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

[Mr Epee]

Science has not improved in 10 years.

[Joan of Ark]

In baseball, are catchers less of a figure because of their mask. Or in hockey, are goalies less of a "personality"?, or do they have less TV appeal because of their masks? Sorry, I do not buy your argument (or Roch for that matter) that Lexan masks are going to save the sport.

Haven't read the whole thread, just to warn you.
Also american football. More people watch that than anything and All of them wear helmets with the little thingy in the front. You can't really see their faces. I don't watch football- I wouldn't know, but I can guess. I don't really think that the Lexan masks will save the sport, but I'm willing to put up with it if it does.
On the question of safety, how do they check the masks? I know with the other ones they do the punch test (which, by the way, hurts really bad if you try it on your hand ).

[KD5MDK]

I'll admit to being a little confused how something that is required at World Cups and Grand Prix is going to make fencing hard to afford for the average fencer.

[Inquartata]

Because these things tend to trickle down. First it was only the Olympics. Then, World Cups also. Then, Veteran World Championships also. Now watch while the countries which already require FIE 800N clothing and masks and FIE blades also adopt universal requirements to use these masks at all competitions and in clubs. Then watch as the pernicious things spread even further, as they acquire that "The elite uses them so I want one" cachet. Then watch as even those who dislike them feel compelled to use them so as to become accustomed to them, for when they get good enough to be required to use one...

Anyway, though, my compliments to Alex for playing Devil's advocate. This is an admirable thing to do, in the view of a curmudgeon---it's a sad curmudgeon who only attacks already unpopular phenomena...the prevailing opinion must be pooh-poohed as well on occasion, or one risks being drummed out of the union.

In answer to your question, Alex, IF all of your assumptions were demonstrated to be correct then I would have to say "yes".

Of course, I'll bet that I could write a question so slanted that you would have to answer "Yes, I would kiss your a** in Macy's front window at noon", too.

At any rate, I still do not accept several of those assumptions. But you knew that.

[mrbiggs]

The "main objections":

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

Well, seeing as that all the arguments for them are "they look good" (or telegenic, or modern, or whatever) I'd say that it is a valid argument, because if it is correct, it makes the masks worthless.

[esskreemr]

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.

Hmmm... didn't he pretty much admit that in the last Escrime magazine?

Alan, you have affronted his honesty and integrity. Why stop there? It's time you take one for the team. Write a letter to the FIE officially challenging Roche to a duel. Victor chooses the path of fencing for the next ten years. You could sit idly by but why? Fencing's rich history offers a ready-made solution for determining who is right in this situation. Let the Law of Steel decide this matter once and for all!

[Alex_Paul]

I am most chuffed with my efforts at steering the conversation about see through masks in a more positive and productive direction! Thank you to all of the contributors

I know the poll is slanted and it was done very deliberately! I don't really believe it was any more slanted than the polls along the lines of "should people be forced to wear lexan masks?" which have been posted without any further explaination (eg the fact that that it affects only a few athletes etc...).

I do accept that the assumptions are very big BUT what I am trying to do is make people think like the FIE so that they can understand why the masks have been implemented in a hurry.
Personally:
- I am not convinced that they will get us more airtime
- I am not convinced that they will save our Olympic status
- I don't like making them because they are pain in the backside and hugely unprofitable (we make more profit on a standard 350 Newton mask despite the high price of the Lexan mask. In fact they are made by our MD Barry and if you cost out his time properly I am sure that we make a loss on every one that we sell!)
- I do believe they are safe
- I do believe that they provide a competitive advantage
These are my personal opinions.

I would like to raise a few points with some of the contributors to the thread:
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that they had seen one break 10 years ago. Eh...? There has been a lot of development since then but I can appreciate that once you have seen something like that nothing will convince you otherwise.

Is there a long term way to test these masks well yes and no... In the USA you use a punch test. This is something I have never seen administered anywhere else, IMOHO masks don't need to be punch tested to prove their safety. There is a full and rigorous test procedure laid out by the FIE which is the same as the one for normal masks with many additions to cater for the addition of the lexan. I can't speak for other manufacturers but our masks have been on sale for nearly 6 years and we have not had a single faliure. Not even a hairline fracture in the lexan. I believe they are safe, if I did not I would not sell them!

