when their team event was dropped. Several threatened to (and did) quit. The US lost a chance to earn a medal since they would have fielded a team that earned a team medal at the world's previously.

I was at one of the protests - the Paris WF World Cup that got boycotted...

Although I agree with your idealistic approach of MAKING the FIE give us the extra medals, I think that you are overly optimistic - I wish you weren't

I still think that we need to make the best of a bad situation (assuming we don't get the extra medals...)

Personally I think that having the men's team events every Olympics (4 years) and the women's team events every 3 Olympics (12 years) is not fair.

I can't believe that more women are not posting their annoyance at this - either not many women on this board or not many who do or have association with high level fencing maybe...?

Boo

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

While your overall point is one I agree with (US corporations and US broadcast revenue are the dominant financing method for the Olympics and the IOC, and Americans like watching Americans win, so having Americans do well is a strong positive financially for a sport, etc., etc.), your argument is weakened considerably when you include "facts" like the above that are incorrect.

The US won a gold medal in fencing in 1904 (single sticks), making it 100 years since the last (and only other) US fencing gold. The US has won other Olympic fencing medals since then (most recently Westbrook's bronze in 84).

Doesn't affect your argument, but having factual flaws gives an opening for people who disagree with your true points. Doesn't matter that it's a side-issue and irrelevant to the main point.

-B

Very good points, however, I think almost everyone can agree with the premsie of 'US corporations and US broadcast revenue are the dominant financing method for the Olympics and the IOC, and Americans like watching Americans win, so having Americans do well is a strong positive financially for a sport, etc., etc.'

This however doesn't make it fair, or equal, or right. It does however, explain why the FIE pushed for WS at the expense of of other events, and why there were rumors floating when the African delegation did not send their fencer, paving the way for a US fencer.

[Epee_Pox]

Why have team events in the first place? If you've already got individual events, the team event seems redundant to me. It's not as though fencing is a team sport to begin with.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Although I agree with your idealistic approach of MAKING the FIE give us the extra medals, I think that you are overly optimistic - I wish you weren't

Nope, it's about making the IOC give us the medals. The FIE needs to do something.

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

I still think that we need to make the best of a bad situation (assuming we don't get the extra medals...)

I agree, we just disagree with how to make the best of the bad situation.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Why have team events in the first place? If you've already got individual events, the team event seems redundant to me. It's not as though fencing is a team sport to begin with.

I would actually go the opposite route. In the Olympics, it's about representing your country, and team events are much more exciting.

Really my last post. I got to go....

[sabreman]

>>
Personally I think that having the men's team events every Olympics (4 years) and the women's team events every 3 Olympics (12 years) is not fair.

>>

I agree but I think the Russians went outside (directly to the IOC) of the FIE with their protest about dropping MS Team. I can't remember the details but maybe someone else does.

>>
This however doesn't make it fair, or equal, or right. It does however, explain why the FIE pushed for WS at the expense of of other events, and why there were rumors floating when the African delegation did not send their fencer, paving the way for a US fencer.
>>

So WS is the only Women's team going forward? Wouldn't WF be next in the rotation?

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Well put Mo.

Olympic Medals/"number of competitors" are resources for fencers and not possessions - IF there are a limited number of resources (i.e. the IOC will not give us enough), then we need to find a way to share fairly.

WFs were incredibly annoyed when their team medal was taken away - it was part way through the Olympic cycle: any serious international athlete/team/federation is already part way through their Olympic cycle by then... that is incredibly annoying.

Part of the argument at the time was that a rotation will take place to make this fair. That is obviously not happening in a fair manner - since WF team is proposed to be excluded next time...

I think Mo has hit the nail on the head - "we have ours, screw everyone else".

Boo
(thinks too many kids around here had problems sharing the toys with new kids at pre-school... )

Yes Sista BOO!!! Solidarity is what we need. All fencers, male, female, foil, saber and Epee, all of them need to stick together.
It is unbelieveable how much resentment there is toward women on this board.
I was trying not to be drawn into this argument but alas, I couldn't keep my keyboard to myself.
There really aren't that many high level fencers period on this board. I know of two women sabrists who post here at times and most of the more vocal guys are not way up there in the ranks. I believe Army Fencer is one of the best male fencers on the board who is truly trying for the O's.
Don't know for sure about other people's national rankings.

[Acastillo]

Originally Posted by Mo

It is unbelieveable how much resentment there is toward women on this board.

My god woman, you think that anyone that disagrees with you is against women. Perhaps I'm against sabrists? Or perhaps I'm thinking of all the competitors (women) that were screwed in 2004 by WF being dropped. You have no idea who I am, or my feelings towards women. You weren't with me in Europe '94 when my girlfriend tried to buy sabre equipment. The reaction she received, nor my reaction to that French *****. Sorry, a different point of view than yours does not equal resentment towards women.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Mo

It is unbelieveable how much resentment there is toward women on this board.

Right...

[DHCJr]

I am one that would push for getting the IOC to stand behind their push for Women's equality and let Fencing have 12 medals. Baring that, we need to be fair and rotate all. The U.S. has a strong Women's Foil team and they should not be shut out again.

As far as our Women's Sabre being overwelming. I hope they don't become to overwelming. Does anyone remembering one of the reasons Softball was dropped. There was no competition!

[Araznal]

I wouldn't worry about the WS team getting too dominant. There are great Chinese and Russian WS teams that are contenders (but, of course, they're not going to win ). Also, all types of fencing, even WS, is an established sport worldwide unlike softball, which is too American to be included into the olympics.

