Tennis vs. Golf - Lessons for the sport of fencing?

[Black Jeebus]

Well she has been in America longer than anywhere else, assuming she has lived here since 1986.

[Jvanhousen]

I think the notion of perceived elitism as a factor in the popularity of golf is over rated. Golf is positioned to do well at this time because of a number of practical issues. Number one being, as stated earlier, the fact that you CAN play the game with minimum physical exertion. With over 30% of kids in California either overweight or obese, what kind of sport, if any, do you think they’ll be looking at if/when they decide to chose to be active.
Then there’s the time requirements: You can arrange to go play a bit of tennis after work easily, but golf requires a larger time block and/or a reservation, so you do it on weekends which also fits w/ the longer hour week folks are committing to these days. I’m not saying golf is a game for lazy people, I’m saying lazy people CAN play golf, (and do it with an ice cold beer in one hand) and guess what country’s pumping out lazy people these days?

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by rudd

Seles was born in Yugoslavia in 1973
Moved to US in 1986.
I don't think that qualifies as 100% American.

oops! didn't know that. hasn't she always represented US in the team competitions, even in the early days?? that's not enough time for naturalization.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Jvanhousen

I think the notion of perceived elitism as a factor in the popularity of golf is over rated. Golf is positioned to do well at this time because of a number of practical issues. Number one being, as stated earlier, the fact that you CAN play the game with minimum physical exertion. With over 30% of kids in California either overweight or obese, what kind of sport, if any, do you think they’ll be looking at if/when they decide to chose to be active.
Then there’s the time requirements: You can arrange to go play a bit of tennis after work easily, but golf requires a larger time block and/or a reservation, so you do it on weekends which also fits w/ the longer hour week folks are committing to these days. I’m not saying golf is a game for lazy people, I’m saying lazy people CAN play golf, (and do it with an ice cold beer in one hand) and guess what country’s pumping out lazy people these days?

I for one would love to relegate the lazy folks to golf and get me some serious folks for fencing. Of course, I've just cut my market to 10% of its original size.

[Black Jeebus]

Yeah but wouldn't you rather discourage laziness altogether.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by edew

I for one would love to relegate the lazy folks to golf and get me some serious folks for fencing.

don't we all...and by the way, don't send them to golf...can't tell you how much i hate playing behind slackers. the genuinely slow high handicap players will let you through and are respectful to the game and fellow players but a$$hole slackers won't..

[Black Jeebus]

Personally I just really think golf should have a more stringent uniform. Not an Inq style uniform mind you just something other than what people might wear to work. They should have to wear good old fashioned knickerbockers, and as we all know baseball pants will not cut it!

[mrbiggs]

Golf and tennis are both pretty boring to watch on TV, which is why they have popularity problems. Golf is doing okay right now, but I think it might be just a fad. Once businees executives stop playing it, it will be about as popular as tennis.

[bwoodward]

I work for a local golf magazine in the Myrtle Beach, SC area. At one point we had about 120 18-hole courses in our area. For the past several years golf has stagnated nationwide. Who has 4 to 6 hours to spend on the course? Not to mention the $75 to $150 it costs for ONE round of golf at the average to good course. Five or six of the local courses have closed recently - too much competition, not enough golfers. They can make more money selling the land to real estate developers. The big question on all the owner's minds is how to increase interest in the sport.

I can see where people would like golf; it's more of an excuse to hang out with your buddies, tell jokes, drink beer and have something to do while you're at it. To me, if you can drink beer and smoke a cigar while you're doing it - it's not a sport. My feelings are summed up in my signature line.

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Clearly, from what you people have said, the popularity of a sport both on TV and when played relates more towards media than it does how fat you are.

In Australia the tennis is made very public and gets big wrap-ups at the end of a grand slam, but there are less Australian tennis stars than there are American and we're up there as one of the fattest nations in the world, too.

