FIE mandates transparent masks for all weapons

[Craig]

Originally Posted by whtouche

So Alex,
Any chance of LP making a sabre x-change mask with the visor front?

We had some on display at Summer Nationals, and there are a couple of fencers you have heard of that are wearing it.

Scroll to the bottom of: http://www.leonpaulusa.com/fencing/a..._Range_79.html

X-Change Vision 2000 F.I.E Electric sabre mask with transparent visor and removable 1600 Newtons bib(Reference S285CX)
This version of the vision 2000 mask is fitted with the X-Change system making it the ultimate sabre mask. For details of the vision 2000 and X-Change masks see the product descriptions above.

Price: $430.74

Cheers,
Craig

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Craig

This version of the vision 2000 mask is fitted with the X-Change system making it the ultimate sabre mask. For details of the vision 2000 and X-Change masks see the product descriptions above.

Price: $430.74

$430.74? Yikes!

[500gms]

I completely agree with Toecutter's assessment. Fencing will survive from the bottom up, not from the top down. Roch's fatal misjudgement is his assumption that his top-down administration will make fencing viable.

I'm more of a reader than a poster, however on this topic I can't help myself....
Fencing WILL survive from the bottom up in the USA especially if the USFA and other influential people in our sport ever realize that the way to swell the fencing ranks in America is through high school fencing. That's right! I said HIGH SCHOOL FENCING!! I'm from NJ where fencing as a varsity sport is a fixture in many HS's and it's growing rapidly. We have approx. 40 programs that fence 3 weapons/ men and women on a varsity level, some leagues, bitter rivalries, all-state teams and (most importantly) weekly coverage in the sport section of the largest paper in the state, the Newark Star-Ledger.
For three winter months, one page of the paper every Monday is devoted to articles and pictures about tournaments and teams, coaches and bios of individual fencers. Also, because so many HS's have programs, I believe NJ has more casual fencers and one time fencers who at least have an understanding of the sport than any other state in the union. Furthering the development of high school fencing all across the country is the way to grow our sport.
We need a uniform set of rules for high schools established by HS A/d's with the assistance and sensitivity of the USFA. We need guidelines for size of strips, team competition rules, safety standards for our HS participants and national and regional team competitions. I know, many of you will say all of this exists aleady vis a vis the USFA/FIE codes and rules. I would answer that anyone who has even a casual knowledge of NJ HS fencing knows none of the above exist and further there doesn't seem to be any attempt by anyone anywhere to bridge the gap between HS fencing and club/USFA fencing.
You want TV coverage? You want regular print coverage? You want the number of people in the USA who have some exposure to fencing to grow? You want more competative fencers? I do. And, I think the way to get all of the above is to make the growth of HS fencing in the country a priority. Lets analyse what's worked in NJ, make it better and export it to other parts of the USA. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this as I think the time is right to have a serious debate about this idea.



.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by 500gms

I completely agree with Toecutter's assessment. Fencing will survive from the bottom up, not from the top down. Roch's fatal misjudgement is his assumption that his top-down administration will make fencing viable.

I'm more of a reader than a poster, however on this topic I can't help myself....
Fencing WILL survive from the bottom up in the USA especially if the USFA and other influential people in our sport ever realize that the way to swell the fencing ranks in America is through high school fencing. That's right! I said HIGH SCHOOL FENCING!! I'm from NJ where fencing as a varsity sport is a fixture in many HS's and it's growing rapidly. We have approx. 40 programs that fence 3 weapons/ men and women on a varsity level, some leagues, bitter rivalries, all-state teams and (most importantly) weekly coverage in the sport section of the largest paper in the state, the Newark Star-Ledger.
For three winter months, one page of the paper every Monday is devoted to articles and pictures about tournaments and teams, coaches and bios of individual fencers. Also, because so many HS's have programs, I believe NJ has more casual fencers and one time fencers who at least have an understanding of the sport than any other state in the union. Furthering the development of high school fencing all across the country is the way to grow our sport.
We need a uniform set of rules for high schools established by HS A/d's with the assistance and sensitivity of the USFA. We need guidelines for size of strips, team competition rules, safety standards for our HS participants and national and regional team competitions. I know, many of you will say all of this exists aleady vis a vis the USFA/FIE codes and rules. I would answer that anyone who has even a casual knowledge of NJ HS fencing knows none of the above exist and further there doesn't seem to be any attempt by anyone anywhere to bridge the gap between HS fencing and club/USFA fencing.
You want TV coverage? You want regular print coverage? You want the number of people in the USA who have some exposure to fencing to grow? You want more competative fencers? I do. And, I think the way to get all of the above is to make the growth of HS fencing in the country a priority. Lets analyse what's worked in NJ, make it better and export it to other parts of the USA. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this as I think the time is right to have a serious debate about this idea.



.

