Fencing Evolution Predictions

[Grimaldi]

The sport of fencing has changed substantially over the last few decades, both in terms of equipment used and styles of competing.

In 20-30 years, if you were at a fencing tournament, what major differences do you think you'd notice? Obviously no one knows for sure*, but I'm curious to hear the thoughts of the group here.

* if you do know for sure through supernatural or advanced scientific means, please feel free to contribute

[telkanuru]

Lightsabres.

That is all.

[Allen Evans]

Fencing will under go numerous radical changes which will result in the rise of competing organizations emphasising separate approaches on fencing. These organizations will be fragmented and compete with each other for attention and resources.

Sometime around 2020 or 2024, Fencing will be dropped as an Olympic sport. The FIE will exhust it's budget trying to convince the IOC to reconsider, and, in the process, enact such radical and unusual rule changes that other National organizations quit the FIE and form a competiting organization to govern sport fencing.

In the meantime, the US will still continue to argue about the use of the Italian grip.

AE

[Phrogger]

Wireless fencing will be standard, and results will be immediately uploaded to the bout committee from the scoring machine.

[piste off]

Sometime around 2020 or 2024, Fencing will be dropped as an Olympic sport. The FIE will exhust it's budget trying to convince the IOC to reconsider, and, in the process, enact such radical and unusual rule changes that other National organizations quit the FIE and form a competiting organization to govern sport fencing.

AE

I see a variation of that (at least initially), which is a bit of a compromise between the two organizations.

Forced to further "downsize" fencing at the Games, the FIE will be asked to pick one of the weapons as the sole event. Part of the rationale will be that the current "rotational" structure of the team events is inconsistent - and they would prefer a fixed program at the Games.

The IOC will put pressure for the choice to be:

1. The most easily understood by non-fencers.
2. The most popular (as represented by the number/geographical breadth of countries participating).
3. The least dependent on human judging.

The choice will be epee. If Modern Pentathlon is preserved there will be further argument that it is beneficial to have epee for consistency. Further, they may fear the Baron's ghost - as he was an epee fencer.

We may be lucky to have the above scenario over AE's - but one of them is bound to happen (maybe the above first and the elimination as inevitable).

Rick

[kuroutesshin]

Due to the shift of modern sabre ever further away from it's origins as a cutting-edge weapon, and the inability of most spectators to follow the actions of the bout, the powers-that-be will continue to adjust the rules to the weapon until it no longer resembles a cutting device; Olympic Sabre will then be replaced with a "stickfighting choreography" event, where competitors use round sticks to try and smack each other in the face.

By the year 2020, foil target area will have extended to the on and off arm, the upper thighs, and inexplicably, the buttocks.

The epee will not change, although instead of 15 touches DE bout will now be fenced to 45 points, and everyone will be required to use orthopedic grips because they "clearly offer superior power and control to ANY other grip ANYWHERE EVER."

"Beat the stuffing out of Rene Roch" will be added as an Olympic event in 2012.

[the ancient one]

The new piste will include a trampoline, teeter totter and a chandelier over a water obstacle.

Bouts will have a fixed time playing time, no maximum score, no right of way. Scoring will be kept by computer with no director, the action will not stop between hits.

There is no penalty for turning, using the unarmed hand, or body contact. The salute and handshake will go away and be replaced by pre-match s***-talk interviews and off strip confrontations between contestants.

[Grimaldi]

I had only been thinking of this thread in terms of serious answers, although it's a lot more amusing with the fanciful version. Maybe should have started it in the water-cooler section?

The serious answers on things like wireless equipment seems like a no-brainer, but will certainly make a noticable difference when fencing. I'm curious about some of the predictions regarding the Olympics, though. Many events at the Olympics have fairly low viewing potential, so I'm always surprised when this is thrown out as a problem with fencing. It is true, though, that it's tough for a casual observer to understand what is going on, especially with ROW rules and extremely fast weapons.