[edew]

I'm suspecting, given bwoodward's comments, whether golf will blow away as some passing fad in a few years. Same thing with televised poker. When enough amateurs lose money at the tables, they won't continue. The hardcore players will continue, but they don't necessarily make for good TV (and if it's just hardcore players, they would quite as well, rather going to each other's homes to play so that they don't have to pay the House).

The question is whether fencing would like to see this huge pick-up as a fad before quietly settling down. I think it's probably not good, as one consequence will be 120 clubs within a short driving area. Then, in a few years, dropping down to 20 or fewer clubs. Those who survive aren't necessarily the best clubs in terms of good coaching, but mainly those with deepest pockets and luck.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by edew

I'm suspecting, given bwoodward's comments, whether golf will blow away as some passing fad in a few years. Same thing with televised poker. When enough amateurs lose money at the tables, they won't continue. The hardcore players will continue, but they don't necessarily make for good TV (and if it's just hardcore players, they would quite as well, rather going to each other's homes to play so that they don't have to pay the House).

The question is whether fencing would like to see this huge pick-up as a fad before quietly settling down. I think it's probably not good, as one consequence will be 120 clubs within a short driving area. Then, in a few years, dropping down to 20 or fewer clubs. Those who survive aren't necessarily the best clubs in terms of good coaching, but mainly those with deepest pockets and luck.

Take a look at what happened to racketball in the US and squash in Europe--both boomed in the 80s, and died in the 90s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What the fencing establishment needs to do is conduct some serious research into their enduring market--what kind of people take up fencing and stick to it for many years/their lifetime? Once you have the demographic, you market to that group. You don't try to be popular or appeal to people outside the demographic, because 99% of them won't stick anyway.

MR

[edew]

Funny, looks like squash is starting it's fad stage in the US (at least in some places: I don't see notice of it on TV, but many racketball courts are being converted into squash courts, at least locally in the Bay Area). I'll wait for the burn-out and then we'll see how fencing can take some in.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by edew

Same thing with televised poker. When enough amateurs lose money at the tables, they won't continue.

Televised poker is unquestionably a fad. Why?

1. There are only so many hands. If you watch it enough, you will start to see the same thing over and over again.
2. Much of its popularity stems from stupid personalities, which will get old after awhile
3. It's a game of chance, and no matter how much skill you play with, you can still lose to someone who sucks. Once everyone starts figuring this out, there wll be fewer players
4. It costs money, and as you say, once people run out of money, they won't play anymore
5. The fad is being milked for all its worth (there's so much on TV, so many websites) and that will shorten the lifespan
6. It's stupid. And people eventually realize when things are stupid.

That's my opinion, anyway...

[edew]

Poker is a game of chance, but there is an element of skill involved. I think poker will die out quickly once people realize that it takes literally tens of hours before you can get 4 aces at the same time your opponent has 4 kings. Unfortunately for the TV crowd, the players usually throw down their cards before the river card and there's no suspense of either of them bluffing or raising and re-raising. They push in all their chips by the turn and then it does become 100% luck.

And, when people actually go to Vegas and elsewhere to play, they will realize that it's mind-numbingly boring for hours on end, looking at unsuited 3-9 in the hand again and again.

I personally prefer 7-stud because there is some more thinking and planning involved in that game, compared to hold'em. In hold'em, once the cards are dealt, the players really can't affect the outcome of the game. Sure, bluffing and big raises may scare some people out of the running, but the fate of the cards are fully determined by the time the first card is dealt.

In 7-stud, if you scare a player away, the next player takes his card and it affects what you might get. Also, there's much more information on the table, allowing one make better decisions. For example, if there are 7 players and I have suited clubs in my hand, a heart showing and no one else on the table has a club showing, I have a good chance of getting a club flush. I can bet big and scare off two players. Now, with only 5 players left, and if there are again no clubs up (except for one for me, say), I have a very good chance of getting two more clubs on the next three cards. Certainly, if my first up card was also a club, that would be very good show and I would try to scare off a couple people first to remove them from taking clubs. In hold'em there's no way to do the same thing. The cards have spoken, regardless of whether a player folds or stays.