If fencing is going to get any more medals, there needs to be more endorsements, which is why the FIE is pushing WS through. If we can get more medals in WS next olympics, endorsements will follow, and then the IOC might consider adding more medals. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.

[sabreman]

>>
If fencing is going to get any more medals, there needs to be more endorsements, which is why the FIE is pushing WS through. If we can get more medals in WS next olympics, endorsements will follow, and then the IOC might consider adding more medals. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.
>>

Why not now? What has happened since 2004? I do not even see personal web sites for any of the top US Women saber fencers. There appears to be zero marketing taking place.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Araznal

If fencing is going to get any more medals, there needs to be more endorsements, which is why the FIE is pushing WS through. If we can get more medals in WS next olympics, endorsements will follow, and then the IOC might consider adding more medals. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.

So, why not put in Foil for the Ladies. The U.S. ladies are much stronger and get more medals, especially in Team, then either the Men's Epee or Foil Team. So if that was the case, the FIE would be pushing to drop one of the men's events instead of Women's Foil.

[Araznal]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

So, why not put in Foil for the Ladies. The U.S. ladies are much stronger and get more medals, especially in Team, then either the Men's Epee or Foil Team. So if that was the case, the FIE would be pushing to drop one of the men's events instead of Women's Foil.

For the record, I agree with you entirely. What I'm about to say is not my opinion at all, but simply the thoughts of some morons:

It is apparent that if we are only allowed four events at the olympics, only the most exciting events can stay since they get the most endorsements. This means that all the men's events must stay because men's fencing is generally more intense and athletic, and therefore, more interesting to watch. Women's sabre is the most exciting of all the women's events, so that's the one that's staying.

REMEMBER, this is not what I think, just another theory as to why the FIE is being cruel towards women fencing. Please don't flame me.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I am one that would push for getting the IOC to stand behind their push for Women's equality and let Fencing have 12 medals. Baring that, we need to be fair and rotate all. The U.S. has a strong Women's Foil team and they should not be shut out again.

I think this has been explained, but I still don't get it. Why in the world would the IOC not let us have two more team events? The FIE must have, at some point, gone to them and said "hey, we're a little late on this, but we're starting to accept women into different areas of the sport. As a result, there are two more fencing events." How could the IOC have not given them the medals? There already is a fencing venue, and I can't imagine that medals cost too much.



I don't think that the favoring of limiting women's events in this case is always sexism, and is certainly not "resentment towards women." There is a rational case for dropping the women's events instead of the men's, and it is not necessarily prejudicial.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think this has been explained, but I still don't get it. Why in the world would the IOC not let us have two more team events?

I think the general sentiment is that they are trying to limit the total number of medals given out. What if the FIE tried to add 5 more disciplines and 3 more team variations? Then all of a sudden, fencing would be giving out an awful lot of olympic medals. For the olympic medal to still mean something, they have to be limited in supply. Thus, the IOC is hesitant to allow sports to add other disciplines which would require more medals.

[esskreemr]

Interesting notes (to me):

Roche:
He reminds that women’s epee and foil were in Sydney (sabre was not Olympic), women’s epee was in Athens and logically it should be the turn of women’s sabre, all the more since it is a media friendly weapon and brings a large participation of teams at World Cup events.

Logically, women's team epee should be sacrificed for women's sabre since women's team epee was in both Sydney and Athens, it's women's team foil's turn in Beijing. Funny how that was mentioned...

Helen Smith reminds that one of the IOC’s objective is to increase the participation of women in sports and leadership in the Olympic movement. To choose 3 weapons for the men and 1 for the women in team events might jeopardize fencing as it goes against the IOC policy and shows a lack of interest of the FIE in respect of changes. She adds that there is a real potential to exploit with women’s events and these weapons could disappear if we do not give them opportunities of developing.

René Roch approves but adds that unfortunately the IOC did not want to give the two additional medals. Besides, the FIE fully complies with the IOC criteria which recommends approximately 60 % of men’s events and 40 % of women’s events.

Wouldn't it be better to exceed the FIE's quota on the male to female ratio?

According to the information received by the President, fencing is neither questioned nor in danger, however he recommends to be attentive and suggests the members of the Commission to increase the communication with the members of National Olympic Committees.

Funny, we've been hearing for some time now (from Roche and nowhere else), that fencing is potentially on the chopping block. Why make sweeping changes at this juncture? A few changes, sure. Wide, sweeping, extremely expensive changes, could they be tested FIRST? Trickle down over the period of a few years? They would still be implemented by the time the Olympics approaches.

In addition, this voting for the sports to be included was done solely by the Executive committee. Look who's on it. I think the procedure was unfair and non-inclusive of the general Congress. Is nobody willing to raise a stink about this? I think it's high time the foil fencers start asking questions about the decisions of the epee-favoring executive committee.

Relevant selections from the report follow.
.......

The President of the Commission welcomes the participants.
He indicates that, in spite of several requests to the IOC, he did not obtain the two additional medals for the Olympic Games. He met with Jacques Rogge, IOC President, at the end of 2004, who confirmed the IOC decision : the FIE will have 10 medals and it is up to the FIE to decide on the
distribution.

The President sent two fencers to Berlin to meet with Mr Kelly Fairweather, IOC Sports Director, in order to take over this request of additional medals. The President has not yet obtained any information from the fencers but received a call from Mr. Fairweather, who confirmed that the FIE request has not been approved. The President explains the vote to be held in Singapore concerning the Olympic sports: those which will be maintained and those wishing to enter the Olympic programme. 50 % of votes are required for
an Olympic sport to be ma