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

[achilleus]

Again, from memory, it was a design flaw - not the Lexan (or whicever plastic was in use). The mask in question was of the 'goldfish' bowl type. As a consequence the plastic was weak in the centre and that is why we now have welding masks. I believe the shape was the problem. We are going back a bit and it's possible that my memory is not entirely clear - I just want to make that absolutely obvious before someone calls me a liar. It's also possible that the design flaw was overcome in later models - but I am not party to that information.

Definitely a desing flaw. 1 of 2 if I remember correctly. Either the lexan had holes drilled into it (for breathablity) or the shape of the lexan was altered after production to fit into the mask. The resulting tension weakend the lexan...

Yup, 2 design flaws that have been corrected. Don't you all feel safer now? Ignore the med commission report that are unsure about the masks over time. Ignore the worries of SEMI about being unable to test the masks...

Trust Roch.

[achilleus]

You're right, the promoters did not specifically ask for clear masks or no off-targets. No one is contesting that.

I'm sure they didn't ask for a lot of things but consideration was made and the transparent masks seemed, after review, to be one way to help bring audiences more in touch with the sport. No one here has ever said that research was done and the resulting panacea was only transparent masks and nothing else. It's one a number of options.

You seem to want documented evidence that something was on paper regarding the lack of marketability of fencing, since you refuse to believe the same story coming from numerous unrelated sources across the globe. I can't help you here - call ESPN or Eurosport if you want something on paper. Maybe Don Anthony at SwordPlay Studios in LA could help as well?

And here's the point. You have no proof that it's mandatory to save the our Olympic status. No promoter asked for it specifically. This is what the FIE 'thinks' will help us.

Don't refer to this as proof or evidence. It's not. It's an assumption.

I have no information on your first question (although in thinking about it I should have more) but I am sure the SEMI does, since they are the ones doing the testing. Contact them.

I did post something a while back about testing the Lexan mask and a resulting SEMI report.

As a precaution it has been mandated that shields be changed periodically, in addition to minimizing the scratching issue.

Yes, it is mandated that the shields change every two years, and not for scratching.

I've never met the guy, don't know what brand of mask he was using, nor do I know the circumstances, so I can't comment on it. It's nearly impossible to find any information on this Grand Prix (I get 6 hits back from Google), so I'm thinking story is way old, like from 1997. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Shortly, the mask has changed in design since the early years (with improved safety) so a story such as this holds almost no meaning for today's competitors and manufacturing processes.

It's old, but if I recall, after 97...closer to 2000.

During the time that Roch mandated the use of the masks for the round of 32 at WC's...

Unsafe, untested equipment required for our top competitors, what a ridiculous notion.

[nyacfencing]

I think we are all focusing our attention on the wrong subject(s).

Fencing is not alone in this situation. Many sports have had to make rule and equipment changes to increase their attractiveness to the mass market. The "purist" standpoint is one of dead sports. The only reason the current rules and equipment (you think they always used masks?) exist is because they fit well for the times in which they themselves were defined. Just like a good company, a sport must continually strive to redefine itself through improvement. This has always been done through experimentation.

If the mass market is telling us that clear masks will make our sport more popular, then that is fantastic! Clear masks (assuming they are safe) certainly do nothing to harm the game... if anything they improve it by returning it to a state closer to it's origins. And how many of you really think that those masks we use today are attractive to look at? The biggest question I get from non-fencers is "how do you see/breathe through that thing?". The difference is that you are used to them and feel comfortable with them.

Instead, we should all focus our attention on HOW to make these thing work. How about a post filled with suggestions on product improvements for clear masks? Or one with safety improvements? If we all focus our attention on taking this information on what will make our sport more popular and turning it into something really great, fencing will be the better for it.

[OROD]

And how many of you really think that those masks we use today are attractive to look at?

They look better then the current batch of "clear masks" which arent clear at all, they're half mesh half clear, and look more like a welding mask than anything else. At least the current masks have a simple design that is more esthetically pleasing.

