Screaming: Jesus, Mariel. Really?

[Grasshopper]

Hold on a sec. I thought that the slow motion reply system fixed this problem. Why should it even matter who screams anymore.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by jkdjeff

So, how would you have had her answer the question?

Sounds like she's just a fencer, not a PR spokesman, and trying to answer a question like that on the fly, without planning it out ahead of time, can be tough. If you've got answer off guard like that, honesty is always best.

It sounds like the question was something along the lines of: "There's a lot a yelling by fencers during the bout...is this to influence the referee's decision?"

A good answer would be something like: "With the speed and precision of the sport, fencing bouts can be very tense for the athletes, so I think it's natural for some yelling, as in many sports.

What surprises many casual viewers of fencing bouts is that scoring isn't always about who touches his opponent first. Often times intent is involved, and sometimes fencers yell during the match, consciously or unconsciously, to draw the referee's attention to some action or try to show intent. It's not done to unfairly bias the referee, and referees at this level aren't negatively distracted by such things...I think it's just how the sport has evolved for many fencers".

Meh. I'm sure there'd be complaints from the fencing community that many fencers DO yell to try and influence the ref, but it's never good to lay out the ugly part of your sport during it's only real major exposure to the public. That's more of a subject for discussion inside the fencing community.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Hold on a sec. I thought that the slow motion reply system fixed this problem. Why should it even matter who screams anymore.

Slow motion replay just adds another variable. In very important tournaments, the replay analyst is often a FIE official that is not necessarily a sabre ref. That can be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective, but it leads to unpredictable results of challenging. Besides that, the referee can choose to ignore the analysis (but usually don't since they have to play ball with the FIE).

Also, slow motion changes the way actions look. A simple cut can look like a preparation and a simple advance can look like the end of an attack. Besides for things like catching cross-overs or double-checking for blade contact, I don't feel like it helps anything.

If you have a chance, ask the MS team about their bout with Romania in the Madrid GP a few weeks ago. It was a mess.

As for the original post, I agree with what other replies have said: honesty is always the best. There are too many misconceptions about fencing for us to add anymore. The current state of the sport may not be desirable to some, but we shouldn't lie about it. Referees are influenced consciously and otherwise by the fencers' demeanor.

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulMisho

Also, slow motion changes the way actions look. A simple cut can look like a preparation and a simple advance can look like the end of an attack. Besides for things like catching cross-overs or double-checking for blade contact, I don't feel like it helps anything.

So basically what you are saying is that sabre in both slow motion and regular motion can not be judged properly? So fencers have to scream more to "prove" their point? I would jive with that.

Slow motion replays helped foil a lot in my opinion. I don't see many mistakes anymore.

Maybe sabre as sport needs more fundamental changes.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Well, a big part of it is the nature of a cut. In foil, it's a little clearer (I won't say perfectly clear) when the point is threatening the target -- technically, it should be aimed at it.

In sabre, there's no practical reason that a cut being executed with the arm bent at a 135-degree angle is any more threatening than one with the arm bent at 95-degree angle. The definition is completely arbitrary. Anything that is arbitrary and doesn't feel natural to the fencers and refs is going to cause dispute.

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulMisho

Well, a big part of it is the nature of a cut. In foil, it's a little clearer (I won't say perfectly clear) when the point is threatening the target -- technically, it should be aimed at it.

In sabre, there's no practical reason that a cut being executed with the arm bent at a 135-degree angle is any more threatening than one with the arm bent at 95-degree angle. The definition is completely arbitrary. Anything that is arbitrary and doesn't feel natural to the fencers and refs is going to cause dispute.

Agreed, but "feeling natural to the fencers" should probably not be a factor in objective judging.

I think sabre started "looking unnatural" when crossing your legs became outlawed. Still don't understand that move...

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Sounds like she's just a fencer, not a PR spokesman, and trying to answer a question like that on the fly, without planning it out ahead of time, can be tough.

