Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

counter riposte · 07-31-2002, 12:19 PM

Here is my take on this. WWF we are not. If people want to see battles with heavy weaponry, and color, they can go to Mideval Times and watch a show, or join the SCA for heavy weapon combat.

This is where two people bash each other with sticks wearing 17th century armor and kilts. Think of "A Knight's Tale" (An absolutely horrendous movie), the battle on foot competition, and you will get an idea.

Incidentally, we have seen this kind of flamboyance, color and battle in the movies, and there is a means to participate if so desired. Yet, we still don't see the SCA wars on television, commenting on fighing technique or style. If you have watched a heavy armoured duel (if you can call it that), you know that they simply bash each other in the head, arms and legs until one opponent acknowledges a fatal blow.

Kings, Queens, Knights, the royal court and all it's flamoyance is still not commonly known or televised.

That being said, what can be done to bring fencing to television? As you may have read in the "A thought..." string, there are a lot of debates as to whether or not fencing can ever become a mainstream sport. Some have argued that adding color, armor and an element of danger will help, yet the SCA, with all those elements does not get television exposure.

What are your thoughts? What can we do to get the gatekeepers at ESPN, Fox Sports and mainstream media components to notice us?

D'Artagnan1673 · 07-31-2002, 12:23 PM

I've never done too much with the SCA, so I cannot personally comment on whether or not there is a great deal of pagentry involved. I certainly agree with you that A Knights Tale was one of the worst movies ever made.

The more I think of it, I believe that with the proper camera angles and skill etc. that fencing could be a great event to watch on TV. I've got a professional quality tape from the 1989 World Championships in Denver. If you had a running comentary and more/better slow motion effects, maybe fencing would pick up in this country. Whenever I've thought about fencing on TV, I have been unable to think of fencing on TV as anything but our homemade tapes that people in the stands make that we watch. If these were professional jobs, I imagine that we might have a real nice package to show people.

veeco · 07-31-2002, 12:49 PM

In terms of camera angles, one thing that should be done right now:

- Stop showing the slow-mo actions like they are shown right now. They do not do justice to the fencing. Basically the slow mo used the way it is used now is useless. They show it from a too close angle.
That means that you either see one fencer completely and not the other, leaving one blade in the FOV with nothing attached to it. Or you get to see parts of both of the fencers' bodies, but you can't see the foot work and the blade work of both fencers at the same time.

Show more overhead shots. Those are great to see what's happening because viewers who don't know about parry 4 and 6 actually get to see them from those overhead shots.

Don't show the fencing from the director's point of view. Show it from an angle, to give perspective to the viewer, in the same idea as those overhead shots above, they allow the audience to see the actions of both fencers. Granted, they skew a little bit the perception of distance between the fencers, but let's leave that to the experts (that is the director).

Plus having this kind of angles skewing the perspective a little bit is sure to bring more excitement as people watching the video will scream at the director for a bad call that was actually correct from his point of view.

Stop showing those ridiculous angles where all you see is the fencer's feet for 15 secs.

Don't try to show fencing live at first. The people who are editing the footage will be able to do a much better job if they don't have the real time constraint. They will be able to see which angles work and which don't, what they can show and what they can't. Once they have learned they can show fencing live with more confidence that they won't be missing some of the crucial action.

The FIE should provide TV stations interested in showing fencing some sort of incentives (exclusivity rights of some sort).

The FIE should also provide those TV stations a guide on how to film fencing, with examples of shots that should not be done and examples of shots that can be done.

The FIE should also remove the rule saying that fencers cannot remove their mask without asking the director (it's not even enforced at all).

The FIE should finally allow for more time between touches to show slow-mo replays in different angles. This could be done by briefing the directors to give like 20 more secs of time before saying "en garde". This would prevent situations where the person editing the footage starts showing a slow-mo, and the director says "allez" during that slow-mo, and finally the spectators end-up missing a touch. This is confusing if you don't have good knowledge of fencing to see the score changed by 2 points when you only saw one touch.

We should show the director in an incrusted window (picture in picture) all the time, because they are the one who award the point (at least in ROW weapons). Or come up with some visual clues displayed after the touch that mimic the director's hand signals. That would help people who don't understand French or when there is too much noise from the audience to pick up what the director is saying.

[ 07-31-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: veeco ]

MikeHarm · 07-31-2002, 01:41 PM

One of the shows I used to like as a kid that helped get me into karate was Martial arts theater, where they showed martial arts flicks and in between they had karate lessons and stuff going on at a dojo, and fun skits and such. I think it would make a good tv show if you had something similiar with stuff like Zoro and cheesy old swordfighting movies if you had a fencing coach who was entertaining enough to be our Round Eyes.

[ 07-31-2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: MikeHarm ]

D'Artagnan1673 · 07-31-2002, 02:08 PM

Vecco had some excellent points.

