IF Lexan masks WILL save Fencing's Olympic status should... Please read post before!

[Alan]

It would be interesting to write to the IOC to check if they really have
said that without transparent masks fencing will be out of the Olympics ?

It would be interesting to know what Baron Pierre de Coubertin
would think about that ?

If you *really* want sports to be telegenic (yes it is a word)
why not ask for transparent bath suits in swimming and water polo ?

[KD5MDK]

quit knocking my sport.. if its not a part of your history you'll never get it.

I get it and I'm from Texas.

[veeco]

Please assume that:
- Lexan masks are safe (they have been passed by the FIE and medical commission but I don't want to get into an argument about their safety)
- There is a real danger that Fencing will be kicked out of the Olympics if we don't adopt Lexan masks.
- Loss of Olympic status would effectively halve the FIE's funding (this is fact as reported in their magazine)
- There are no plans to enforce their use at anything other than top level fencing.
- It is a good thing to stay in the Olympics!

You are basically asking us to make assumptions which cannot, at this point, be made. Of course we all want to stay in the Olympics, of course we want our masks to be safe. The point is that now they aren't. Once someone comes up with a design that is safe, looks good, and actually shows some benefits for both the fencers and the networks, then those masks will sell. For now, they won't.

The truth is, unless it can be reliably demonstrated that these masks provide some benefit to the *fencers*, they won't be worth our while.

[keith]

The truth is, unless it can be reliably demonstrated that these masks provide some benefit to the *fencers*, they won't be worth our while.

This is the thing - if the FIE had just waited and let someone win a world championship while wearing a lexan mask then people would have started buying the things - after all if the helped win a world champioship/olympic gold.....

Have a look at the shoes people wear - are the Stabils really the best shoes for epee or is it just that people think that if they buy a pair their fencing will suddenly improve?

Unless the FIE has contract signed in blood from the TV execs that they will show fencing once the masks are in use then this just seems like a pointless waste of money.

[achilleus]

Alex,

Those are some big assumptions.

I mean, the main objections to the lexan masks, besides they look stupid, is that no one thinks they are safe, will help us get on TV, or help us stay in the Olympics.

Oh, and the Stabils are the best fencing shoes available. I can go into details, but won't be party to a threadjacking...

[OROD]

If those masks are so freekin telegenic, how come welding isnt in the olympics???


.

[Mr Epee]

If those masks are so freekin telegenic, how come welding isnt in the olympics??? .

This year's welding olympics were held in Essen, Germany, in the middle of September.

Link

[OROD]

This year's welding olympics were held in Essen, Germany, in the middle of September.

Link

Holy f***ing Christ!

Oh well, I didnt watch them cause they have this white light that goes off when they weld where they're not supposed to... and it confuses me.


.

[Mr Epee]

Also, if you look directly at the action, without wearing goggles, you may become blind.

[Bran]

Alex,

Those are some big assumptions.

I mean, the main objections to the lexan masks, besides they look stupid, is that no one thinks they are safe, will help us get on TV, or help us stay in the Olympics.

etc., etc., etc. *yawn*

The "main objections":

1. "they look stupid": Personal opinion on equipment cosmetics and therefore invalid. I think some people's avatars look stupid.

2. "no one thinks they are safe": Not a single person? Prove it. Prove it to me, the SEMI, the FIE, manufacturers, GE, the Air Force, Honda, etc.

3. "will help get us on TV": See the thread with the article: "New Foil Timings being tested!" with the following:

"Promoters, like ESPN and Eurosport, have consistently asked the FIE to make the sport easier to watch for a casual viewer. In talking with the head of referees for the FIE, Arthur Cramer, he discussed that this is just one of the ideas that are being played around with the purpose of making fencing more telegenic.

“Having no white lights makes it easier for people to follow. People don’t have to wonder what the light is for” said Cramer. I also asked him to elaborate on other changes, like Lexan masks, which will be enforced next year during certain world cups. “Audiences want to see people’s faces, just like they did with astronauts. Astronauts used to have mirrored helmets, but now they have ones where they can see their faces.” While I don’t think NASA made see thru masks for television audiences, this is a consideration for marketability of the sport."

"Fencing is desperately trying to expand its niche, and ideas like wireless fencing and instant replay are a move in the right direction. If we don’t start soon, we could go the way of roller-derbies and indoor soccer: present, but not a factor in major sports."

4. "or help us stay in the Olympics": See point 3. Plus, you may have missed this thread: http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t17605.html

Are we done with this crap yet?