And therein lies the problem. She's not just a fencer. She's a member of the US Olympic Team, and the reigning Olympic Champion. She's arguably the most obvious spokespersons this sport has in the world.

Creating positive benefit from PR opportunities is a skill. We don't expect athletes to excel on the piste without quality coaching. Likewise, we can't expect athletes to excel in the press room without quality coaching.

The vast vast majority of questions athletes are asked can be easily predicted. Also, these aren't 'gotcha' interviews. This ain't Helen Thomas hounding the White House Press Corp about the war in Iraq.

These are friendly interviews.

If you've got answer off guard like that, honesty is always best.

Considering the predictable nature of this specific question, being 'caught off guard' isn't really a valid defense. Honesty is not always best.

Is it the athlete's fault? No not really.

So where does the blame go? To the organization tasked with promoting the sport and managing its image.

It sounds like the question was something along the lines of: "There's a lot a yelling by fencers during the bout...is this to influence the referee's decision?"

I provided a link to the question in the original post. It's bad form to copy/paste another site's copyrighted material, so I encourage you to check it out.

My impression was that the question was worded to lead away from the 'influence the referee' choice.

Originally Posted by Fixed Reply

A good answer would be something like: "With the speed and precision of the sport, fencing bouts can be very tense for the athletes, so I think it's natural for some yelling, as in many sports.

It's not done to unfairly bias the referee, and referees at this level aren't negatively distracted by such things...I think it's just how the sport has evolved for many fencers".

Edited that for you.

Meh. I'm sure there'd be complaints from the fencing community that many fencers DO yell to try and influence the ref, but it's never good to lay out the ugly part of your sport during it's only real major exposure to the public. That's more of a subject for discussion inside the fencing community.

B I N G O

[Welted 24/7]

I'm not sure I see the damage done here. We can talk about how it was the most major public exposure the sport had, and how she's the most obvious spokesperson for American fencing, and that's all true. But the amount of people who are actually paying attention to what she says probably amounts to the approximate population of the USFA, most of whom already have a definite opinion one way or the other on screaming.

Just because it's out there doesn't mean anybody(who isn't already a fencer) cares.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

I'm not sure I see the damage done here.

Ok... Since you asked for it....

Originally Posted by OLYMPIC PROGRAMME COMMISSION
REPORT TO THE 117TH IOC SESSION - page 43

Judging/refereeing system
Judging is assisted by a signalling system indicating when a valid
hit has been made.
In epée bouts the judge’s role is to control the bout and award
points based on the light signal system. The judge does not
interpret the actions of the fencers or accord priority to
simultaneous hits. 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. The judge is assisted by two
assessors who follow the bout and intervene in cases of fault, but
not in interpreting the convention of priority. 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.

Originally Posted by page 46

Image and Environment
• 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.

Source - http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_953.pdf
(Careful it's pretty big)

I think the problem is pretty clear. Elsewhere (still looking) the IOC mentioned specific goals for objectivity of scoring. I don't recall the exact benchmark percentages... but I do recall that Foil/Saber were substantially below the desired benchmarks.

Originally Posted by Welted24/7

Just because it's out there doesn't mean anybody(who isn't already a fencer) cares.

This argument deserves a Weakest of the Week award.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by Mr. Epee - edited fixed reply

A good answer would be something like: "With the speed and precision of the sport, fencing bouts can be very tense for the athletes, so I think it's natural for some yelling, as in many sports.

It's not done to unfairly bias the referee, and referees at this level aren't negatively distracted by such things...I think it's just how the sport has evolved for many fencers".

You can't convince me that the best thing for the sport is to just flat-out lie to people. Lies always lead to disappointment and are not considered good PR even within corporations.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulMisho

You can't convince me that the best thing for the sport is to just flat-out lie to people. Lies always lead to disappointment and are not considered good PR even within corporations.