That's a fantastic idea. I think that one of the drawbacks is that fencing cannot be completely from the bottom up--we need coaches to train fencers. Connecticut high school fencing, for example, is growing very rapidly, but it is limited by the number of people in the state that can actually coach fencing. I know of several towns bordering mine that want a fencing team, have several interested students in the school, and have even convinced the athletic department to give them some money, but that can't find a coach for their team. There are even a couple schools that had a fencing team, but whose coach left for whatever reason, and who had to continue without a coach. In other words, the growth you describe is the perfect medium, but unlike most sports, fencing has the limitation of a very small previous generation to coach the next generation.

[sabreman]

I agree with 500gms. I know I wouldn't have been in the sport if it wasn't NJ high school fencing. Many of our top fencers have come out of this system. Clubs are great but not everyone has the money or family backing to belong to one.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Their reason is that the IOC and several TV networks have basically said that without see through masks we are far more likley to be dropped from the Olympics and will not recieve much TV coverage.

Are these remarks on the record and attributed somewhere?

I am sitting on the fence with regard to them but when the head of a major sports network says they will only cover the sport is see through masks are used at the top level someone has to take notice.

Yes, I'm sure a major network only needs that and it will begin covering fencing.

IMO this is like affixing a long stick to a mule's harness and danling a carrot from it in front of the mule's nose. The mule may follow the carrot, but it will never be able to reach it.

For the people that hate the masks I have to say that I am afraid I am confident that they are here to stay for all three weapons at the top level. The FIE will not be backing down on this issue.

I am afraid you are probably right. The FIE and Roch in particular are too remote from the trenches of the fencing world to see what is happening as they build that Maginot Line of theirs.

[500gms]

Webmaster... Can you take the beginnings of our discussion about growing our sport through High School fencing and move it to it's own thread?

In the mean time, Some thoughts on getting coaches. I'de like to see if anyone can convince a college somewhere that a major in PE with a minor in fencing has legs. Ohio State, Penn State? maybe Wayne State? Also, there's a shortage of trained math teachers in the US, perhaps the USFA could advertise in foreign publications for math teachers/fencers who might be willing to come to the USA and teach.(a coaching salary suppliments a teachers salary nicely) and then helps applicants with immigration and placement services.


Meanwhile, we have to develop programs to train coaches. Really train coaches. Maybe some of the more established clubs in the US can establish evening classes where interested existing teachers can learn something about our sport through some class time and lessons. Perhaps a scholarship program to bring the sport to urban HS's. Come on folks lets be creative.

[Feltan]

Bottom up is a great idea....better than what we get out of the FIE.

However, if you want fencing to take off in the US, you need $$$ behind it. This isn't as hard as you may think. Did anyone check the bookmakers at Vegas about the US Nationals? Nada. Once people start betting on fencing, money will flow into the sport. For Pete sakes, fencing is a whole lot more exciting to watch than boxing (I used to box), but there is so much $$$ on the line that boxing always gets TV coverage.

Do you think they televise college football because of a love of the sport? Heck no, more money is wagered on college football than pro football.

People will bet on anything, and it might as well be something we love -- once you see Vegas odds on the US nationals you will see the event on TV.

Regards,
Feltan

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Bottom up is a great idea....better than what we get out of the FIE.

However, if you want fencing to take off in the US, you need $$$ behind it. This isn't as hard as you may think. Did anyone check the bookmakers at Vegas about the US Nationals? Nada. Once people start betting on fencing, money will flow into the sport. For Pete sakes, fencing is a whole lot more exciting to watch than boxing (I used to box), but there is so much $$$ on the line that boxing always gets TV coverage.

Do you think they televise college football because of a love of the sport? Heck no, more money is wagered on college football than pro football.

People will bet on anything, and it might as well be something we love -- once you see Vegas odds on the US nationals you will see the event on TV.

Regards,
Feltan

Umm... this is a development we can do without. Think we have problems with conflicts of interest and coaching personalities now? Magnify that by 1000X. At least.

[umbrella]

When we last discussed this particular thing, someone we know said "get ready for obscurityville"......in Retail-iation, they made clear masks "mandatory" for saber. Personally it shouldn't matter, but there should be a valid reason, some people really prefer the breathability of the mesh. At that level of course, no one should care less. Anyway, just popping into the board to mention that I saw the results from the summer nats and it appeared that someone my former fencing teacher came in 15th for men's veteran, I hope he wore the fantastic fie mask I passed onto him... It was truly a gift from the heart. And, he earned his E in epee.....hopefully with the epees I passed on as well. I just couldn't keep up with it, so exhausted all the time from fencing. I also noted that our other droogie friend came in 3rd place in men's foil veteran, which is totally fantastic.

Art for arts sake, money for God Sake!

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by oso97

Umm... this is a development we can do without. Think we have problems with conflicts of interest and coaching personalities now? Magnify that by 1000X. At least.

Sure, I understand.

My point is simply we can be puppets for TV sports directors who could really care less about us, or we can engineer things such that they have to care about us.