Saying that they look stupid is personal opinion. Most footage and media coverage I have seen recently has involved see through masks. I do think they add a bit of a modern twist on the sport.

Someone mentioned that we should be increacing the popularity of fencing at grass roots level and this is a very good point but I don't think it is relevant in the whole Lexan mask debate. Lexan masks are, I believe being, implemented to save our Olympic status and the issue of improving the popularity of fencing is a seperate one.

There clearly are other ways that Fencing can be made more accessible to TV veiwers but if someone somewhere has asked for certain changes such as Lexan, Wireless and no white light then that would certainly be a good explaination for the rushed changes we are seeing implemented.

You will never get anyone from the IOC to admith they have aver said ANYTHING!! You will also be very unlikley to get anyone from a tv company to promise more coverage.

All we can do is our best to make Fencing as TV friendly as possible (an I am not saying thet the FIE are doing this in necessarily the best way but they are trying) and hope that we are not booted out of the Olympics.

END RANT

[KD5MDK]

Because these things tend to trickle down. First it was only the Olympics. Then, World Cups also. Then, Veteran World Championships also. Now watch while the countries which already require FIE 800N clothing and masks and FIE blades also adopt universal requirements to use these masks at all competitions and in clubs. Then watch as the pernicious things spread even further, as they acquire that "The elite uses them so I want one" cachet. Then watch as even those who dislike them feel compelled to use them so as to become accustomed to them, for when they get good enough to be required to use one...

Well, I think there is a difference between the requirements of adoption of safety gear and the lexan masks, which have an entirely different objective. Now, I understand the issues with Veterans WCs and such. However, in general I do not think that anything affecting less than 1% of fencers will cause real harm to the sport, any more than doping control has eliminated all of our abilities to get medical treatment.

Alex - You mentioned the unique use of the punch test in the US. I believe this probably stems from the absence of formal enforced standards for US equipment, thus each tournament needs a way of verifying that the mask presented meets a common standard.

[Alan]

Hmmm... didn't he pretty much admit that in the last Escrime magazine?

!

And you believe him ?

Remember his reaction in Seoul ?

[Alan]

You will never get anyone from the IOC to admith they have aver said ANYTHING!! You will also be very unlikley to get anyone from a tv company to promise more coverage.

SO we should follow the elucubrations of His Majesty because
there is a rumor than nobody can confirm that fencing status at the Olympics is in danger ???

I don't believe fencing status is in danger. The Olympics credibility would be in danger if they begin to stop such basic sports !!!

[JEC]

I disagree with the emphasis placed in Alan's messages, and Alex, I did read your message, but didn't agree with many portions.

Every sport at the olympics receives periodic evaluations. We have seen the link from the report of the olympic committee regarding fencing. The first one is a large PDF documents, while the second is relatively small PDF.
http://www.olympic.org/common/asp/do...953.pdf&id=953
http://www.olympic.org/common/asp/do...813.pdf&id=813

There is actually a section in the Olympic committee website for:
"Sports of the past".
Tug of war, rugby, polo, lacrosse, and golf were once on the Olympic programme. Have a closer look at these sports and discover others that have become a part of Olympic history."
http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp

The SUMMARY of the OLYMPIC EVALUATION showed:

SUMMARY - FIE

• Fencing enjoys a strong tradition on the Olympic Programme, having been staged at every Olympic Games (25 times) since 1896.
• Fencing is currently on the programme of the Pan American Games, Asian Games and Universiade.

UNIVERSALITY
• The FIE has 115 Member National Federations, all of which correspond to one of the 202 NOCs. Membership is low in Africa and Oceania.
• The FIE has a high number of active Member National Federations, with 95% organising national championships in 2003-2004.
• A low number of Member National Federations took part in the qualifying events for the Athens 2004 Olympic Games in Africa and Oceania.
• A low number of Member National Federations took part in the last Continental Championships in Africa and America. There are no Continental Championships in Oceania.