There is no need to lie. Good PR is all about what you emphasize. I would argue that Mariel's comment wasn't completely "honest". There is a lot going on in sabre when a fencer yells for a touch. Focusing on the "influencing the ref" aspect creates the illusion that the other factors are less relevant. While "influence" may play a part, it can easily be argued that it is a small one and, therefore, should not be given very much attention in a response to a question about yelling. Mariel's answer "suggests" that international referees are easily swayed and that fencing is about "fooling" the ref. Not an honest representation.

I'll echo what was said above: this is no fault of Mariel's. The USFA has a very consistent record of PR incompetence. I honestly would have been shocked if they had prepped her for the press--due largely to the fact that it's so obvious that they should.

[jjefferies]

Hmmmm, Does this mean I need to keep quiet when I score against a difficult opponent in epee?

Not another d**n rule.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by tbryan

I don't know about the original report, but here's the an thread on some related news reports: IOC has problems with several sports, boxing funds withheld, fencing mentioned.

Man. That report is three years old. Let's move on.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Jason

There is no need to lie. Good PR is all about what you emphasize.

Reporter/Parent: Is fencing safe?

Athlete/Club Owner: Well honestly, there was a guy once who got a broken foil stuck through his mask and eye socket and into his brain. It was as really, really terrible as you can so vividly imagine, right?

[ViewtifulMisho]

So I gather from the last few replies that you guys disagree with Mariel that the main focus of yelling is to influence the ref (or at least half of the focus, since she says it's a combination of two aspects). If that's true, then there's no way to continue a debate, although with her experience she should earn more credibility on the subject than a message board. She's consistently dealing with referees at the highest levels.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Ok... Since you asked for it....

I think the problem is pretty clear. Elsewhere (still looking) the IOC mentioned specific goals for objectivity of scoring. I don't recall the exact benchmark percentages... but I do recall that Foil/Saber were substantially below the desired benchmarks.

What exactly was your point again? I thought you were concerned that Mariel was making fencing look bad to the public by talking about the subjectivity of the judging, to which Welted 24/7 says there's minimal damage because the public doesn't care either way.

You respond by pointing out that that the IOC talks about wanting more objectivity, and the FIE has the same goal. So now, I have to assume you're concerned that the IOC is going to use her statements as evidence that objectivity hasn't improved?

That whole line of reasoning is farcical (IOC et al). How do you objectively rate the percentage of subjectivity in fencing scoring? How can you compare it with things like gymnastics and diving, for example, which are much more subjective? It's certainly improved from the pre-electric days. Mariel's statements just confirm there is some subjectivity left in the system, and elite athletes do everything possible, within the rules, to improve their chances of winning.

The FIE can say they have improved director training, so objectivity will be increased, and Mariel is only speaking from past experience/current fencer misconceptions. Who's going to prove them objectively wrong?

[piste off]

Originally Posted by Jason

There is no need to lie. Good PR is all about what you emphasize.

...

The USFA has a very consistent record of PR incompetence. I honestly would have been shocked if they had prepped her for the press--due largely to the fact that it's so obvious that they should.

Guys, this is not about Mariel's comment or the purpose of screaming.

Mr. Epee and Jason are right.

Big picture, PR is serious business and if we are to take it seriously then the people that the press speak to need to be coached (it is a pretty simple process for someone that knows what they are doing). If you don't understand that, you may not have ever had to face the press and should not weigh in here.

As Dev said:

On the other hand, fencing as a whole is keenly aware of its (lack of) standing in public perception, especially considering that it is supposedly on the IOC's elimination radar.

PR is about controlling your agenda, not giving potential fodder for an article that will paint the sport in a bad light (e.g. Olympic Champion’s Revels Technique for Biasing Judges). It is not about lying, it is about avoiding baited questions and responding in a way that is favorable to your cause.

R-

[Fencergrl]

ViewtifulMisho, you miss the real point here. With the Olympics coming up in August, (where it is likely the US will have fencers on the podium) it is important as an sporting organization, to help their athletes with their interview skills. It appears from this interview that may not be happening.