Am Fencing Mag Vs. "Cesspool"

[erik_blank]

I got my winter edition of the American Fencing magazine a few days ago and was rather 'interested' in page 20 titled "In Search of the Gospel? Avoid the Cesspool!" The article talks about how the chat rooms are the biggest providers of incorrect information for fencing rules and rule interpretations, and seems to be trying to 'ping' those members of the FOC that contribute to the discussion boards. It goes on to say that if anyone wants 'the real information' they should rite to Christine Simmons (christine.simmons@usfencing.org).

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the article. I get the impression that the FOC wants to be more open about their information by providing their contact information (easy access to this is severely lacking on their 'newly redesigned' web page), but at the same time wants to make sure that everyone else in placed in the worst possible light. The author (Jeff Bukantz) even goes to saying that members of the FOC that might be on the board are intentionally putting out bad information ("The cesspool in further polluted when an occasional "expert" whether from the FOC or not, chimes in with either incorrect information or a personal opinion contrary to the official stance of the FOC.").

Anyone else read this article? Any thoughts on what Jeff is trying to do here (besides insult us cesspool inhabitants)...

[Michael_Z]

The author (Jeff Bukantz) even goes to saying that members of the FOC that might be on the board are intentionally putting out bad information ("The cesspool in further polluted when an occasional "expert" whether from the FOC or not, chimes in with either incorrect information or a personal opinion contrary to the official stance of the FOC.").

Anyone else read this article? Any thoughts on what Jeff is trying to do here (besides insult us cesspool inhabitants)...

I think you misread this part of Jeff's article. He is not implying that FOC members were putting out false information. He is instead saying that cesspoolers who claim to be "experts," are putting out information that although they believe is correct, is actually wrong. His comment about being "from the FOC or not" just means that most of these "experts" actually dont have any authority on the subject matter.

[erik_blank]

I think you misread this part of Jeff's article. He is not implying that FOC members were putting out false information. He is instead saying that cesspoolers who claim to be "experts," are putting out information that although they believe is correct, is actually wrong. His comment about being "from the FOC or not" just means that most of these "experts" actually dont have any authority on the subject matter.

I would have to say that he actually IS attacking other FOC members, for in his next paragraph he says:

Professional wrestling is totally scripted. Yet every now and then a wrestler intentionally goes against the script. The term is called "going into business for yourself." Let's just say that certian FOC members have been guilty of the same, and have misled people both on the internet and elsewhere.

If that is not an attack against FOC members, I don't know what is....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

How about this. For the next month, every time any individual has a question about Point-in-line, let's have that person call Jeff Bukantz at home. Doesn't matter if it's a question that can be answered by a "read section whatever" or if it's somewhat complicated, doesn't matter if it's from a top ref that should be going through top refs on all clarifying questions or someone who doesn't exactly yet know what a point in line is exactly yet. Every PiL question, to him, for the next month. Or we could just email him. Might be easier. More civilized.

We could pick a different topic if you'd like-- lame sizing? The definition of a coupe? The varied uses of the word "tempo"?

Fencing.net forums are a place where coaches, refs, parents, and fencers all come together to get answers to questions. Sometimes the quality of those answers are better than others. But the existance of this community makes his life easier, not harder. If he wants the answers to get better, there are easier ways to do that than making some weird demand that all questions go elsewhere. But if that's what he wants, he can very easily learn that I very much doubt that he has the time or energy to deal with it.

... I'm pretty sure Christine Simmons has better things to be doing too.

[Coldfire]

While I think what MP says is true, I also think it is interesting that we have been given an email address that we can send rules questions to directly, and expect to receive an answer. Does anyone want to volunteer to test this?

[erooMynohtnA]

I'm not sure if I read this article or not. If you got this issue about a month or two ago, then I had it and threw it away after skimming it because it was such garbage. If you just got it, then I don't have it yet.

That being said, if the issue the simple principle of not trusting information you get off the internet, I agree with it, regardless of whether the information is correct.

You don't cite wikipedia, even if you know from elsewhere that it's correct. You don't disregard your boss's instructions, even if you read something contradictory in a memo. You don't ask for a cookie from one parent if the other told you no, even if you know the answer will be different (unless you're smart/a jerk).

Besides, some FOCs have radically different interpretations of rules (that may or may not result in the same call). Even some of the FIE refs on this board disagree on stuff. What do you do when you get two conflicting responses? Apparently e-mail christine.simmons@usfencing.org.