My favorite was beyond a doubt the permission to remove the mask. They top dogs do it, I do it and there's never any question about it. I take that back to an extent. I had one touch where I took my mask off before the director called the action. He gave me a verbal warning and said that in larger tournaments I could get carded for that, red or black; I can't remember.

I like and a agree with a great deal of Vecco's ideas as far as camera angles etc.

JEC · 07-31-2002, 02:26 PM

You need at least 3, and preferably 5 cameras. I also agree that one of those cameras should be filming the director. The other 2 or 4 cameras should be on each side of the strip and at least 10-20 degrees above the fencer's shoulders. Using four cameras, you would be recording the movements of each fencer from both sides of the strip, and pick the angle that was best for that specific action.
Wouldn't that be a dream!

achilleus · 07-31-2002, 02:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:

The FIE should also remove the rule saying that fencers cannot remove their mask without asking the director (it's not even enforced at all).
<hr /></blockquote>That rule was removed a while back.

veeco · 07-31-2002, 04:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by achilleus:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:

The FIE should also remove the rule saying that fencers cannot remove their mask without asking the director (it's not even enforced at all).
<hr /></blockquote>That rule was removed a while back.<hr /></blockquote>My bad. There ya go! Good FIE! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Gav · 08-01-2002, 01:37 AM

Some good points from Veeco there. I particularly like the idea of showing the ref in a seperate box. Good idea that.

I also agree that tourneys shouldn't be shown live unless provision is made for those in the Editing suite. We shouldn't show an entire tourney live anyway [80% is fencers standing around chatting anyway].

As far as the camera's are concerned, you will definitely need multiple camera's per bout. However I read somewhere in another post about putting micro-camera's in the mask. It's a high tech idea but worth developing. My hope would be that it would out the spectator in the fencers shoes, you get to see where they are looking, the blade actions from their perspective and their view of their opponent. With the size of camera's these days it shouldn't even add too much to the weight of the mask. An wireless systems are in the offing to.

Gav · 08-01-2002, 02:03 AM

As for SCA well... It's just too Nerdy. Sorry for offending anyone but it is.

There is something fundamentally odd about people worshipping some romanticised view of the past. I know people into this sort of thing and well... their disdain of sport fencing [I hate that term] is really laughable. I have some respect for those investigating the history and techniques of the past. After all we have experimental archaeologists why not 'historical fencers'.

epeemike81 · 08-01-2002, 05:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
As far as the camera's are concerned, you will definitely need multiple camera's per bout. However I read somewhere in another post about putting micro-camera's in the mask. It's a high tech idea but worth developing.<hr /></blockquote>well, its not just an idea.... Ben Zivkovic actually makes a mask with a camera in it (for training purposes, he says.... yeah, right.

)

however, as an avid baseball fan, let me just say how much I HATE "Catcher Cam".... It just doesn't work very well.... the other angles are a LOT more helpful than that shot. And the catchers head moves to much. our eyes compensate for motion. when you get the images without the compensation, it is very disorienting. these same problems might occur with a mask cam in fencing.

-m

Catal · 08-01-2002, 06:06 AM

To be absolutely frank, the idea that fencing will become popular on television, anytime soon, is a pipe-dream. There is not enough money in fencing for adverstisers to pay the stations that would put fencing on tv. Even the major martial arts that make it to television in the US, are on at irregular intervals, and they have a much larger membership than fencing. 2 million people practice Tae Kwon Do in the U.S., that's JUST Tae Kwon Do; that's not counting the dozens of other martial arts in the U.S.. The USFA has roughly 16,000 members- that's so niche it's not even funny.

One could argue that putting fencing on television would breed more viewership, yet the XFL, which was based on an extreme version of a very popular American sport, went bankrupt within a short period, and that sport had the added "benefit" of cheerleaders who were just barely "R" rated; and you know that always raises viewership.

Fencing on TV, not gonna happen. Not soon, anyway.

D'Artagnan1673 · 08-01-2002, 09:22 AM

On the slow mo thing, maybe what we need is the white board where "Madden" draws all over explaining the situation.

" Obry drops low for a toe touch, but as you can clearly see, Vanky lifts his foot up just in time and launches a perfect fleche right on top of the hand "

Stuff like that would go a long way in making people understand precisely how these actions go. The speed of fencing is such that its hard even for a trained eye to get everything out of every touch. If we could just keep fencing TV afloat a short while, we'd see enough increase in fencers coming to keep things rolling.

One thing that fencing does have over the XFL is that people can go out and do it. Not too many people, imo, are going to go out and buy pads, helmet, etc. and start playing XFL. That would take a great deal of organization. On the opposite side of that coin, our TV station should advertise our vendors and give detailed instructions on how to find a local fencing club. We'd probably be so flooded that we couldn't handle all of them. Of course, a good number of them will quickly realize they aren't D'Artagnan,

, and quit because most people don't have the patience and attention span to learn fencing.