[grotto]

Alex,

I think most of the fencers here are honestly looking at the situation. None of us want the olympics to remove fencing. I think that the anti-lexan mood hear reflects the general doubt that the path tward TV is with lexan masks. it's kinda like having a performance car, not changing the oil, or tuning the engine. but instead buying a fancy carbon fibre airscoop to distract from the fact that the car runs like crap. Yes fencing could be easier to understand. with good trained commentators, standardized trained licensed refs. (not that the current refs are all bad.) a good house cleaning of the rules to remove unclear language. I think that these "under the hood" inprovements would help fencing much more than any fancy mask or inspector gadget lights.

Now if I KNEW all your assumptions are "true" I would reluctantly say ok that is the price to pay for olympic / world cup dreams.

[OROD]

etc., etc., etc. *yawn*

The "main objections":

1. "they look stupid": Personal opinion on equipment cosmetics and therefore invalid. I think some people's avatars look stupid.

2. "no one thinks they are safe": Not a single person? Prove it. Prove it to me, the SEMI, the FIE, manufacturers, GE, the Air Force, Honda, etc.

3. "will help get us on TV": See the thread with the article: "New Foil Timings being tested!" with the following:
...

1. They do look stupid. If you're trying to make an argument to the appeal of fencing to the public, then esthetics isnt irrelevent.

2. Doesnt matter if "a single person" thinks it's safe, most people dont think they're safe.

3. Cramer is full of sh!t about these masks making fencing more telegenic just like he is about getting rid of the off-target light. I think it's interesting that Cramer compares fencing with these masks to astronauts... that's just what fencing needs, for people to think of us as space cadets!


.

[Larrison]

Personal opinion follows --

In the US the key issue is growing the sport. Fencing is now a minor sport religated to the back of gymnasiums and basemenets. It is growing rapidly however, with some promise of being more substantial, and the fencers are growing in skill and capability. To continue this growth, and move fencing into a higher level in the US we need money, investment, and publicity.

Money can come from USOC funding, and from sponsors (other than from members). Investment needs to be made in training and development including elite national teams and local clubs and competitions, including coaching. Publicity comes with popularity and the backing of sponsors -- including major international sponsors such as the backers of the Olympics (TV coverage).

Is a potential requirement for Lexan masks at the penalty of losing Olympic status reasonable? It's not going to hurt, if it keeps the channel of funds from the USOC open.

*IF* the claims that the visor masks increase the public appeal of fencing, that might help with fencing's growth -- which is good. But I don't think visor masks by themselves are going to increase public exposure of fencing. You need to show fencing on TV first, before you can consider that visor masks help! *IF* visor masks are being mandated by the FIE and the sport promoters (ESPN, Eurosport), then we should push for a quid pro quo and ask for increased fencing coverage on TV in major markets in exchange for such a rules change.

In the US however, I don't think visor masks are going to increase coverage. I think having some US teammembers in the finals, and then having having some consistent judging and timings and having some knowledgable color commentators is going to be critical. So other than a small minority of elite fencers, this is going to be not a bit difference, other than possibly keeping one source of funding open.

But... its going to increase the gap between elite fencers and the vast majority of sport fencers. Moving the requirement down to lower level competitions is going to increase the cost of fencing to an individual which is always negative. If I had to buy a visor mask, that would hurt financially -- but I could do it.

[achilleus]

etc., etc., etc. *yawn*

The "main objections":

1. "they look stupid": Personal opinion on equipment cosmetics and therefore invalid. I think some people's avatars look stupid.

Yup. I agree with this.

2. "no one thinks they are safe": Not a single person? Prove it. Prove it to me, the SEMI, the FIE, manufacturers, GE, the Air Force, Honda, etc.

Well, in another thread, someone posted the medical commission's report that voiced concern over the safety of these masks. Members of the SEMI are still concerned about being able to test the masks...

As for the Air Force, Honda, etc... They have different requirements and uses for Lexan than fencing masks, so it really isn't applicable. Kinda like using kevlar to protect against a knife when it isn't designed to do that...

3. "will help get us on TV": See the thread with the article: "New Foil Timings being tested!" with the following:

"Promoters, like ESPN and Eurosport, have consistently asked the FIE to make the sport easier to watch for a casual viewer. In talking with the head of referees for the FIE, Arthur Cramer, he discussed that this is just one of the ideas that are being played around with the purpose of making fencing more telegenic.

“Having no white lights makes it easier for people to follow. People don’t have to wonder what the light is for” said Cramer. I also asked him to elaborate on other changes, like Lexan masks, which will be enforced next year during certain world cups. “Audiences want to see people’s faces, just like they did with astronauts. Astronauts used to have mirrored helmets, but now they have ones where they can see their faces.” While I don’t think NASA made see thru masks for television audiences, this is a consideration for marketability of the sport."

"Fencing is desperately trying to expand its niche, and ideas like wireless fencing and instant replay are a move in the right direction. If we don’t start soon, we could go the way of roller-derbies and indoor soccer: present, but not a factor in major sports."