POPULARITY
• Low number of hours of television coverage and fairly low number of prime time viewer hours per day of competition during the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.
• Low number of press articles published during the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.
• The FIE reports a low number of countries which paid for TV rights for the last two World Championships.

IMAGE AND ENVIRONMENT
• The FIE Executive Committee has a female membership of 17%.
• Judging has a high level impact on the result of a fencing bout. While the FIE’s efforts to improve the quality and credibility of the overall judging system are noted, the fact that different criteria are applied in the judgement of scores across the three weapons raises concerns and makes the results between the different weapons harder to understand.
• The FIE has as one of its goals to achieve a major improvement in refereeing standards and objectivity. Improvements in the standards of training and evaluation of the referees as well as the use of video evidence are two areas that will be the focus in 2005.
• The FIE has acted to improve the public image of the sport through a number of initiatives, e.g. transparent mask, piste design and team “relay” competition formats.

ATHLETE WELFARE
• The FIE Athletes’ Commission has been formed, comprising members appointed by the FIE and members elected by their peers. The Commission has a consultative role, without participation or voting rights.
• Two (0.13%) of the 1,494 total number of anti-doping tests reported in 2003 resulted in Anti-Doping Rule violations.

DEVELOPMENT
• The FIE has a high reliance on Olympic revenues (55.6%) whilst 32.3% of its income comes from marketing and broadcasting.

COSTS
• Television production costs are low.

If you read the report, you find out that (page 43):

"TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS ON THE FIELD OF PLAY

Judging has a high impact on the result of a fencing bout.

Judging in epée bouts is described as being 90% objective, as most decisions are made by the signalling system.
...
In foil and sabre bouts the judge takes on a more significant role, controlling the bout and deciding on the convention of priority when two hits occur simultaneously. ... Judging in foil and sabre bouts is described as being 50% objective, as the priority of a hit is decided by the judge, not by the signalling system.

Transparent masks is something the FIE offered to improve image. The IOC evaluated Refeering a bigger problem just based in the amount of space devoted to the issue in the report.

[Alan]

Judging in epée bouts is described as being 90% objective, as most decisions are made by the signalling system.
...
In foil and sabre bouts the judge takes on a more significant role, controlling the bout and deciding on the convention of priority when two hits occur simultaneously. ... Judging in foil and sabre bouts is described as being 50% objective, as the priority of a hit is decided by the judge, not by the signalling system.

It does not justify to pervert foil.
Better training of the referees and better pedaggogy of the TV commentator
may be.

Transparent masks is something the FIE offered to improve image.

1) It should have consulted the fencers before doing such a non sense proposition.

2) That does not in any case justify to make them compulsory.
The fencers should decide by themselves.
If they are so good, they will use them !

[Gav]

Why are you arguing with JEC - he's on your side in this.

[swordsen]

The whine factor on this foil timing/mask issue is almost equaling that of the elimination fo the fleche from saber. Not quite there yet but it is getting close.

[yeoldearmourer]

Alex

We do the punch test to cover ourself because the rule states that there is such a test. It's to cover the USFA and the armourers. If ask to do a small tourement. I do the punch test. We have sue happy lawyers. If a leon paul mask failed in a tourement in the US they will started with the local armourer upto and includeing Leon Paul in there lawsuit. I have felt like the lexan mask for WC and Olympic is fine.

[sabreur]

If this discussion is actually about keeping fencing in the Olympics, then I ask, as I have any number of times before, for some scientific marketing research that shows what will or will not make fencing more attractive to TV audiences.

No one, as far as I know, has done any such research.

We continue to have fiddles with the sport that are based on hunches, intuition, idle observations of Spanish fascists (as far as I know, Samaranch was the originator of many of the improvements plaguing our sport, including wireless fencing, no off-targets in foil, and the welding mask).