With those thoughts in mind, how would you make it easier to follow/more interesting for casual viewers? They're already, slowly, easing restrictions on uniform colors, so there's a small step. Removing ROW would be a huge change, and basically negate the difference between foil and epee. Making weapons heavier would slow down the action (and make the blades more visible), but I don't know if you could do that and still keep the blades flexible enough to avoid injury?

[sheck]

Actually sabre is more interesting to the casual viewer / TV audience.

[KD5MDK]

Wireless fencing will be standard, and results will be immediately uploaded to the bout committee from the scoring machine.

This is true.

[piste off]

I had only been thinking of this thread in terms of serious answers, although it's a lot more amusing with the fanciful version. Maybe should have started it in the water-cooler section?

The serious answers on things like wireless equipment seems like a no-brainer, but will certainly make a noticable difference when fencing. I'm curious about some of the predictions regarding the Olympics, though. Many events at the Olympics have fairly low viewing potential, so I'm always surprised when this is thrown out as a problem with fencing. It is true, though, that it's tough for a casual observer to understand what is going on, especially with ROW rules and extremely fast weapons.

With those thoughts in mind, how would you make it easier to follow/more interesting for casual viewers? They're already, slowly, easing restrictions on uniform colors, so there's a small step. Removing ROW would be a huge change, and basically negate the difference between foil and epee. Making weapons heavier would slow down the action (and make the blades more visible), but I don't know if you could do that and still keep the blades flexible enough to avoid injury?

1. I would submit that wireless does absolutely nothing to the viewing experience - and think that you are 100% incorrect that it makes "a noticeable difference." Why do people cling to ideas like this and Lexan masks when there are much bigger issues in play?
2. I agree that fencing as it exists, and without substantial fundamental changes, has low viewing potential and in my opinion it always will.
3. Agreed - It is very tough for the causal observer to understand. I've had dozens of non-fencer friends over the years (these were people who had a vested interest in understanding the sport) observe it and the take away is generally not positive. Even with someone knowledgeable explaining it to them. The mass audience would disconnect very quickly.
4. Removing ROW would lead to a very conservative game in all weapons - and it is generally felt that more action = more interest. So we have a conundrum. Make the rules easier to follow, but at the expense of having less “appreciable” action and more subtlety (not in the best interest of attracting viewers).

Rick

[Phrogger]

With those thoughts in mind, how would you make it easier to follow/more interesting for casual viewers?

I have always thought that the way to make the sport more "watchable" is not to mess with the uniforms or rules so much but to focus on the human interest story. The FIE is doing some serious damage to the sport by focusing on rules changes to get it on television which is hurting the sport's integrity and ultimately, the athletes.

For an example, think about NBC's coverage of track and field during the summer Olympics. One of the big reasons it's interesting to watch is because of the focus put on the athletes themselves, their history, their struggles, the drama that all happens leading up to the event itself. Ten minutes of a fencing bout on TV isn't going to make anybody want to watch more fencing. However, playing up both athlete's personal history, and dramatizing any personal rivalry might get people a little more interested. Think about the show "Survivor" boiled down to just the challenges, with none of the personal drama included. Do you think anyone would watch? Sell fencing as a sport about people, about personalities, about drama, and I'll bet you'd have an interesting package there.

[the ancient one]

The underlying theme of your follow up comments hints at your desire for fencing to be more popular.

In that vein, my answer is not as tongue-in-cheek as you would think. Which has more air time: all of fencing in the past 100 years, or a couple years of American Gladiator (for example)? The masses want drama (even if phony) and injuries, not "physical chess". Checkers maybe...

The real struggle for Fencings future is the Status-Quo vs the Popularizers.

My time in fencing now spans 34 years and in my opinion, fencing has not changed all that much; you could go back and forward over that time span and easily adjust to fit in. I do prefer the average quality of the directing now over then, however. There has been no real change in how we are regarded by non-fencers (in the USA) so far.

Popularization is at the heart of most of the recent changes and we have to consider how far we want to go to appease/survive the great Olympic-airtime-revenue-squeeze-out. Again IMO all of the changes to date have had little impact on non-fencers and their perceptions.

