Bukantz's Article in AF

[fencergal33]

Here's the thing....

If they are so interested in making us "TV Friendly", then why don't they let us wear whatever we want on uniforms? It would alleviate the safety concerns of the clear masks, but still give the public something to recognize us by as individuals. It worked in NASCAR (bad reference, but it works). Once cars had pretty colors and sponsorship logos on the cars, people started watching more. It's much better than watching a bunch of the same color cars going around in a circle. If they want us to be recognizable on TV, but the clear mask present a safety concern, why not let us be creative with what we look like?


Just my $.02

[Allen Evans]

I suspect that in sports with a mass audience who know the sport intimately (football and basketball for instance), the viewers have give and take with television that allows it to be “television friendly” without television being the driving force for change in the sport. The fan base of these sports, which grew originally before the media was such a omni-present force, acts as a speed break on radical changes.

I fear that Fencing – without an established audience/market to hold change in check – will reach a tipping point at which chasing the goal of media appeal will turn de facto control of the sport over to television. What rules will be propagated by a casual comment by a television executive then?

My own belief is that ultimately, Fencing will be gone from the Olympics. The IOC has become less and less a sports organization, and more and more a media organization. As Olympic budgets continue to grow and worldwide television viewer ship is the only metric of a successful Olympics, Fencing will not measure up, no matter what changes are made. In two, three, or five games from now, Fencing will be out of the Olympics. When that happens, those of us still in the sport will have to decide if what has been changed was for better, or for worse.

[parrythis]

If they really want us to be "TV Friendly", then they should take a cue from the World Wrestling Federation and have scantily clad women announcing what round we're in, and we could get interviewed and trash-talk each other, and once we're on the piste, we could throw down our weapons and hit each other with folding chairs...

OK, sarcasm aside...

Fencing is not a "TV friendly" sport. It is not even a particularly "Spectator friendly" sport unless the spectators are already knowledgable about the sport. I doubt that there is anything they can do to significantly change this. I doubt that I will ever see coverage of a fencing tournament of any magnitude covered on U.S. prime time television. It is a waste of everyone's time and money to pursue this as a goal. The reward, if indeed any is obtainable, does not begin to justify the cost.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by parrythis

Fencing is not a "TV friendly" sport. It is not even a particularly "Spectator friendly" sport unless the spectators are already knowledgable about the sport. I doubt that there is anything they can do to significantly change this. I doubt that I will ever see coverage of a fencing tournament of any magnitude covered on U.S. prime time television. It is a waste of everyone's time and money to pursue this as a goal. The reward, if indeed any is obtainable, does not begin to justify the cost.

Why was the fencing venue sold out at the Athens Olympics, then?

I mean, if you looked at the crowds in some of the smaller sports -- even in some of the "big TV" sports, like gymnastics, attendance was pretty low.

But the fencing venue? Sold out. And not just for events with two Europeans in the finals, and short travel distances -- the Zagunis-Tan WS final was sold out, despite the fact that neither fencer was from Europe (nevermind Greece), and WS is the least established fencing event.

How does this make fencing an unfriendly spectator sport? Why can I see bowling on my TV? (Well, not mine, I'm without cable. But on others' TVs).

What of fencing events from 100 years ago, which would draw big crowds, and have lots of prize money?

There's no reason for fencing to be unfriendly to spectators or TV. While I don't expect that any of these technical changes will make much of a difference, and I don't expect to see fencing on primetime North American television anytime soon, I also don't see why anybody thinks that fencing has to be incomprehensible to the average non-fencer.

[DHCJr]

Also does anyone know which sport at the '84 games was sold out first? Again fencing. In fact, Basketball did not sell out, well except for the games that had U.S. as one of the teams.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I suspect that in sports with a mass audience who know the sport intimately (football and basketball for instance), the viewers have give and take with television that allows it to be “television friendly” without television being the driving force for change in the sport. The fan base of these sports, which grew originally before the media was such a omni-present force, acts as a speed break on radical changes.

I fear that Fencing – without an established audience/market to hold change in check – will reach a tipping point at which chasing the goal of media appeal will turn de facto control of the sport over to television. What rules will be propagated by a casual comment by a television executive then?

My own belief is that ultimately, Fencing will be gone from the Olympics. The IOC has become less and less a sports organization, and more and more a media organization. As Olympic budgets continue to grow and worldwide television viewer ship is the only metric of a successful Olympics, Fencing will not measure up, no matter what changes are made. In two, three, or five games from now, Fencing will be out of the Olympics. When that happens, those of us still in the sport will have to decide if what has been changed was for better, or for worse.