Purple Fencer · 08-01-2002, 03:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
As far as the camera's are concerned, you will definitely need multiple camera's per bout. However I read somewhere in another post about putting micro-camera's in the mask. It's a high tech idea but worth developing.<hr /></blockquote>well, its not just an idea.... Ben Zivkovic actually makes a mask with a camera in it (for training purposes, he says.... yeah, right.

)

however, as an avid baseball fan, let me just say how much I HATE "Catcher Cam".... It just doesn't work very well.... the other angles are a LOT more helpful than that shot. And the catchers head moves to much. our eyes compensate for motion. when you get the images without the compensation, it is very disorienting. these same problems might occur with a mask cam in fencing.

-m<hr /></blockquote>Drum Corps International had the "judge cam" at Nationals last year. it was a small camera on the hat of the field percussion judge. They theory being that the TV viewer could see what the judge was seeing. The only problem with any head mounted camera is when that person moves his head. In the one shot they used, Charlie Poole (the drum judge) was right in front of the snare line forthe corps on the field (Santa Clara Vanguard), but as he turned his head t look at technique up and down the line, the camera followed dizzingly fast. In reality, his eyes were more or less locked on one spot while his head turned. What he saw was MUCH clearer than what was broadcast.

I hope they don't use it this year...which means this coming week.

Bebop and Rocksteady · 08-01-2002, 06:04 PM

...Or we could try a George Carlin kind of approach and plant land mines on random spots on the strip. Even novice fencing would be fun to watch.

Inquartata · 08-01-2002, 07:14 PM

Some good ideas. I would object to the "wait longer between touches to let the TV camera crew do such-and-such" premise, though. We ought not to alter the fencing itself simply to make allowances for the media's needs. And the rhythm and pace of a bout would definitely be changed by longer pauses between touches.

Gav---I think that what you meant to say is that the SCA is "just too nerdy"...for you. It's not objectively so, IMO. ( Yes, BTW, I am "into that sort of thing" myself on occasion, though I neither romanticise it nor disdain sport fencing. The attitudes need not be inseparable. )

damianip · 08-01-2002, 07:33 PM

Many excellent ideas have come up here. Bravo to Veeco for his exposition.

Still the key for fencing to succeed on TV is to PUT IT ON TV!!!!

Put it on at 3:00 AM instead of the second rerun of women's nine ball from AC or the world aerobics championships. Give it a test. See if anyone tapes it or watches it. If it never gets shown, It'll never get watched.

The broadcasts from Eurosport are a good model. The John Madden idea is excellent (thought about that myself too).

More important than the broadcast format is the state of the venue. I've quite a few tapes from FencingFootage, and I have to say that many of the venues for WCs and WChs are amateurish at best and do not lend themselves to a clear presentation of the action.

By far, the best I've seen was the Sydney OG where the focus was clearly on the fencers, there was no distracting background, the obstructions were minimal and even the director was kept out of the audience's and TV cameras' range.

Paolo

Gav · 08-02-2002, 02:14 AM

Ahh Inq'! I'm merely speaking from experience. I've done my time in the nerd dungeons and I'm a self confessed geek.

We don't have SCA in the UK in the way that I've seen it described here, however there are parallel organisations. These groups [bizarrely IMHO] do disdain us Fencers and refer to us as sport fencers - a term I dislike. I do not hate these people, but whenever I come across them they try and engage me in conversation about medieval battle techniques and the like as if they know. They don't. The only way they will know is to 'have at it' with sharps, en masse or individually (depending on the group) and lets face it noone wants to do that for fun. The people who fill up these groups also tend, although thats not always the case, to look down on Fencing just as we look down on them. Some of them are ex-fencers so their disdain is all the more bizarre (or justified?).

[ 08-02-2002, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Gav ]

epeemike81 · 08-02-2002, 05:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by damianip:
Put it on at 3:00 AM instead of the second rerun of women's nine ball from AC or the world aerobics championships. Give it a test. See if anyone tapes it or watches it. If it never gets shown, It'll never get watched.<hr /></blockquote>What this reminds me of is the Outdoor games...

A while back, the outdoor games went to ESPN and said "what'll it take for us to get on ESPN?" ESPN told them that they could have the Sunday morning 6 AM time slot, but since ad revenues wouldn't be very high, the outdoor games would have to pay ESPN to air their show....

well, they did it, and the American public (or at least a certain group of it) enjoyed the games (go figure! I personally am NOT a fan, then again, I hate NASCAR too.)...

now they are on more weekend afternoons, and ESPN pays THEM for the rights.

Fencing could, I'm sure, do the same thing, but that requires quite a bit of capitol.

-m

The Crazy Wacker · 08-02-2002, 07:25 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by counter riposte:
Here is my take on this. WWF we are not. If people want to see battles with heavy weaponry, and color, they can go to Mideval Times and watch a show, or join the SCA for heavy weapon combat.

<hr /></blockquote>Or American Gladiators (if it still comes on?)