Now, if they'd come up with a COMPLETELY clear mask where the entire front part was clear... then THAT would look really cool!


.

[Inquartata]

Flawed logic. I believe the term is slippery slope...

There are many rules that apply to the top 1% that don't filter down.

Take a look at some of the weapon tests, uniform logos, and sponsorship rules that apply at the Olympics.

Sorry, but you can make an argument for why you think it will filter down, but this doesn't mean that it will, or that the converse is true...

My last post was a joke. Dicto simpliciter was the fallacy I committed---yes, I slip up now and then. Fallacies are tenacious things, which is why eternal vigilance is necessary.

But then you too committed the same fallacy. I thought it was very...symmetrical.

Anyway, I pretended to misunderstand your point for the sake of the jest. Probably the deliberate misunderstanding of an argument ought to be in itself a fallacy...

[Inquartata]

There are many arguments against the mandatory adoption of the welder's mask. Some are more valid than others. But what it comes down to, for me, is the 'mandatory' part.

I don't care if the things are safe as houses. I don't care if they eventually become more affordable. I certainly don't care which company makes them, or what their business decisions regarding making them are. All I care about is this: I don't like them, and there is a perfectly safe and functional alternative---one which does NOT remove a part of the target area in sabre---presently in use which is now being, in effect, prohibited to certain fencers. Apparently the FIE has never heard of the maxim "If it ain't broke don't fix it"...

People who are always arguing for more "choice" in fencing---from colored lames to painted masks---ought to oppose the forced use of a particular item on aesthetic grounds alone. It forecloses choice, for no reason other than an unproven hope that it will somehow bring scads of TV money to the FIE.

[achilleus]

My last post was a joke. Dicto simpliciter was the fallacy I committed---yes, I slip up now and then. Fallacies are tenacious things, which is why eternal vigilance is necessary.

But then you too committed the same fallacy. I thought it was very...symmetrical.

Anyway, I pretended to misunderstand your point for the sake of the jest. Probably the deliberate misunderstanding of an argument ought to be in itself a fallacy...

Ah, yes, not knowing Latin I was confused...

Yes I see, you understood my point, but acted like you didn't. How...funny.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.



OK, now that I got the mandatory laugh out of the way, yeah, we all slip up. I understand you don't like the masks, but that's not a reason for them not to be required for GP's, WC's, and OG's. I mean, I don't like wearing a fencing jacket, but try entering a tournament without one. It's kind of difficult. And no, I don't think the masks will bring us loads of money, TV time, or popularity.

[Bran]

And here's the point. You have no proof that it's mandatory to save the our Olympic status. No promoter asked for it specifically. This is what the FIE 'thinks' will help us.

Don't refer to this as proof or evidence. It's not. It's an assumption.

For the second time, I agree with you. It's one of many ideas to help improve the sport.

And again I repeat - no one has any "proof", either. Just like a pharmaceutical company doesn't have proof until they go through Phase I-III stage tests.

nyacfencing, thank you for your well-reasoned post. It's refreshing to hear that some people are thinking of the sport's long-term health instead of just repeating the same old sneers ("it looks stupid" & "it's a welder's mask") with their arms folded.

[achilleus]

For the second time, I agree with you. It's one of many ideas to help improve the sport.

And again I repeat - no one has any "proof", either. Just like a pharmaceutical company doesn't have proof until they go through Phase I-III stage tests.

nyacfencing, thank you for your well-reasoned post. It's refreshing to hear that some people are thinking of the sport's long-term health instead of just repeating the same old sneers ("it looks stupid" & "it's a welder's mask") with their arms folded.

*Sigh*

It's you who don't get it.

NYAC said some great things, but really, you have to challenge the first assumption: Clear masks will get us TV time.