Fencing would actually be difficult to get rid of as it frequently either sells all of it's tickets or more than 95% of them every four years. Nevermind the TV part as the US network usually buys the package as a whole not not pieces but if networks ever do buy pieces instead of the whole thing then we really need to worry about fencing not making the cut.

Even when the Olympic festival was around fencing either sold out or over 95% of its tickets.

Also, as Americans do better, hopefully the trend continues, we will see it on TV more in the USA and it will be tougher to cut.

Still believe that it is tough to cut due to on site ticket sales. I know they want to see it more on TV but it is widely shown in other countries so...

[Allen Evans]

Define "selling out"....all the tickets were sold, or all the seats were full? (I wasn't in Athens, so I don't know how many seats were empty).

Often corporate sponsors buy large blocks of tickets, "selling out" the event. I recall that fencing sold out in Atlanta, but there were empty seats: people had been given tickets (either as corporate perks or promotions) but didn't attend.

[Ordway]

At one point, soccer was considered a totally minor sport that would never catch on in the US. Look at it now - it's a complete institution in childhood sports. Now, clearly fencing has a lot more of a barrier to entry (you need equipment and training to participate, whereas anybody can grab a soccer ball) but the point is that saying "Fencing will never be widely accepted or mainstream" puts things on the path of self-fulfilment.

As far as the visor masks go, it's clear that the fencing community doesn't like the idea or doesn't feel it's necessary. But if people want to get a larger viewership of fencing, then it makes sense to ask *non-fencers* what they like. (Also note that there is a positive connection. People who see and engage with fencing on TV are probably a lot likelier to want to try fencing than those who don't see it or see it but don't "get it.") I doubt very much that Bukantz is making things up when he says that a lot of people he talked to liked the masks. So... I think we fencers have to acknowledge the existence of another point of view.

FWIW, my husband watched some of the Olympic sabre with me and thought the masks looked cool and added to the appeal of the bout. He's a decent recreational (sabre) fencer (D rated), not super competitive, but has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of the sport. He's just not tuned in to the controversy du jour, so he had no particular prejudice one way or another about the masks. That's just an anecdotal piece of evidence, but to me it just says that yes, there are people for whom the masks make the experience more interesting, and no, they aren't all morons.

[KD5MDK]

Does it matter so very much either way, as long as the tickets are sold?

Also, what size venue did it have each time? Selling out a 500 seat auditorium isn't as impressive as a half full 10,000 seat one.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Define "selling out"....all the tickets were sold, or all the seats were full? (I wasn't in Athens, so I don't know how many seats were empty).

Often corporate sponsors buy large blocks of tickets, "selling out" the event. I recall that fencing sold out in Atlanta, but there were empty seats: people had been given tickets (either as corporate perks or promotions) but didn't attend.

Not sure the question, or if I do, it doesn't matter. Tickets sold are tickets sold. If I have 100 tickets sold for something and sell them all but only 50 show up, I still have sold 100 tickets and very likely not giving refunds so that is still revenue for my event and actually more since I don't need extra resources to handle the smalled crowd, more profit for me(IOC in this case).

This conversation is common for pro baseball. 50,000 tickets sold but 40,000 fans in the stands. Is this a bad thing? Those running the event say no.

[Allen Evans]

If tickets are being sold and not used....the IOC would certainly be taking a look at that. Fencing is one of the cheaper events to attend, and if the tickets are not being used even if they are being GIVEN away to people, a good business is going to be looking at replacing Fencing with a sport in which tickets would be more in demand. It just makes sense to maximize revenue.

Are ticket sales THAT important to the Olympics? How do ticket sales compare with broadcasting rights?

I do know that Networks (currently) negotiate for the entire package when broadcasting the Olympics. But it is certainly in their best interest, even when buying the entire package, that each part of that package is revenue producing.

I'll stand by my original comments. I'm certainly no Luddite. Fencing should adapt to television to a certain extent. But currently that adaptation seems to be being done without debate or consideration of its impact on the sport or it's participants. And all of it done with no guarentee that the IOC will not simply vote fencing off the program with little or no warning.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Exactly!

The whole idea is part of an attempt to broaden the television appeal of fencing to include non-fencers, right? Who better to make a decision as to the effectiveness of these ideas than those who know TV, but not fencing? They'll have more of an innate ability to understand what will and will not look good on a TV screen, and won't have any preconceived notions about what the fencers should or shouldn't wear.

Of course, then these ideas should be tempered by those with fencing knowledge, with functionality and safety being primary issues. As annoying as blind spots and fogging might be, they don't seem to hamper those at the top levels very much -- leaving the safety concerns as the only valid ones.