So I have to bifrucate my answer:
Either the Popularizers succeed and we have a lot more circus in our game,
or the Popularizers get bored and move on to Combat Miniature Golf, and leave Fencing to its traditions and its more esoteric practitioners-possibly minus any opportunities for Olympic Glory.

[Phrogger]

1. I would submit that wireless does absolutely nothing to the viewing experience - and think that you are 100% incorrect that it makes "a noticeable difference." Why do people cling to ideas like this and Lexan masks when there are much bigger issues in play?

I think the noticeable difference will be for the fencer, not the viewer. And for the club that won't have to buy any more $500 reels, I think the wireless system will eventually be much cheaper.

[Inquartata]

Rocketpacks.

[Phrogger]

The underlying theme of your follow up comments hints at your desire for fencing to be more popular.

My answer is to the OP's follow up question. I don't care whether fencing is popular or not, though it's rise in popularity has made it possible for me to belong to a club and go to a tournament almost every weekend, whereas ten years ago this would have been impossible considering the rural area in which I live.

In that vein, my answer is not as tongue-in-cheek as you would think. Which has more air time: all of fencing in the past 100 years, or a couple years of American Gladiator (for example)? The masses want drama (even if phony) and injuries, not "physical chess". Checkers maybe...

I don't think this is a fair comparison. American Gladiator is just another take on professional wrestling. I don't think you'd compare track & field or figure skating to one of these hackish events, yet the human element is one of the reasons those events are so popular at the Olympics.

Either the Popularizers succeed and we have a lot more circus in our game,or the Popularizers get bored and move on to Combat Miniature Golf, and leave Fencing to its traditions and its more esoteric practitioners-possibly minus any opportunities for Olympic Glory.

Adding some human interest doesn't instantly turn fencing into a circus. Changing rules and equipment twice a year is going to make fencing more of a circus if this trend continues. That said, clinging to archaic tradition isn't the way either. Rules changes should be focused strictly on improving the sport's integrity and fairness. Equipment changes should be focused strictly on improvement and integrating new technology.

[JEC]

[QUOTE=the ancient one;694441]The new piste will include a trampoline, teeter totter and a chandelier over a water obstacle.
[QUOTE]

You forgot the grand spiral stair ... or even better the piste will resemble these...
http://www.fencingonline.com/choreog...d%20stairs.JPG
http://www.southernstaircase.com/sta...pages/frt3.htm
http://www.betterphoto.com/contest/winners/0304.asp

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Due to the shift of modern sabre ever further away from it's origins as a cutting-edge weapon, and the inability of most spectators to follow the actions of the bout, the powers-that-be will continue to adjust the rules to the weapon until it no longer resembles a cutting device; Olympic Sabre will then be replaced with a "stickfighting choreography" event, where competitors use round sticks to try and smack each other in the face.

Wow! Talk about a run-on sentence - 74 words!

Allow me to post a more optimistic prediction:

Due to the shift of modern sabre ever further away from it's origins as a cutting-edge weapon, and the inability of most spectators to follow the actions of the bout, the powers-that-be will radically rework the rules so that in one fell swoop becomes much easier to both follow and referee. Also, it will revert much closer to its roots, taking away the corniness factor among non-fencers which is its main drawback WRT the IOC.

This will be done by increasing both the weight and stiffness of the sabre blade (so that both considerably exceed the respective epee values) so that the sport sabre blade resembles the last cavalry sabre blade models.

The greatly increased blade weight will decrease blade speed, making reffing, TV work and spectator following much easier. Also, the increased blade weight will necessitate well done parries - bad parries will be crashed through by the attacker, and it will become extremely difficult - if not impossible - to perform an action which hits the opponent after one has put up an insufficient parry. This will increase the proportion of one-light situations, decreasing input for ref subjectivity. Furthermore, the increased weight will decrease the proportion of bladework which is done with the fingers, and bring back the much more beautiful wrist, elbow, and shoulder cuts.

The greatly increased blade stiffness will kill whipovers as an issue. Also, since blades will not flex to any great extent following a point attack which hits, there will not be a lot of attack simultaneé situations - both fencers will do their outmost to see to it that they score without being hit themselves.

All this leads to clean, easy to read, fencing phrases.

The larger blade cross-section will make it easy to insulate the sides and inner 2/3rd of the backedge, so that touches are only scored with the blade parts which initially were intended for that. Anyway, no one would want to score with the flat, since a cut with the edge would be much more effective.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[piste off]

I have always thought that the way to make the sport more "watchable" is not to mess with the uniforms or rules so much but to focus on the human interest story.

Agree completely.

Wide World of Sports, and past Olympics (i.e. Up Close and Personal) did wonders for developing viewer engagement in less popular sports. I've heard some people here pan those vehicles, but the only hope for sports like fencing is to get people interested in the athletes first. Then, they might be more open and available to the sport itself.

Without that, viewers will never get past the investment needed to appreciate the sport. There is a huge initial barrier that has to be overcome, and it is not done merely by adding color in uniforms.

Rick

[Grimaldi]

1. I would submit that wireless does absolutely nothing to the viewing experience - and think that you are 100% incorrect that it makes "a noticeable difference." Why do people cling to ideas like this and Lexan masks when there are much bigger issues in play?
Rick

I was viewing the removal of wires from the athlete's standpoint, not a spectators. True, the current wired system doesn't hinder fencers THAT much, but a little extra freedom will allow for freer action on the strip.

I have always thought that the way to make the sport more "watchable" is not to mess with the uniforms or rules so much but to focus on the human interest story.

For an example, think about NBC's coverage of track and field during the summer Olympics. One of the big reasons it's interesting to watch is because of the focus put on the athletes themselves, their history, their struggles, the drama that all happens leading up to the event itself. Ten minutes of a fencing bout on TV isn't going to make anybody want to watch more fencing. However, playing up both athlete's personal history, and dramatizing any personal rivalry might get people a little more interested. Think about the show "Survivor" boiled down to just the challenges, with none of the personal drama included. Do you think anyone would watch? Sell fencing as a sport about people, about personalities, about drama, and I'll bet you'd have an interesting package there.

You could do the same thing with fencers, but there's a difference. In the end, there is an athletic competition. Even a moron can watch a track and field event and understand what is going on, can feel the excitement from a close race, especially if the viewer has followed the human interest story of one of the competitors. Fencers compete (potentially, not sure how the Olympics work) in multiple bouts, it's hard to follow the action, and the action isn't continuous.

The underlying theme of your follow up comments hints at your desire for fencing to be more popular.

In that vein, my answer is not as tongue-in-cheek as you would think. Which has more air time: all of fencing in the past 100 years, or a couple years of American Gladiator (for example)? The masses want drama (even if phony) and injuries, not "physical chess". Checkers maybe...

Actually, I was mostly curious about what people thought would evolve over time as far as tactics/techniques on the strip. It seemed most of the serious comments regarded the future of the sport and the Olympics, so I just followed along.

I think what made American Gladiators so popular was that the events were easy to follow and understand, and the competitors were not professional athletes but "normal" people. It gave the illusion that anyone could compete, as known of the events required special training, so it was easy for fans to pretend they were there.

Rules changes should be focused strictly on improving the sport's integrity and fairness. Equipment changes should be focused strictly on improvement and integrating new technology.

I think that's a bit narrow, as far as rules go, and potentially too broad as far equipment goes. I mean, rules and equipment changes both should focus on "improvement".

Take a fictional rule addressed above....removing ROW. The game would still be fair and honest (I assume that's what you meant by "integrity"?), so would it be a good rule change, in your opinion? If not, there must be something else involved.

What about using technology in other ways? As mentioned above, it's hard to follow for observers because the sport is so fast (and has rules like ROW). Some complain the sport has strayed too far from its roots because the weapons are much lighter than the original types. What if technology allowed for weapons of realistic weight that were just as safe, even against minor bumps and bruises, as current weapons? I'm not saying that's the way the sport should go, but it would certainly be something worth considering.