Any proof? I've yet to see it. In fact the only TV time the US got was when we had a shot at some medals. Was that because of the mask or the medals? Why is it that all the AP photos have fencers celebrating with masks off? Only 2 out of 50 photos shows the eyes of a fencer through the mask, and it's impossible to see any fencing action going on in the photos. Are they really that magical in getting coverage?


I'm all for making them work, but the first question that should be asked is:

Are they safe? The medical commission is still out on this.

So, before we even begin thinking about required for use, we need to be absolutely, 100% sure of their safety. Especially when a reliable atlernative is present.

Or are we still testing them for design flaws?

Really, I've said it before, I have no problem with them if they are safe. As of yet, I am uncovinced.

[Bran]

achilleus,

Don't get what?

I and my company have nothing to do with this "proof of telegeny". I am not an agent of the FIE, the IOC, the SEMI, ESPN, Eurosport, or any other promoter and have no say in their marketability decisions.

We are a retailer with some manufacturing operations. My company is therefore not a party to "telegeny" studies done with the Lexan mask or any other piece of equipment. We contact the SEMI when we seek FIE approval and that's about it.

What you must agree on is that after some review the FIE made a decision to use the masks. There must have been one or several reasons for their decision as I am sure it had to be founded on something. But I am not part of any of the above-listed organizations so I can't help you out any further than what I've already said in this and other threads.

Like I said before, if you want this purported "proof of telegeny" then contact these organizations. Their contact information is publicly available. I will not respond to these questions any longer as it simply doesn't pertain to my company (or any other retailer, I would assume).

Anyway, this is going nowhere so perhaps it'd be better if we all just focus on what fencers think is much more important. Y'know, dating among club members.

Good night.

Bran

[misha]

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?

I think there may be a reqirement for holding a World Cup that it has to be televsed (may be Senior ones)

It has to be shown at least on local TV

.

[achilleus]

achilleus,

Don't get what?

I and my company have nothing to do with this "proof of telegeny". I am not an agent of the FIE, the IOC, the SEMI, ESPN, Eurosport, or any other promoter and have no say in their marketability decisions.

We are a retailer with some manufacturing operations. My company is therefore not a party to "telegeny" studies done with the Lexan mask or any other piece of equipment. We contact the SEMI when we seek FIE approval and that's about it.

What you must agree on is that after some review the FIE made a decision to use the masks. There must have been one or several reasons for their decision as I am sure it had to be founded on something. But I am not part of any of the above-listed organizations so I can't help you out any further than what I've already said in this and other threads.

Like I said before, if you want this purported "proof of telegeny" then contact these organizations. Their contact information is publicly available. I will not respond to these questions any longer as it simply doesn't pertain to my company (or any other retailer, I would assume).

Anyway, this is going nowhere so perhaps it'd be better if we all just focus on what fencers think is much more important. Y'know, dating among club members.

Good night.

Bran

Classic.

I state 4 reasons why the mask is unpopular with fencers. You immediately write back 4 responses that supposedly knock down every point against I made, and finish it off with: Are we done with this crap.

And now, unable to back up your 4 points with anything than That's what I heard, you respond with the above?

Well, no one asked you any questions to begin with, and you really haven't provided us with any answers than what we've already heard through other sources, so I don't think we'll miss your input. Thanks for playing.

[Inquartata]

I understand you don't like the masks, but that's not a reason for them not to be required for GP's, WC's, and OG's. I mean, I don't like wearing a fencing jacket, but try entering a tournament without one. It's kind of difficult.

Oh, but it IS a reason, IMO.

Jackets are required for safety reasons. It is safer to fence with than without one. That is not the same criterion I apply to the masks. I am not complaining about having to wear a mask. I am complaining about having to wear a certain sort of mask---one which is only being required for aesthetic reasons, not for enhanced safety.

That said, even with jackets you still have a certain amount of choice: stretch or nonstretch, classic sabre cut ( in sabre ) or with cuissard, etc.

[Alex_Paul]

In the intrests of chilling out all the people I have riled up>>

I would say that it is nice to see that a fair portion of people do think that the masks are a good thing of they will help fencing stay in the olympics. I accept that the conditions of this poll do lead people to this conclusion by asking for certain assumptions however; it at leasts demonstrates some willingness to accept the masks if necessary.

Rather than posting about how they are a bad and terrible thing lets try to be a bit more productive (IMOHO it is too late to stop them from being imposed on elite level athletes) and look at ways we can improve the sports general appeal both to boost numbers and help keep our Olympic status.

Alex

[Gav]

This question has been raised before; why is it so important to keep our sport in the Olympics? There are plenty of sports that do just fine out of the Olympics. Additionally, where are the audiences cooing over the visored masks? There are none. And tinkering at the edges will not bring in more TV and/or Olympic coverage. It just won't. If the television companies are not interested then bastardising the sport will not make any difference. You'll just end up with something different that the existing membership [and surely they count?] do not want or like. This is not a rule change like banning the fleche from Sabre.

I have no problem with the visors - none at all - I just don't see why they need to be mandatory.

Reading the FIE's own published account of the IOC report; the problem is not with presentation. It is with rules implementation and interpretation.

Talking to a prominent member of the UK fencing community at the weekend I am under the impression that our sport has been mis-sold to the IOC.

[Mr Epee]

It's not exactly the same, but this reminds me a little of the NHL helmet requirements.

Back in the day, hockey players were not required to wear helmets. I think this is crazy and dangerous, but I am not a hockey player. I like the way I look, and I enjoy thinking coherently.

For whatever reason - many players did not want to wear the helmets.

The NHL phased in helmets with a grandfather system.

Players drafted after date X were required to wear helmet. Older players could wear a helmet, if they wanted, but were not forced to do so.

Today all players wear helmets.

[Inquartata]

Rather than posting about how they are a bad and terrible thing lets try to be a bit more productive (IMOHO it is too late to stop them from being imposed on elite level athletes) and look at ways we can improve the sports general appeal both to boost numbers and help keep our Olympic status.

Very well. Here's my way.

Rescind the requirement for Lexan masks. Rescind video review. Rescind reelless sabre, with it's clumsy and expensive forced purchases of equipment and conductive t-shirts. Rescind the foil timing changes, and possibly the sabre ones. Enact a moratorium on new changes to the sport, until we can be assured that the people in charge are thinking of the sport and those who engage in it, rather than of the wishes of IOC bureaucrats and TV executives and others wil dollar signs in their eyes ( IOW until M. Roch is gone at the very soonest ).

While we're at it, rescind the changes that allow for colored uniforms, lames and masks, and go back to the requirement of white uniforms.

You did ask.

[Inquartata]

This question has been raised before; why is it so important to keep our sport in the Olympics? There are plenty of sports that do just fine out of the Olympics. Additionally, where are the audiences cooing over the visored masks? There are none. And tinkering at the edges will not bring in more TV and/or Olympic coverage. It just won't. If the television companies are not interested then bastardising the sport will not make any difference. You'll just end up with something different that the existing membership [and surely they count?] do not want or like. This is not a rule change like banning the fleche from Sabre.

I have no problem with the visors - none at all - I just don't see why they need to be mandatory.

Reading the FIE's own published account of the IOC report; the problem is not with presentation. It is with rules implementation and interpretation.

Talking to a prominent member of the UK fencing community at the weekend I am under the impression that our sport has been mis-sold to the IOC.

Very well said indeed, sir. An admirable synopsis of a position with which I heartily concur!

[Alan]

If the mass market is telling us that clear masks will make our sport more popular, then that is fantastic!

And if the "mass market" or the IOC ask us to take drugs to be more telegenic should we follow them ???

Remember the surprising track and field records and performances in Atlanta compared to the following world events ?

[rudd]

I guess the big question is, do the FIE want to keep fencing in the Olympics for the good of fencing or the good of the FIE.