Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

PeterGustafsson · 07-26-2005, 05:50 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I have a feeling that Rogge is still holding out hope to be able to slip golf or rugby in to the 2012 lineup. It will come up again before the cutoff point.

Golf would be one of the worst inclusions imaginable. Sport with large venue, venue with no other use, very little 3rd world participation, security nightmare, competitors would not see the OG as the biggest competition available (as in male soccer+tennis), competition goes on for ever - need I say more?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

millsisland · 07-26-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

If so, it should be tried in courts. That could be the way out of the logjam.

Written tongue-in-cheek or by someone totally unfamiliar with the US courts
system. Or both.

PeterGustafsson · 07-26-2005, 07:36 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by millsisland

Written tongue-in-cheek or by someone totally unfamiliar with the US courts
system. Or both.

Actually, neither. I meant it, and I think that I would know as much about it as anyone else who is not part of the US. legal system. That said, the US. courts system are moot. IIRC, the IOC is seated in Geneve, which would put the question in the Swiss legal system.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

millsisland · 07-26-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

Actually, neither. I meant it, and I think that I would know as much about it as anyone else who is not part of the US. legal system. That said, the US. courts system are moot. IIRC, the IOC is seated in Geneve, which would put the question in the Swiss legal system.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Better yet! Maybe the matter could be tied up to 2016.

Boo Boo · 07-26-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

If so, it should be tried in courts. That could be the way out of the logjam.

It is certainly unlawful in terms of moral law and social convention, not sure whether it is strictly illegal - should be, but that doesn't always mean something...

If one of the more powerful federations looked into it, it could be worth pursuing...

Boo

reposte · 07-26-2005, 08:12 AM

Are we sure that exclusion from the J.O mean neccesarily a disaster?
Shouldn't we strive - using the new form of media, the internet, to proliferate our sport regardless of any media conventioned event?
I would like to point out that Eurosport, inspite of having scheduled thefencing events in tis last Ol. broadcasts has have decided to cut them out of the schedule after two days of broadcast?

The exclusion of fencing events is up to FIE, and is done by lot, so I don't think any of us can complain of legality. BTW, I believe that deciding it by lot is the wrong way to go about it.

Boo Boo · 07-26-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reposte

The exclusion of fencing events is up to FIE, and is done by lot, so I don't think any of us can complain of legality. BTW, I believe that deciding it by lot is the wrong way to go about it.

Eh? Did you read this thread (and the letter from the FIE)? "Deciding by lot" means to draw randomly - that is not the case here...

Boo

millsisland · 07-26-2005, 08:31 AM

I was just saying that the courts are not often the easiest way to "clear a logjam".

As Boo points out, the Federations have standing in the FIE and would be the entities to press for a more equitable solution than is on the table now.Surely there is law protecting gender equity in sports that could be used as leverage.

Does only Zeus himself dictate to the IOC?

millsisland · 07-26-2005, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reposte

The exclusion of fencing events is up to FIE, and is done by lot

Yeah. The gang from the FIE office went down to the corner bar the other night after work and decided to draw straws to see which team event would be excluded from the next Olympics; and women's foil got the short straw, again!

reposte · 07-26-2005, 11:30 AM

I mean it has been so far.

The point was to question whether we really need the olympics.

Boo Boo · 07-26-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reposte

I mean it has been so far.

Not exactly - well that may have been the intention, but then some powerful people kicked up a fuss regarding MS being excluded from Athens. So it appeared to have been "drawn by lots (maybe), with some adjustment until they got what they wanted"

Quote:

Originally Posted by reposte

The point was to question whether we really need the olympics.

I don't know about other countries, but fencing in the UK would get greatly reduced government funding (which it gets through UKSport) if it wasn't for the Olympics, I would guess.... Olympic medals (and, to a much lesser extent, world/zonal championship medals) tend to be most nations ultimate sporting goals...