Again, someone asked for proof about the med commission, and a report was posted. A quote from head of referees who mentions that promoters want fencing easier to understand isn't proof.

Also, there is no proof that these changes will make fencing more telegenic.

If you take a look at this thread you'll see people posting ideas aobut how to make fencing more telegenic without altering the safety or rules of the sport. Is that proof that we can make fencing more marketable without these changes?

4. "or help us stay in the Olympics": See point 3. Plus, you may have missed this thread: http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t17605.html

Again, you have proof that any of these specifc changes will actually keep us in the Olympics? Or is it just something based on what someone else who talked to someone else tells you?

Are we done with this crap yet?

If you can offer proof besides just quoting Roch, then we can be done. But here in the US, we've learned that just because you say that Iraq has WMD's doesn't mean it's true.

[fencergal33]

I totally agree. The increase of cost to the little guy coupled with the further separation of the elite from the regular fencer means death to our sport. If we want fencing to grow, making it telegenic is not the only thing we should be concentrating on. What about the grass roots level? If we want fencing to truly grow, we need to start at the bottom. Just like there are karate school (and the like) in every town......there should be fencing schools. If your club is relegated to the back of gym, or the basement in a YMCA, recruit! The more people try fencing, the more members our clubs have, and hence, the more money we can spend on tournaments and exposure to the general public.

More people = more exposure

[veeco]

"Promoters, like ESPN and Eurosport, have consistently asked the FIE to make the sport easier to watch for a casual viewer. In talking with the head of referees for the FIE, Arthur Cramer, he discussed that this is just one of the ideas that are being played around with the purpose of making fencing more telegenic.

Are you sure it is the promoters who are asking the FIE to make the sport easier to watch, or is it the FIE who's asking the promoters: "How can we put our sport on TV?"

It may sound the same, but it is very different: in the first case, the promoters have actually expressed an interest in fencing and putting it on TV. They would like to try.

In the other case, the FIE might just be throwing away a lot of energy and money trying to reach a goal that might not be attainable.

I think that we're in the second case, and that this is a waste of time and valuable efforts that could be spent developing the sport in a better, more efficient manner. Once we have the same user base as soccer, then we will get interest from the TVs. Until then, we should focus on getting more people fencing.

Or to use your words:

Are we done with this crap yet?

[I_luv_saber]

What is the point in raising both the safety issue (which I have asked you to forget)

This is a bogus poll. This is purely hypothetical. Assuming Stalin was NOT a murderer, and he did not pursue his agenda the way he did, and assuming Russia would have collapsed without him, was Stalin a good thing?

You are asking people to forget EXTREMELY important issues, that would influence their vote. The point is, there IS a safety issue, among others. As for assuming lexan masks will keep us in the Olympics, your pretty much answering your own question. These are all issues, and it serves no purpose to pretend like they don't exist.

[Alan]

I wonder if the whole thing "use lexan masks or loose the Olympics"
is not an urban legend invented by King René to impose his "ideas".

They are many other sports with much uglier suits or in which
the eyes of the participants cannot be seen.

[I_luv_saber]

Here are my (and probably others) issues with these masks.

1) I am not convinced on the safety issue. I'm sure they are perfectly safe to begin with, but what about with time? How are they to be tested? Are there even any rules established as to the testing of these things?

2) I am most certainly not convinced this will help fencing on a popularity level. My family watched the fencing at the last Olympics, and really didn't seem to like it more because of the masks. I think these are destroying an image fencing already has, to try and make it more "flashy". I have yet to here a convincing argument in their case.

3) They really aren't very cost effective are they? If you make a loss/break even on each one, this is not a good thing for vendors, and this will probably be passed on to the low-level fencers indirectly. This will reduce popularity in my opinion.

The fencing community pushing these, are getting ahead of themselves. First, get more fencers to begin with!!! example: Used to be, you could never find much racing on TV (I'm in central CA). They got more kids into it, started more clubs, THEN got TV. Next, you need to really find out if people give a damn about these at all. I have heard no non-fencers say how much better-looking they are. If they do boost popularity, then please make them safe, and ways to keep it that way/test it, over time, before making them mandatory.

[fencergal33]

[QUOTE=I_luv_saber]

1) I am not convinced on the safety issue. I'm sure they are perfectly safe to begin with, but what about with time? How are they to be tested? Are there even any rules established as to the testing of these things?
QUOTE]


The FIE/USFA/whoever can claim they are safe all they want, but I have first hand knowledge of the opposite. I know someone who was on the olympic squad about ten years ago when these things were first brought out for trial. This guy has a big crack in the front of his. I don't think you could pay me to put one on.