I agree that having Vegas odds makers interested in fencing would probably introduce new problems -- but other sports seem to survive just fine. Instead, the sport of fencing is pathetically changing itself to suit the uninformed opinions of people who don't care about us. What happens if, after lexan masks and wireless and God knows what else, the Olymipics and TV sports directors simply say, "Ummm....nice try but we get better ratings broadcasting hot chicks playing beach volleyball."

You want to control your sport? Get big money interested. I wish Roch was in Monte Carlo and Vegas convincing the high rollers that it was cool to gamble on fencing rather than sponsoring Texas Hold'em championships for B rated actors. If you get big money behind the sport you don't need lexan masks, nor do you have to dance to the tune called by uninformed TV sports directors.

Regards,
Feltan

[sabreman]

I believe fencing lines were available for the 2004 OG.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Feltan

we can be puppets for TV sports directors who could really care less about us, or we can engineer things such that they have to care about us.

Or, we can go our own way as we have done for the last 50 years. We can realize that we don't really need them and just fence.

Did any of us even think about TV coverage and spectatorship and money when we took up fencing? Did those mean anything when we were drawn to the sport? Do they keep us in it?

The FIE, like any bureaucracy of a certain age, has grown more and more divorced from the needs of fencing and fencers, and is keenly pursuing goals which are at best peripheral to our actual wants and needs. And it's us who are paying the price for their power trip.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

...We can realize that we don't really need them and just fence...

Which is what I will do in any case.

The point above is simply if the FIE wishes to have a power trip, they should realize power does not come from bending over and grabbing your ankles for producers of TV sports shows.

Regards,
Feltan

[striker]

Originally Posted by oso97

Who was the head of this network and what network? There's been enough anonymous name dropping and hinting. Its time for details and specifics.

Here is my 2 cents and some information that may be helpful.

Just like everyone else I also heard about the threat to
drop fencing (or some of its events) from the Olympics games.
One of the most detailed documents that I have seen talking about this
issue is none other than the fine book by Mr. Richard Cohen titled
"By the Sword". Some of the details are explained on pages 475-478.

I have also seen an article in the Escrime magazine dated March 2003.
Please look at page 18. The article's title is "Fencing Still Needs Some
More Innovations".
http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...IE43_16-25.pdf

The television network that is mentioned in this article
is the NBC television network that holds the rights to the Olympic games
broadcast in the United States until 2008.

[great bowyer]

Originally Posted by striker

The television network that is mentioned in this article
is the NBC television network that holds the rights to the Olympic games
broadcast in the United States until 2008.

if this is true, then we already know we are still un until at least 2012. a lot can change between now and 2016, that is about 11 years. if i were the fie, i would wait a few more years to see what happens before trying to change things too much. also in this time, more research could be done in order to improve the proposed ideas without trying to rush them in like what has been done. finally, i think that if we would have made the changes or not, we would still almost certainly have coverage in the 2008 olympics based on the fact that each olympics the networks pride themselves on airing more and more coverage. i feel that this is a major publicity stunt for the networks. if they are going to make the same claim in 2008 that they made in 2004 to have coverage of every event, and they they leave out fencing, there could be some major repercussions. if they don't make this claim, their ratings will drop because people have the expectation that the next olympics will have at least the same amount of coverage as the previous. either way, it wil hurt them to leave out fencing.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Feltan

The point above is simply if the FIE wishes to have a power trip, they should realize power does not come from bending over and grabbing your ankles for producers of TV sports shows.

Amen.


( plus extra characters )

[fencerbill]

[quote=great bowyer]if this is true, then we already know we are still un until at least 2012. a lot can change between now and 2016, that is about 11 years. if i were the fie, i would wait a few more years to see what happens before trying to change things too much. QUOTE]
Rene Roch doesn't give a hoot what happens in 2016. 2008 will probably be his swan song.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Did anyone check the bookmakers at Vegas about the US Nationals? Nada. Once people start betting on fencing, money will flow into the sport.

<SNIP>

People will bet on anything, and it might as well be something we love -- once you see Vegas odds on the US nationals you will see the event on TV.

'Cuz, you know, if _I_ were a Vegas bookmaker I know I'D want to start taking bets on a sport that I've barely heard of and know very little about, especially when all of the bets are coming from people that, without a doubt, know considerably more than I do about who's likely to win, even setting aside the fact that most of the bettors have personal connections with the athletes and could influence results without my having any control or knowledge over it, or any assurances that such tampering would have noticible consequences. Bookmakers don't make their living by being stupid about what bets they're willing to cover. Without a significant amount of potential action so that they can balance bets off against each other there's WAY too much downside risk to the bookies.

And with the likely short-to-mid-term action being at rediculously low levels there's no incentive to invest the time and energy to learn enough about the sport that the bookies could even have a chance of setting reasonable odds without large quantities of bets coming in.

-B :)