Personally I am very concerned about WF at the moment - Roch/FIE is doing it's best to kill off the weapon (or, at least, as we know it) and in the UK WF (and WE) are definitely third class citizens at the moment (being excluded for a 2nd Olympic cycle will not help WF in the UK...).

Boo

Army Fencer · 07-27-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo

I believe Army Fencer is one of the best male fencers on the board who is truly trying for the O's.

I respect you, Mo, but I am not sure what my national rank or my ambitions have to do with this argument. I have a gut response to what ought to be done--mostly out of my sense of sportsmanship--but that's nothing compared to logical, well-informed arguments. I see though that nearly all sides have resorted to ad hominem arguments rather than discussing the issue frankly and with respect to others' opinions.

I am also curious why BooBoo has not received more reputation points for putting this hot issue into the forum and attempting to convey her injustice over the situation. I believe this is an important issue that needs to be discussed; it is unlikely that it will disappear anytime soon, and charges of sexism, radicalism, and sensationalism will likely reappear as long as we have 10 sets of medals to give out.

...more to follow...

Army Fencer · 07-27-2005, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esskreemr

We could always hit the IOC with a guilt trip, not that it will work:

Quote:

Well, we [the FIE] have been trying to increase women's opportunities in our sport. We now have conteste World Championships for both genders in all weapons. Unfortunately, we are unable, due the limitations imposed by the IOC, to increase the Olympic opportunities that we can offer for women...

I have a feeling that Rogge is still holding out hope to be able to slip golf or rugby in to the 2012 lineup. It will come up again before the cutoff point.

I was thinking along the same lines. There's got to be more to what's going on than what we're hearing. I believe they're trying to get two more sets of medals, and that the inequality of the situation gives the FIE more leverage to ask the IOC for more. And maybe he's trying to inflame the women's fencing population enough that they begin to ask for more medals a little louder.

The medals are out there, now that softball and baseball have been axed.

The question is, are there any other sports that present themselves in the Olympics as being as unequal as ours?

Mr Epee · 07-27-2005, 01:32 AM

There are approximately 200 fencers in the Olympics...

Currently

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
12 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
12 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
12 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------
A total of 54 Medals are awarded to fencers per Olympics
That's one medal awarded per 3.7 athletes... them's pretty good odds.

If all teams were represented.... you would have

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
18 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
18 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
18 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------------
A total of 72 Medals would be awarded to fencers per Olympics
Approximately 1 medal per 2.77 athletes... that's a little silly, isn't it?

Mo · 07-27-2005, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

I respect you, Mo, but I am not sure what my national rank or my ambitions have to do with this argument. I have a gut response to what ought to be done--mostly out of my sense of sportsmanship--but that's nothing compared to logical, well-informed arguments. I see though that nearly all sides have resorted to ad hominem arguments rather than discussing the issue frankly and with respect to others' opinions.

I am also curious why BooBoo has not received more reputation points for putting this hot issue into the forum and attempting to convey her injustice over the situation. I believe this is an important issue that needs to be discussed; it is unlikely that it will disappear anytime soon, and charges of sexism, radicalism, and sensationalism will likely reappear as long as we have 10 sets of medals to give out.

...more to follow...

The question was how many fencers on this board are very high level, IE the dreaded "elite" fencers. I know of three and you are one of them. That does not mean that is all there is of course.
It had nothing to do with validating an argument.
Now quit messing with this board and get to work young man!!

Army Fencer · 07-27-2005, 02:21 AM

Last time I checked, this was my job.

No, I'm just hanging around doing nothing until my orders get in. With any luck, I should have them within the week.

reposte · 07-27-2005, 02:58 AM

Well, sorry for the previous silly post - I was in a hurry to go to work and couldn't spare more then 30 secs, thanks Boo for giving me the benefit of the doubt and still taking me seriously - now I can make myself clear.

