Six medals vs Deficit - Was it worth it?

[fencerbill]

Darned if I know, just started thinking about it.

Maybe one needed the other, but which needed the other?

[FenzerX]

No brainer. They won medals in spite of the USFA, not because of it.

[Peach]

Hm . . . so they didn't need the funding or incentives at all?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Darned if I know, just started thinking about it.

Maybe one needed the other, but which needed the other?

One thing that would be interesting to see is a comparison of the over-budget payments to specific programs/individuals compared to the programs'/individuals' Olympic results.

Not that it necessarily the end-all-be-all, and there are many other reasons for success or lack at the Olympics--but there would probably be a different perception if, for instance the primary over-budget payments went to Women's and Men's Sabre and Women's foil, then if they went to Men's and Women's Epee, for example.

--Philistine

[fencerbill]

Now Nancy Anderson's regime will be remembered for 6 medals. Who can figure?

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Now Nancy Anderson's regime will be remembered for 6 medals. Who can figure?

heeheeh - yes. Thankfully, the USOC is in control of the finances, so at least they will all get their performance money for the spectacluar results.

[FenzerX]

Originally Posted by Peach

Hm . . . so they didn't need the funding or incentives at all?

See above...apparently, they had to sue the USFA to get said funding and incentives. So: no, they were training and going to world cups without it.

[Peach]

I know Ed Korfanty sued for his money. Didn't think the men's sabre fencers did. Did they?

[fdad]

Unfortunately, due to an almost complete lack of controls and recordkeeping, we don't know what part of the deficit accumulated on things that actually helped the fencers.

I suspect that if there were better fundraising based on prior success, and if part of those funds were used to help more elite fencers compete internationally, the results would have been even better.

Hopefully someone will take advantage of the USA's success and seek out corporate sponsorships and other means to provide more opportunities for development of fencers.

This time around Italy had most fencing medals at 7, USA was 2nd with 6. We can do even better if we can develop fencers that can't afford to have mommy and daddy pay for international experience.

[Alex_Paul]

Fact 1
The US spends more money on among other things it's elite program than it has in it's previous history.

Fact 2
The US win more medals than ever before in Fencing.

And some of you think the two are un related?

Come on people please... do me a favour! Credit where credit is due and all of that.

It has been shown time and again thet the number of medals is proportional to investment. Just look at China's meteoric rise up the table if you need any proof.

[sabrefromthe80s]

It strikes me that the U.S. medal haul has less to do with funding in this last cycle than a series of larger forces that have changed American fencing in the last twenty years and which this generation of fencers (20-30 years old) have benefitted.

They are in no particular order:
1. the breakup of the Soviet-bloc sports machine weakening Euro. fencing
2. the influx of Soviet-bloc coaches into the US.
3. the expansion of women's fencing into Sabre and Epee which leveled the playing field for the US
4. Expansion of participant base in new areas, esp. the Westbrook Foundation.
5. changes in youth sports in general pushing kids to specialize more and at a younger age

I think the USFA is actually less screwed up now than it was twenty years ago. Overall, I don't think that today's fencers are necessarily better athletes or more determined than fencers 10 or 20 years ago, but they came of age at a moment when the quality of coaching improved, the level of competition worldwide declined, and the possibility of success led some to invest a little more time and energy in trying to succeed. I think this is most pronounced at the junior level where American are a much bigger presence on the junior circuit. Sure, there's more money for fencers now and that helps some. But I think the 5 things above account more for the American medal haul than recent USFA funding decision.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

One thing that would be interesting to see is a comparison of the over-budget payments to specific programs/individuals compared to the programs'/individuals' Olympic results.

Not that it necessarily the end-all-be-all, and there are many other reasons for success or lack at the Olympics--but there would probably be a different perception if, for instance the primary over-budget payments went to Women's and Men's Sabre and Women's foil, then if they went to Men's and Women's Epee, for example.

--Philistine

Originally Posted by fdad

Unfortunately, due to an almost complete lack of controls and recordkeeping, we don't know what part of the deficit accumulated on things that actually helped the fencers.

Well, even if the data within the USFA are lacking, such a comparison can be made.
One could compare the inputs:
1. Actual outlays of the USFA on its elite fencers as a %-age of the entire elite fencer outlays for all fencing NGB´s around the world
2. The corresponding %-age for NGB´s in other sports

to the outputs:
3. %-age of all fencing medals going to USA
4. %-age of other OG medals going to USA

A large positive correlation between the inputs and outputs would suggest that spending leads to extra medals.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Empty Wallet]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Fact 1

And some of you think the two are un related?

Come on people please... do me a favour! Credit where credit is due and all of that.

It has been shown time and again thet the number of medals is proportional to investment. Just look at China's meteoric rise up the table if you need any proof.

I think Alex could also draw a parallel with Britain's success in some areas at the current Olympics, with funding from a national lottery (I believe).

Many countries when hosting the Olympics put extra funding into their sports in the lead up because success is part of national pride. The Chinese are doing it, the Brits are, the Aussies did before 2000.

The money buys coaching, travel, sports science, and competition. All necessary for the medal outcomes.

I know some countries then wind back the funding afterwards, and performance declines as a consequence.

Often continued funding for sports is contingent on Olympic success -- so no medals or performance criteria, significantly reduced funding. Catch 22

EW

[Nolano]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Fact 1
The US spends more money on among other things it's elite program than it has in it's previous history.

Fact 2
The US win more medals than ever before in Fencing.

And some of you think the two are un related?

Come on people please... do me a favour! Credit where credit is due and all of that.

It has been shown time and again thet the number of medals is proportional to investment. Just look at China's meteoric rise up the table if you need any proof.

Don't mean to nitpick... But don't meteors fall downwards?

[Catseye]

Dear Nolano,

meteoric - adj
1.relating to meteors or meteorites.
2.(of progress) very rapid.

Love,
The Oxford English Dictionary

[foillion]

Look a Meteor!

-P

(for those of you that can't read the small type)

Wishes

When you wish upon a star, your dreams can come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurling towards the earth which will destroy all life.
Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wished for. Unless it's death by meteor.

[arc]

Originally Posted by foillion

Look a Meteor!

-P

(for those of you that can't read the small type)

Wishes

When you wish upon a star, your dreams can come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurling towards the earth which will destroy all life.
Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wished for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Despite my vast fondness for the folks at despair.com (and setting aside terminology usage issues), I find it highly ironic that this particular poster refers to stars and meteors, yet depicts a comet ...

[needle]

Originally Posted by arc

Despite my vast fondness for the folks at despair.com (and setting aside terminology usage issues), I find it highly ironic that this particular poster refers to stars and meteors, yet depicts a comet ...

And that it mentions death by meteor rather than by meteorite