Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

gladius · 08-11-2005, 03:01 PM

Following from the FIS official website:

http://www.federscherma.it/news.asp?28533

FIE MANDATES THE USE OF MASKS WITH TRANSPARENT VISOR FOR EPEE AND FOIL AFTER THE 2005 LEIPZIG WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

8/11/2005, Paris – The FIE had decided on January 20, 2005, that use of the transparent masks for men's and women's saber (already introduced during the Athens Olympic Games in 2004) would become obligatory as of March 1, 2005, for all saber events valid for the Grand Prix World cup, for team competitions, and for the World Championships of every category.

Furthermore, the FIE had decided that these transparent masks would have been required also for all the other weapons (epee and foil) for the Grand Prix events and team competition starting from the World Championships in Leipzig in 2005.

But on this last point the FIE reversed its decision and has since decided to mandate the use of transparent masks for epee and foil (men and women) to be effective after the 2005 World championships in Leipzig.

oiuyt · 08-11-2005, 03:19 PM

So by "FIE mandates transparent masks for all weapons" what you mean is that the FIE has DELAYED the implementation of the rule by 1 competition for foil and epee....

No change in the rules, it's just going into effect AFTER the WC rather than AT the WC. Still applies only to Grand Prix, team, and WC events.

-B :)

counter riposte · 08-11-2005, 03:37 PM

Therefore, I must go out and buy as many of the old masks as I can possibly afford.

DHCJr · 08-11-2005, 04:47 PM

It is not necessarily delayed, but may be dropped. Consider, who put this information out, not the FIE, but the Italians. For it to become permanent it must be approved by the Congress. This follows protests from the German and Italian presidents as well as the Medical commission.

We can only hope, they come to their senses and drop this.

Inquartata · 08-11-2005, 07:56 PM

How long before Roch is term-limited out? ( Assuming he doesn't change the rule by fiat and make himself Dictator for Life, that is. )

veeco · 08-11-2005, 09:52 PM

I think we have to put up with the man for another 4 years...

yeoldearmourer · 08-11-2005, 10:15 PM

For once I agree with DHCJR someone please find thier right mind

glowstix · 08-12-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Furthermore, the FIE had decided that these transparent masks would have been required also for all the other weapons (epee and foil) for the Grand Prix events and team competition starting from the World Championships in Leipzig in 2005.

but those masks are frickin' UUUGGGGLLLYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be_Like_Water · 08-12-2005, 03:39 AM

DAMMIT. I HATE those masks. Don't they keep having safety issues with them?? I'm sorry, but I don't want something that has to protect my eyes and BRAIN to "need routine replacement"!!!

Pauli · 08-12-2005, 04:23 AM

If only they had some valid reasons to introduce these masks. But they don't.

And the safety issue is indeed a very important point that is in no way provided by these visor masks. I am not talking by own experience, but by what I have read and heard about them.

Why change things that do not need to be changed?

Alex_Paul · 08-12-2005, 10:18 AM

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.

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.

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.

oso97 · 08-12-2005, 11:11 AM

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.

cfaustus · 08-12-2005, 11:15 AM

I have to admit, I am not much of a sports afficionado, but aren't there other sports out there where seeing the competitor is difficult? The first thing that I can think of is NASCAR. I suppose they have car cams, but most people who watch the sport seldom see the drivers while they are in the car. Of course, they differentiate by flashy cars. NASCAR and car racing in general seems to get pretty decent coverage. If it came down to losing the whites to flashy lames, etc or losing the wire mask to these unsafe visor masks I say, 'bring on the color!' Can anyone else who watches more sports think of some others and how they deal with this issue?

cfaustus · 08-12-2005, 11:21 AM

It just occured to me... the visor is so that the audience can see the face, or more importantly the eyes... but, in fencing, that is not where the action is! If a competitor looked just at the eyes (or just at one thing like the blade, feet, hand, etc they would not do very well). I think it is just an excuse for the fact that the US media does'nt seem to have a scrap of creativity to figure out how to properly cover fencing. Maybe they need to go take lessons from Lucas. Its a sword fight for cryin out loud! How is that NOT exciting? Yet the media somehow manages to make it so. Perhaps they need to be versed in the nuances of a phrase, the exchange of control between fencers, the unwritten story of each bout.

edew · 08-12-2005, 11:25 AM

Clear visor masks for football and hockey. Oh right, no one watches hockey anymore.

sabreur · 08-12-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edew

Clear visor masks for football and hockey. Oh right, no one watches hockey anymore.

Of course, used to be that you didn't wear visor masks for football and hockey--at one time, hockey players (including goalies!) didn't wear helmets or face protection, and football players didn't wear facemasks....

Given the safety concerns about visor masks, fencing appears to be moving in the wrong direction.

And I agree with Oso--I'd like to know who exactly is saying that fencing will be cut from the Olympics, or won't get TV play if we don't adopt visor masks....

Among other things, they might be ripe targets for injury lawsuits down the road.

I'd also like to know why the FIE doesn't just buy a set of masks to use in the final 8 of "significant" events, and provide them to the fencers who make the final. It isn't like someone is going to start televising a full tournament (even if it is a WC), from the round of 64 or something....

The requirement that vets wear the masks for the Vet WCs is ludicrous.

MR

shlepzig · 08-12-2005, 12:23 PM

I'm one to usually roll with the punches, but this is one thing that really get's me. This change affects the overall safety of fencing without any advantage to the competitors.

The masks have an unproven safety record, and a documented number of failures.

The quotes from Roche have been quantifiably wrong regarding the masks technical performance, safety and durability.

The benefit to spectators is hardly proven, and what has been bandied about is third-hand and hearsay. Even from the FIE reports and minutes I have read (courtesy of fencing.net), all the evidence supporting the mask as a benefit to spectators is speculative.

Lastly we will all look like aliens from BBC science fiction show, Dr. Who meets the Tinfoil FlyFisherman. I honestly thought the picture I saw of Keith Smart in the Olympics was about a wildfire in California because he looked like a person in a fire retardant suit.

This change seems to be even more poorly thought out than any of the other rule changes. The rules changes, however poorly thought out, have posed little danger to the fencers whom have had to wrestle with frustration but little else.

Shlep.

whtouche · 08-12-2005, 01:40 PM

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

Toecutter · 08-12-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfaustus

Perhaps they need to be versed in the nuances of a phrase, the exchange of control between fencers, the unwritten story of each bout.

Boooring. I love fencing, but it's far more fun to do it than to watch it. I don't really understand why not having mainstream media attention is such a threat to the sport. How much shotput or highjump have you seen on tv? Not very much, I'd imagine. I haven't heard anything about these sports being removed from the games.

I think that for fencing to keep alive and keep growing, local clubs need to work harder to promote themselves and the sport in general. Even when an area actually has a fencing club, it's often not easy to find. You'd be amazed at what spreading some flyers around a college campus will do for club membership. Another thing that would help is the spread of highschool fencing programs to promote awareness of the sport at a younger age. To do that, schools need to be convinced that fencing is not only safe, but beneficial to students.

edew · 08-12-2005, 04:23 PM

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.

Look, the TV talking heads "think" that clear visor masks will make fencing watchable. But it may or may not. It's really a 50-50 guess whether it's watchable. On the other hand, there's ample evidence that the visors have produced not one iota of increased television interest.

However, a bottom-up ground swell of interest in fencing will make fencing interesting on TV. People gotta know it and like it and then it's clear to people. And, there's no need for visored mask or reel-less systems or $10,000 conductive t-shirts or what have you.