I didn't think that the presumed lot system was good, I much rathered a biased approach such as is disapproved of for the most part of this thread.

I think that a more educated approach needs to be taken (thn splitting in the middle according to gender) and while possibly having different motives for each weapon then those who actually selected, I think that the results are the best one can attain.

Without going into the the argument, I think most FIE officials agree that MF is - and I've used this term before to the objection and consternation of many - the flagship of fencing. Therefore it should be in.
MS is the one of the most historically charged tournaments there are - so that should be in. ME is the most fenced weapon I think - so that should be in.
WS is currently the most exciting women's tournament to watch.
True that WE in Athens was hair - raising, but that tournament can't be expected to re occure on a regular basis, the fact of the matter is that WE have a notorious reputation for being boring.

I don't want to be too severe, but WF is not delivering in our day and age.
I know all are highly personalized views - but I think that many share them in a personal way...

I do think that the Olympic games should reflect a mirror image of gender participation, but seeing as that's not the case, the greater good of the sport should be considered.

I think that's all...

Boo Boo · 07-27-2005, 06:35 AM

It isn't physical medals that the IOC is not allowing us to have - doesn't cost THAT much money/effort to make them.

If you think about the Olympic medals table (you know, the "leaderboard of countries"...), then the nation that wins Men's Team Foil only gets credited with "one gold" for that event, not three...

So the more events a sport has, the more medals it has and the higher the weighting that sport could potentially have on the medals table. I don't think that it is perceived as good/fair for a minority sport to have weight on (and skew) the medals table. Don't know how the different sports compare (swimming and athletics obviously have LOADS of medals), but the IOC has obviously decided that 12 is too much for a minority sport like fencing. A country could, theoretically, be fantastic at fencing and rubbish at all other sports - and shoot up the medal tables... (an extra couple of gold medals could make some differences to the results...).

Boo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

There are approximately 200 fencers in the Olympics...

Currently

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
12 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
12 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
12 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------
A total of 54 Medals are awarded to fencers per Olympics
That's one medal awarded per 3.7 athletes... them's pretty good odds.

If all teams were represented.... you would have

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
18 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
18 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
18 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------------
A total of 72 Medals would be awarded to fencers per Olympics
Approximately 1 medal per 2.77 athletes... that's a little silly, isn't it?

Insipiens · 07-27-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

There are approximately 200 fencers in the Olympics...

Currently

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
12 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
12 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
12 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------
A total of 54 Medals are awarded to fencers per Olympics
That's one medal awarded per 3.7 athletes... them's pretty good odds.

If all teams were represented.... you would have

6 Gold Medals for Individual Events
18 Gold Medals for Team Events (3 per team)
6 Silver Medals for Individual Events
18 Silver Medals for Team Events
6 Bronze Medals for Individual Events
18 Bronze Medals for Team Events
----------------------------------------
A total of 72 Medals would be awarded to fencers per Olympics
Approximately 1 medal per 2.77 athletes... that's a little silly, isn't it?

Would adding WF and WE teams add to the participants?
I think it is ridiculous that the Olympics has so few competitors in each individual competion - somewhere around 36 seems to have been the case at Athens.

PeterGustafsson · 07-27-2005, 10:31 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

It is certainly unlawful in terms of moral law and social convention, not sure whether it is strictly illegal - should be, but that doesn't always mean something...

"Moral law"???? What is that? Either something is covered under codified law, or it is not. It is for the courts to find out which.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

If one of the more powerful federations looked into it, it could be worth pursuing...
Boo

Which is just what what the Russian federation did about the MST event, which proves the worth of that approach.

Some years ago, Canoe&Kayak lost their long-distance flatwater events, despite that those events do not require any other venues than short-distance, and many of the long-distance competitors also competed in sprint.

Instead, beach volleyball gets added. Does the USA Olympic Comittee get sponsored by Sports Illustrated (tm) bikini issue?

Thank goodness they axed baseball&softball.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson