Bukantz's Article in AF

[achilleus]

OK, I checked out the online copy and in the article. talking about the most changes that most improved the presentation of fencing, I saw this:

#6: CLEAR MASKS
The clear masks have been great for fencing, specifically in the area of making us more TV-friendly.
Once the safety issues have been completely resolved, these masks should become mandatory.
The clear masks got rave reviews during the Olympic coverage. As long as the fencers are not put at risk by wearing them, FIE President Roch deserves credit for his clear vision.

Now, many of his points were dead on, but this one really through me for a loop. First off, where did the rave reviews come from? I remember asking on this board what people thought about the masks, and the responses were pretty negative. I personally liked them (on TV), but I didn't think they added a whole bunch. Now, that's hardly scientific, nor do the people reading here have a say over what get's TV coverage, but who liked them?

Second, what other areas has the clear mask been great for? Not the fencer's safety, that's for sure. With a huge blindspot and fogging, the vision improvement is debatable.

The other one that really confused me was:

#8: WIRELESS SABER
This was one of the improvements embraced by the television commu-nity. It modernized the sport, and the addition of the masks lighting up was really cool.
The gurus at NBC really thought the wireless and the clear masks enhanced the overall presentation for the television audience.
Regardless of referee controver-sies, it is far better for the public to see bright lights determine the materi-ality of hits as opposed to sometimes shady juries.

Now, the mask lighting up was OK, but does anyone really care about the wires? Does it really ruin the enjoyment of watching if the wires are present?

[esskreemr]

I just read an article in Escrime from 2002 or 2003 and their evaluation was that the general public doesn't care if it's wireless or not. They did like the lighting in the masks because it makes it immediately apparent who was hit.

[KD5MDK]

I believe somebody at some point here said that (or quoted an article somewhere else) that said the sound of the reel wire hitting the metal strip caused bad spikes in the audio portion of a TV broadcast, and was interfering that way. If so, I do recognize it as a legitimate issue delaying televising.

[Gav]

Even though the Sabreurs end up being called 'Fencing Daleks'... I don't have a problem with wirelessness. Nor do I have a problem with the visor masks (I don't like them, but I've no problem with others wearing them). What I do have a problem with is the trumpeting of ' positive reviews ' when I don't see any movement to get more Fencing on TV. Nada. Nil. None at all. So how can someone say that any of these changes have been embraced by anyone than the proponents? Who did they ask? Did they ask amongst themselves? I think they did.

And the whole lights thing bothers me as well. Ok, I LIKE the lights in the masks*. But how do the little lights in the masks make it easier to see who is hit when, at large tournements [these are the ones with the highest audiences and more likely to be televised], they have these huge lights indicating who has hit? Are people really so blind/stupid/easily distracted that they can't tell who was hit when the entire audience is bathed in an eery green or red glow? Sigh.

Achillieus can you post up a link to the article? I'd like to read the rest of what he has to say.

*I'm a geek and I like gadgets.

[El Chucko]

Achilleus, I agree 100%. Once again, Bukantz makes me groan. I have no idea where he gets his info from on these things.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Gav

And the whole lights thing bothers me as well. Ok, I LIKE the lights in the masks*. But how do the little lights in the masks make it easier to see who is hit when, at large tournements [these are the ones with the highest audiences and more likely to be televised], they have these huge lights indicating who has hit? Are people really so blind/stupid/easily distracted that they can't tell who was hit when the entire audience is bathed in an eery green or red glow? Sigh.
*I'm a geek and I like gadgets.

Gav, when you watch fencing from second-hand sources (read dvd,tapes,etc), you start understanding the need for a system that allows you to be focused on the athlete while still being able to see when the lights go off. This could be adequately achieved with strategically placed light repeaters or, as is done in some cases, with an indicator on the viewers' television display.

Is it worth the technical headaches it will produce when club fencers start showing up with their 3-4 year old masks? That has yet to be seen or tested for that matter.

[Pauli]

How much money flows from whom to whom considering the influence tv stations have in changing stable rules of fencing?

(what I mean with stable rules is:
* rules that are safe
* rules that work well
* rules that have been used without complications - I think so, at least - for the past how many years)

And just what Gav says: where is the ROI?

All of this looks very much as "internal politics" to me and I don't even want to know how much money flows into Roche's bank account.....

[Gav]

Gav, when you watch fencing from second-hand sources (read dvd,tapes,etc), you start understanding the need for a system that allows you to be focused on the athlete while still being able to see when the lights go off. This could be adequately achieved with strategically placed light repeaters or, as is done in some cases, with an indicator on the viewers' television display.

I've watched plenty of Sabre on DVD and television.

I focused on the 'live' audience because when you watch second hand footage there is generally, a scoreboard that tells you who has the hit. In fact with any good fencing footage this should be a prime concern. So having the little lights won't impact on a TV spectator's ability to see who has scored.

I'll say again that I quite like the little lights. I like the way that they look. You won't find me easily agreeing that they make it easier to tell who has scored. In my opinion they are a purely asthetic addition to the sport.

[glowstix]

i agree with almost everything in the article except that part as well. the clear masks are ridiculous, period!! they look stupid and appear more oversized than those blue gauntlet/SG knockoffs, as if you're an alien or something...not to mention that they get scratched easily..and i don't want my opponent seeing my eyes; and is the vision improvement really necessary?? when i fence i can see exactly what i want to see; i even forget i'm wearing a mask...and then there is the minor detail of the cost.

as far as the lights in the mask goes, i thought they looked pretty silly to tell the truth, having the fencer's head light up when they scored. what's wrong with the reels??

[AllisonT]

I suspect the source of the "rave reviews" did not come from fencers but from tv producers, as all the articles' positive comments were focussed on spectator aspects of the sport and not on the views of actual fencers.

[mrbiggs]

I can't really see exactly what the clear masks do. Yes, now you can see the fencers' eyes. What does this do for spectators?

Another thing that bothered me was the word "mandatory." They are already becoming mandatory at the international level, so does that mean he's talking about the national level? I hope not.

I don't understand this sentence at all:

Regardless of referee controver-sies, it is far better for the public to see bright lights determine the materi-ality of hits as opposed to sometimes shady juries.

In the "Wireless Sabre" section. Doesn't that statement support electric sabre, rather than wireless?

Does anyone have some insight for me on these three parts?

[achilleus]

For those not in the know, this article was taken from the summer edition of 'American Fencing'. Jeff Bukantz is a regular contributor and, I believe, an FIE rated ref. He was in Athens with the US team.

The link to the magazine is here.

His article is midway through...

If that link doesn't work, you can always visit the US Fencing homepage, and scroll down to find the link.



Another point that confused me, in a later section, he extolls the virtues of Milanoli's clown mask. Well, which is it? Painting or clear masks? You can't have it both ways.

And lastly, I guess I'm wondering how far out of touch we fencers are. I mean, are clear mask so necessary for people to watch the sport? Is wireless really worth the hassle. Am I (we) just blinded by our love for the sport and don't realize that these things hinder the presentation of our sport so much that people won't watch until we change them?

[Sciurus-Rex]

I've worked under managers who blithely promoted the latest front-office idiot dictum, dressing it up in positives and smiles all the while knowing it was so much drek. And when the staff tried to explain they knew how stupid it was and that he didn't have to lie to them to get the job done, his response was always the same: "No, really. It's a goood thing."

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 pity those folks.

[Welted 24/7]

I really don't understand the rationale of "clear masks make the sport more spectator-friendly." This is fencing we're talking about here- let's be honest, the general public doesn't give a crap about it. In order for these changes to have any "mainstream TV impact", we'd have to have an audience in the first place, and we don't. I'd bet anything that the only people who care enough to find fencing on TV in the first place are fencers and people related to them, and our opinions on the new masks are already well-documented.

We're not a mainstream sport, and I doubt if we ever will be, regardless of any "revolutionary" changes that do nothing but make us pay more for equipment.

[DHCJr]

If the lights in the masks are the big thing that will promote this sport. Why don't they just add them to Epee and Foil? They don't have to go wireless to do that. Since these would be considered 'Extension lights', the rule about no over the air waves would not apply. Have the box signal the lights in the mask to go on.

[Feraud]

My impression of the mask-mounted lights on the Athens telecast was that you couldn’t really make them out against the shiny surface of the saber mask, they didn’t stand out as much as I thought they would. Now on a black foil or epee mask they’d be more noticeable.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by achilleus

First off, where did the rave reviews come from?

Reading the second portion of what you quoted, it seems safe to conclude that these rave reviews came from people at NBC who were putting together the Olympic coverage. Presumably they saw both sabre and non-sabre, and thought that the masks were great.

So that would be people who are in the business of televising sports, but not experts on fencing. Perhaps not a mass audience, but certainly one that should be listened to.

Now, that's hardly scientific, nor do the people reading here have a say over what get's TV coverage, but who liked them?

I think they look silly when I'm watching bouts live.
I really don't notice them, either way, on lower quality DVDs.
They worked surprisingly well in the professional-quality Olympic coverage. I think that they will have a positive impact on TV viewability for the uneducated viewer. I don't think it will actually make people want to watch fencing on TV, though.

Now, the mask lighting up was OK, but does anyone really care about the wires? Does it really ruin the enjoyment of watching if the wires are present?

I can't help but think that fencers can't do flips while plugged into the reel. Fencers can't be immediately swarmed by their teammates and thrown into the air when plugged into a reel.

Currently, that final victory celebration is either subdued or delayed while the fencer unplugs/gets unplugged. I do prefer the immediate, spontaneous reaction that can occur when the fencer isn't tied to the piste.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Reading the second portion of what you quoted, it seems safe to conclude that these rave reviews came from people at NBC who were putting together the Olympic coverage. Presumably they saw both sabre and non-sabre, and thought that the masks were great.

Well if they were so impressed, why didn't they show more coverage? I mean the games were on 24/7 practically...

Originally Posted by kalivor

So that would be people who are in the business of televising sports, but not experts on fencing. Perhaps not a mass audience, but certainly one that should be listened to.

Should they be? TV execs know TV. They don't know fencing. And let's not even discuss the problems with focus groups.

Originally Posted by kalivor

I think they look silly when I'm watching bouts live.
I really don't notice them, either way, on lower quality DVDs.
They worked surprisingly well in the professional-quality Olympic coverage. I think that they will have a positive impact on TV viewability for the uneducated viewer. I don't think it will actually make people want to watch fencing on TV, though.

Now, here's where I totally agree with you. On the Olympic coverage, I liked them. I hate them, but for TV they worked. Is it a necessity though? Is it worth the safety concern?

Originally Posted by kalivor

I can't help but think that fencers can't do flips while plugged into the reel. Fencers can't be immediately swarmed by their teammates and thrown into the air when plugged into a reel.

Yes they can. It's trickier, but they can be thrown and they can do flips. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Originally Posted by kalivor

Currently, that final victory celebration is either subdued or delayed while the fencer unplugs/gets unplugged. I do prefer the immediate, spontaneous reaction that can occur when the fencer isn't tied to the piste.

That's why epee is way more exciting on the final touch. Nothing worse than having to wait for a ref to have make a call and award a touch. It looks bad when the athletes have to wait to see who won.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Should they be? TV execs know TV. They don't know fencing. And let's not even discuss the problems with focus groups.

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.