Now back to fencing...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by edew

Poker is a game of chance, but there is an element of skill involved. I think poker will die out quickly once people realize that it takes literally tens of hours before you can get 4 aces at the same time your opponent has 4 kings. Unfortunately for the TV crowd, the players usually throw down their cards before the river card and there's no suspense of either of them bluffing or raising and re-raising. They push in all their chips by the turn and then it does become 100% luck.

Undoubtedly there is some skill. But there is alot of chance. And a player with bad luck can almost never win a game.

[TKuttner]

[quote=edew]Poker is a game of chance, but there is an element of skill involved. I think poker will die out quickly once people realize that it takes literally tens of hours before you can get 4 aces at the same time your opponent has 4 kings. Unfortunately for the TV crowd, the players usually throw down their cards before the river card and there's no suspense of either of them bluffing or raising and re-raising. They push in all their chips by the turn and then it does become 100% luck.
QUOTE]

That's how it would appear from the hands that they choose to show on TV. Which I find unfortunate and really unentertaining, although I do enjoy playing poker. But the stuff they show on espn or whatever is garbage, the all-in hands and bad beats.

But yea back to fencing. Anyone think that the masks have anything to do with it? I like watching sports where I can get into the personalities of the athletes, and not being able to see a face impedes that. Its one of the reasons why I don't particularly like watching football, but I love watching basketball. (Side note, basketball viewership is also in a decline, and many attribute this to the lack of a clearly dominant yet lovable superstar like MJ.)

Also, here's another thing I noticed about watching the womens olympic sabre last year on bravo. The announcers really made an effort to explain the action in simple terms so the "general audience" could understand. I think this attitude is counter-productive. Not only would I personally like to have heard more in-depth commentary on the complexities of the bout, but I think the lay viewer would also be more intrigued even if he wasn't able to follow all the terminology.
just a few thoughts...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by TKuttner

Also, here's another thing I noticed about watching the womens olympic sabre last year on bravo. The announcers really made an effort to explain the action in simple terms so the "general audience" could understand. I think this attitude is counter-productive. Not only would I personally like to have heard more in-depth commentary on the complexities of the bout, but I think the lay viewer would also be more intrigued even if he wasn't able to follow all the terminology.
just a few thoughts...

That's quite an interesting point.

But I think that if it's taken too far, of course, it would be counter productive. Fencing terminology is very complex, and it's difficult to figure out what all the terms mean. A remise, for example, is a concept that would be difficult for a beginner, and especially a non-fencer, to even understand, much less figure out for themselves.

[Black Jeebus]

It did kind of bug me to hear certain nigh-unto-holy words of the fencing lexicon not being used. But then again my dad watched it and understood most of what was going on too so eh... Of course he has a very complex yet completely ramdom education in fencing !

[edew]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That's quite an interesting point.

But I think that if it's taken too far, of course, it would be counter productive. Fencing terminology is very complex, and it's difficult to figure out what all the terms mean. A remise, for example, is a concept that would be difficult for a beginner, and especially a non-fencer, to even understand, much less figure out for themselves.

Heck, at my club, I don't even use some of those terms (unless I'm refereeing). For parry, I say "block", for remise, either "continuation" or "replacement of the attack". It's not like newbie 8-year olds can properly make a remise (versus a reprise) anyway, so any "second-attempt" attacks after a failed initial attack is called "continuation" or "replacement of the attack" both of which are more illustrative than "remise" or "reprise".

So if intelligent color commentators are available for fencing, it would be nice to explain the psychology of the fencing, as in. "Ok, Mariel made an attack last time that was short and Xue jumped all over her in her attack. Let's see whether Mariel will make a shorter attack and prepare for the counter-offensive with a stop-cut to the wrist or a blocking parry. The stop-cut has a higher percentage of success, so if she sets it up right, it should work."

(Of course, by the time that commentary is completely, the bout's over and the national anthem is sung, ruled unconstitutional, re-written, and re-played in time for the 2012 Olympics in London.)