If we are going to dick with the sport for the purpose of improving its appeal to the great unwashed, then it seems to me that we owe it to the sport, its tradition and its practitioners, to at least make sure that the changes we make actually will have the desired effect. It is not that difficult to do good market research. Personally, I'm not necessarily in favor of changes that keep fencing in the Olympics or make it more interesting to the great unwashed. But if those are your justifications for the changes, THEN DO THE GODDAMNED RESEARCH. Then publish it, so people can debate the issues based on some actual reliable data.

MR

[I_luv_saber]

Someone mentioned that we should be increacing the popularity of fencing at grass roots level and this is a very good point but I don't think it is relevant in the whole Lexan mask debate. Lexan masks are, I believe being, implemented to save our Olympic status and the issue of improving the popularity of fencing is a seperate one.

umm... that doesn't make much sense to me. Increasing the popularity of fencing on a grassroots level IS relevant to this debate. This argument is that we could be spending our time and money on more important things than clear masks. And, as others have said, just saying that they increase popularity does not make it so. Personally, I think it has an adverse affect, but that's just me. Aside from people in high places, I've heard no one advocate these because they look so snappy, or make it more telegenic in any way.

I'll admit to being a little confused how something that is required at World Cups and Grand Prix is going to make fencing hard to afford for the average fencer.

Well, I agree with Inq on the trickle down effect, but in a different way. Seems to me if as Alex says they make much less money making these, that ain't good for business, and prices could reflect that.

[Inquartata]

in general I do not think that anything affecting less than 1% of fencers will cause real harm to the sport, any more than doping control has eliminated all of our abilities to get medical treatment.

Do you buy the converse of that argument? The one that says that international results ( which also "affect less than 1% of fencers" ) HELP the sport?

I don't think we can have it both ways. I don't think we can selectively decide which things that apply to a tiny minority of fencers are good for fencing and which aren't, based only on that aspect. If small numbers alone are a factor in identifying what affects the sport, then nothing a few elite fencers do or use can either help or hurt fencing. So we don't really need to devote all the resources we do to elite results---not even the Olympics. If things that affect only a few fencers ARE important, then we cannot reject the mask issue out of hand on those grounds.

[noahz]

Are we done with this crap yet?

I want to know too: are we done with this crap? Fencing will become popular when promoters market the sport better by making elite athletes quasi-celebrities and by having professionally produced television coverage (which is only a matter of money, by the way) -- not through making everyone wear some silly-looking mask.

As for safety -- about five years ago at summer nationals, Zivkovic Sr. showed me his Lexan mask (he was so proud of it!) along with signed correspondence(!!!) from King Roch promising that the masks would soon be mandatory at all WC events. Skeptical, I asked him how safe it was, and he told me "you can be wearing that mask, and I'll fire a .357 point blank at your face and nothing will happen!" I told him: how about you wear the mask and I'll shoot the gun, and we'll have a deal.

Six months later at the Montreal Grand Prix, Eric Schreki was bellowing "merde!" and drop-kicking the lexan mask prototype across the gym. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Of course, it would be interesting to see if the design has changed at all since then, or if the manufacturers have just gotten a better "sales pitch" (from the length of Bran and Alan's postings, it looks like the later).

Bottom line is that Alan Paul and my buddy Bran here are chomping at the bit for Lexan masks to become mandatory for everybody so they can start selling them at $300-$400 a pop. But hey, I'm a reasonable guy -- let's make the lexan masks mandatory only when the event is televised - but if it's not a televised event, they shouldn't be required. Deal?

And while I'm at it, I just want to add that the approach the FIE seems to be taking with foil lately is of the "bomb the village into oblivion in order to save it" variety. If -- in order to "stay in the Olympics -- foil has to be turned into a charade of two guys ducking their heads down while rushing to hit first, only to have the light not go off 50% of the time because of some stupid "debounce" bull**** -- then I say we don't need to be in the stupid Olympics.

And won't somebody please tell me that the thing about eliminating double-touches in epee is a joke!!!!!!!11111one

[achilleus]

Do you buy the converse of that argument? The one that says that international results ( which also "affect less than 1% of fencers" ) HELP the sport?

All squares are rectangles.
The converse statement is not true.

Sorry, but in many instances, the converse argument just doesn't hold water.