Not a bad point, but I don't think the TV execs are th non-fencers we are trying to appeal to. Remember, these people added the little glow to the puck in hockey that so many fans hated.

I would think they are many things that could be done to improve the presentation of fencing just by reorganizing the tournaments that wouldn't change the rules of the sport...

Anyway, I still have yet to see how clear masks are one of the top 10 changes in the presentation of our sport. It's been a dubious change due to safety, and as of yet has no other benefits other than receiving rave reviews from the network that showed almost no fencing footage in the US....

[OROD]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Remember, these people added the little glow to the puck in hockey that so many fans hated.

I think they should make the blades glow when they televise fencing on TV. That way people will think we're fencing with light sabers and get all exited and rush to their nearest fencing club!


.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by OROD

I think they should make the blades glow when they televise fencing on TV. That way people will think we're fencing with light sabers and get all exited and rush to their nearest fencing club!


.

They could even add a little buzzing sound when fencers move their blades...

Then of course, we'll need theme music....

[OROD]

Originally Posted by achilleus

They could even add a little buzzing sound when fencers move their blades...

Then of course, we'll need theme music....

And some heavy breathing sounds coming from microphones inside the masks...


.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

A lot of middle-management people operate that way. They've supplanted critical brain cells with little toggles glued in the "up" position. No matter what the proposal is, their default response is to skew it positive. Always. And to make matters worse, they tend toward defensive anger when you shine a light on related faults, as though their entire existence depends on maintaining the lie.

I wonder if Mr. Bukantz is sporting pointy hair these days.

His infatuation with the Lexan-visor masks also left me nonplussed, as it did Achilleus. And while I had not noted the contradiction between the cheer for the Lexan and the simultaneous cheer for Milanoli-like painted abominations, now that it's been pointed out to me I tend to agree with THAT criticism as well. Although he was perhaps only using it as an example of the putative glories of injecting "color" into fencing, it was a poorly chosen one.

Mr. Bukantz is of course entitled to his opinion on all of these matters, but I have to question why it is that he gets to plead the case for his in a quarterly column while the bulk of the fencing world has to content itself with complaining on bulletin boards, writing letters bound for the round file or seething in silence...

( On a similar kvetching note, does anyone recall seeing an issue of American Fencing magazine in the last, say, five years which does not contain a photo of Mr. Alperstein? )

More and more, it looks like the views of the fencing world and the fencing bureaucracies are diverging, not running parallel.

[sabreur]

I continue to wait for the infatuation of the unnamed network nabobs to expresss itself in terms of significant coverage of fencing on US television.

I expect it will be a frosty day in Hades before you see the kind of coverage we get here (where at least the semis and the finals of individual weapons and the final of team weapons at the World Championships/Olympics are broadcast).

If TV coverage does not materialize, is the Roach going to reimburse everyone who shelled out for one of those over-priced welding visors, or the clubs who purchased new chips for their scoring machines?

In terms of advancing the sport, I think either broadcast quality webcasts or rapidly produced DVDs of reasonable quality of significant events would do far more to help people who already fence aware of what world-class fencing looks like and raise their games. Webcasts could also help reach the wider "mass" audience that is apparently so desirable.

MR

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

<big snip>
But currently that adaptation seems to be being done without debate or consideration of its impact on the sport or it's participants. And all of it done with no guarentee that the IOC will not simply vote fencing off the program with little or no warning.

If we get voted off, then we can just revert to old rules&regulations with no regard for TV. No loss in that regard to change for TV.

Another thing: I think the FIE should make two sets of these rules: one of the Olympics (and maybe World Championships) where TV coverage is possible, and one set for the rest of us. Visor masks should be something that the federations buy as competition tools, just like the pistes. It is not expected of the individual fencer to come to the event with his own piste and reel, that is the event organizer´s job. In that respect, the visor mask should be like the sabre sensor was.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by achilleus

Not a bad point, but I don't think the TV execs are th non-fencers we are trying to appeal to. Remember, these people added the little glow to the puck in hockey that so many fans hated.

That thing was not added by the Sw. TV, for whatever that is worth. Shows that wherever hockey is a mainstream sport, there are enough educated viewers so that one do not have to have such dumb fancy stuff.

Originally Posted by achilleus

I would think they are many things that could be done to improve the presentation of fencing just by reorganizing the tournaments that wouldn't change the rules of the sport...

What in the world are you alluding to here? In the OG, and the later stages of WC, fencing runs as a straight DE format. What simpler way is there? What kind of sports fan can not grasp that format?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson