Fencing - a spectator sport?

[jrgunn]

My 2 cents,
Fencing and fencers need to get over this ridiculous idea that we are an "elite" sport. That attitude is what keeps us out of the public eye, in that it keeps those who would otherwise do so from creating a more public spectator friendly event structure (excuse me while I get onto my well worn soap-box).
Ahem.... places for spectators to sit where they can see the floor, (they're called "stands"); live commentary, audience friendly large displays showing pool results and DE flow charts changing in real time (we have the technology); scheduling and staffing pools to roughly start and end at the same time, followed by a 20 minute pause before DE's to give an audience the chance to visit concessions, bathroom, etc. In show business, this is called "stage management".
The arguments that fencing can't be enjoyed by John Q Public because of its arcane nature are falacious. I believe that someday it will truly come into its own.

[dcmdale]

I'm going to play the heretic here.

I am going to claim that the average person in the stands at most sporting events has almost no clue what is going on in front of them: they see a ball go through a basket, but they don't have a clue how it was set up; they see a hit to right-center, but they don't know how the batter accomplished it; they see a receiver catch the ball, but they don't see how the defense was cleared out. Commentators obviously help in educating the TV viewers, but it takes multiple exposures and the audience still doesn't know a triple axel from a double toe loop. Having competed before also helps, but most fans in most sports have never competed at enough of an organized level to know the professional game.

What spectators *do* understand when they come to an event that really wants spectators is where to sit to see the action, what the score is, whether they are watching a warm-up or the real thing, and who they should be rooting for.

If somebody wanders in off the street to most fencing competitions, you will see them hang around the door for a few minutes unsure whether they are even allowed in. If they do come in, they usually won't see any place they are supposed to sit and watch from (if they even find a chair to sit in). They will see lots of people moving around the venue seeming to know what they are doing, but what it is that they are doing is anybody's guess. They will see fencing-kind-of-stuff going on the strips, but in an almost completely random way depending on whether they stopped to watch people warming up, or in pools, or DE's (how would they know which?). The A level gold medal epee bout could be going on next to 3 strips of foil pools and nobody will say, "Watch that one!" We package fencing for expedient fencing, not for spectators.

I've brought any number of non-fencers to competitions. It is more difficult to walk them through the structure of the tournament and move them from strip to strip and locate places that they can see from than to explain what they need to know to enjoy the fencing.

Pools are invariably boring to spectators.

However, a 14-14 bout to get into the medal round, if you have someone you are rooting for, is as exciting a situation as 4th/goal in football; bottom of the 9th, 2 out, and man on third in baseball; or half-court basket at the buzzer in basketball. I thought I was going to have to give CPR to a family friend in Sacramento when my daughter and her opponent doubled three times at 14-14 (coming back from 11-13) before winning to get into the top 8.

IMHO--People watch sports for adrenaline and good feelings, not because of a strong connection to the sport.

Note--I would hate it if every local competition we went to catered to spectators because it would take forever to run in a spectator-friendly manner. But if we want spectators, at least those competitions need to pay attention to what the experience is.

[eze]

I agree, but I don't think fencing achieves even that level of visual satisfaction for the non-fencing viewer. Unless it is one touch, one light-I would say that most scoring touches are imperceptable to a novice audience. You could know aboslutely zero about basketball-and still know the ball went through the hoop almost each and every time. Sure, zoom, slow motion, and instant replay are enhancements (some would say) to watching popular sports-but they are almost always not essential to viewing these sports. Even in the nosebleed seats, you can usually figure out that a touchdown is scored or a home run is hit.

Needing amazing visual acuity (and a rulebook) to enjoy even the most basic element of the sport, a scoring touch, is never going to make fencing even remotely enticing for the average sports fan.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I'm going to play the heretic here.

I am going to claim that the average person in the stands at most sporting events has almost no clue what is going on in front of them: they see a ball go through a basket, but they don't have a clue how it was set up; they see a hit to right-center, but they don't know how the batter accomplished it; they see a receiver catch the ball, but they don't see how the defense was cleared out.

[schlager7]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

What spectators *do* understand when they come to an event that really wants spectators is where to sit to see the action, what the score is, whether they are watching a warm-up or the real thing, and who they should be rooting for.

If somebody wanders in off the street to most fencing competitions, you will see them hang around the door for a few minutes unsure whether they are even allowed in. If they do come in, they usually won't see any place they are supposed to sit and watch from (if they even find a chair to sit in). They will see lots of people moving around the venue seeming to know what they are doing, but what it is that they are doing is anybody's guess. They will see fencing-kind-of-stuff going on the strips, but in an almost completely random way depending on whether they stopped to watch people warming up, or in pools, or DE's (how would they know which?). The A level gold medal epee bout could be going on next to 3 strips of foil pools and nobody will say, "Watch that one!" We package fencing for expedient fencing, not for spectators.

I've brought any number of non-fencers to competitions. It is more difficult to walk them through the structure of the tournament and move them from strip to strip and locate places that they can see from than to explain what they need to know to enjoy the fencing.

I agree, absolutely.

If the semi-finals and finals were scheduled so that, no matter how early the rest of the event ended, those bouts would start at specific times that people could plan an afternoon/evening around...

If there was good seating with a clear view of the action...

If there was a commentator (or a miked referee) giving audible calls so just enough of the action could be followed...

THEN you might develop an audience.

(It would also be nice if defeated fencers didn't leave before it was over, too.)

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by eze

I agree, but I don't think fencing achieves even that level of visual satisfaction for the non-fencing viewer. Unless it is one touch, one light-I would say that most scoring touches are imperceptable to a novice audience. You could know aboslutely zero about basketball-and still know the ball went through the hoop almost each and every time. Sure, zoom, slow motion, and instant replay are enhancements (some would say) to watching popular sports-they are almost always not essential to viewing these sports. Even in the nosebleed seats, you can usually figure out that a touchdown is scored or a home run is hit.

Admittedly, my daughter fences epee.

Were I to try to explain ROW to a non-fencer that I brought to a competition, I would tell them simply that the lights meant somebody hit and that the raised hand indicated who got the point. (Assuming that the director actually raises his hand... grrr!).

Were I trying to actually stage a spectator friendly ROW bout, the lights as we know them would probably be positioned less obvious to the crowd and some mechanism (lights, announcer, something) that the director controlled would indicate decisions. There are somewhat analogous issues with "touchdowns" being called back in football or fouls on the shot in basketball.

[Gav]

You guys are aware that we have debated this very same topic over and over and over and over ...

I would be tempted to close this thread and redirect the participants to the search function.

Some thoughts from reading through some of these points.

I see the same arguments trotted out over and over. "Fencing is not understandable to the laymen"; "Fencing is not 'televisual'"; "Fencing is too quick to watch on television" etc etc etc

It's clear to me that the vast majority of people who make these comments have not watched a lot of high level fencing, been exposed to high level fencing or experienced the quality (or lack thereof [controversial]) of refereeing at high level events. Clear these people have not been exposed to this sort of event. May I make some recommendations:

1. Do a search and read a few of the comments that have been made on this topic already.
2. Go to www.fencingchannel.tv and watch a couple of samples. In fact get yourselves a set of the world championship DVDs.
3. Once you have watched them (they are worth the outlay - particularly the ME final) try getting your friends to sit around and watch them. I find that the layman likes Sabre (it looks like Star Wars)*. Put on beer and crisps (ok - 'chips' to you Americans) that will help. Get them discussing it. You should be surprised at how 'into it' people can get - even though they don't really understand the rules.
4. I would hope that your friends get to appreciate high level fencing a bit more.

The problem is lack of exposure - not the sport of Fencing itself. People are not exposed to it; they are not brought up in a culture which prepares them for it from an early age. Compare this with the 'big' fencing nations were fencers are treated as proper athletes and fencing is regularly on television. This problem will go away once/if fencing eventually has a large group of participants. What you need are a lot of people taking part - fencing is currently a minority sport in the US and UK.

Final note: The world of Fencing is more than the world of America. There are well produced TV fencing events which attract an audience - perhaps just not in America. One day that will change, you have to grow the sport first.

* All those flashy lights and people shouting at each other.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Gav

I find that the layman likes Sabre (it looks like Star Wars)*. Put on beer and crisps (ok - 'chips' to you Americans) that will help. Get them discussing it.... ....Final note: The world of Fencing is more than the world of America. There are well produced TV fencing events which attract an audience - perhaps just not in America. One day that will change, you have to grow the sport first.

My favorite part of these perennial TV threads is when someone pipes up and asks why the hell we should care if fencing is ever televised. You touch on the truth, perhaps unwittingly: what people are really saying when they ask for TV fencing is the opportunity to sit on the couch on Sunday afternoon and eat chips.

[KD5MDK]

No, Sunday afternoon we're finishing up the last rounds of Men's Epee and beginning Women's Sabre.

I want fencing I can watch on the couch on Wednesday evening.