While I think what MP says is true, I also think it is interesting that we have been given an email address that we can send rules questions to directly, and expect to receive an answer. Does anyone want to volunteer to test this?

I will do it right now.

"Dear Christine,

An article in American Fencing said you were the person to contact instead of utilizing non-USFA internet sources. I was hoping you could clear this question about a fencing phrase up for me. There has been a lot of debate, disagreement, and re-interpretation about this, even at the highest levels.

Fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B beats the point in line. Fencer A keeps the point in line out and retreats; fencer B continues his attack while advancing and continuously extending for four steps. On the fifth step fencer B hits and fencer A hits. The fencers were never greater than advance-lunge distance apart.

The call is that fencer B's beat attack arrives. Fencer A argues that his line was re-established because fencer B didn't hit within one tempo. Is the line valid or not?

Thanks,
Anthony Moore"


I'll tell you how it goes.

[Fiat Slug]

This issue has been sitting on top of my reading pile for some time. I just picked it up and read the article in question. Allow me to summarize the article for those who haven't read it.

Internet chat boards: BAD
FOC: GOOD

I now return the issue to the top of my reading pile.
.

[KD5MDK]

Please to note that apparently some FOCs are also bad, because their answers aren't scripted.

Also, Jeff Bukantz is not a member of the FOC at this time.

[LordShout]

Anyone want to code a script that scans every new post on f.net for RoWish terms and than emails it to the FoC? It's a little petty of them (or of Bukantz) to attacking the largest group of active, concerned customers.

[Gav]

Does anyone have a link to your magazine?

It's interesting that your FOC has chosed to write and publish this ariticle in their own magazine. I hear a similar amount of criticism coming down from our equivalents over here but it's much more overt. I am often given the impression that the powers-that-be do not like the fact that hoi polloi will chat about the aspects of the game that affect their lives. The great-unwashed even have the temerity to question such things as "discretionary selection". I remember what it was like when I started fencing - no one outside of a certain clique would know anything; whether we are talking about selection, rules or whatever...

Now people have access to all of the information that they want. It seems that the higher ups haven't really caught on. They appear to feel distinctly threatened. There's this attitude of retreating behind closed doors and sneering at the wider community instead of engaging with it and sorting the problems out. I've spoken a few people who say the same thing: that they wish the standard of chat was better but refuse to engage with it because it will tag them as a forumite. Which will therefore have a negative impact on their fencing careers in some other way. I find that sad and distasteful.

Having said that, internet forums can be their own worst enemy; people tie up discussions with patently false information, post crap (e.g. LOLCATZ) or reduce topics to other well-worn in-jokes. But then that's the internet for you...

I think Craig has a done a lot here to foster better information in the US. Anyone who posts here regularly should have a feel for who it's worth listening to and who it's best to ... ignore. I remember what this board was like when I first joined: small community, sometimes bizarre ideas* but generally polite and [once you get used to it] quite informative. It certainly helped get me back into the game.


* I mean it. Things have gotten better but some of the ideas you still appear to cherish over there I find completely odd.

[DavidX]

"Dear Christine,

An article in American Fencing said you were the person to contact instead of utilizing non-USFA internet sources. I was hoping you could clear this question about a fencing phrase up for me. There has been a lot of debate, disagreement, and re-interpretation about this, even at the highest levels.

Fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B beats the point in line. Fencer A keeps the point in line out and retreats; fencer B continues his attack while advancing and continuously extending for four steps. On the fifth step fencer B hits and fencer A hits. The fencers were never greater than advance-lunge distance apart.

The call is that fencer B's beat attack arrives. Fencer A argues that his line was re-established because fencer B didn't hit within one tempo. Is the line valid or not?

Thanks,
Anthony Moore"


I'll tell you how it goes.

Dear Anthony Moore,

I have to admit that I was a little astonished to get your email. After everything I have heard about your razor's edge internet invective, superlative carriage, and refined, chiseled features I really did not think you would have the time or inclination to correspond with a humble fencing servant such as myself. I dare say I am somewhat intimidated but I will try and clear up this matter to the best of my abilities. However I will need some clarifying information. First what kind of socks is fencer A wearing - do they have any cool stripes or skull and bones - and second does fencer B seem to communicate - by the way he parrys four if he is single? Oh what a topic - being single always very important in determing RoW - and I guess since we are on the topic - I was wondering if you were single. Silly I know, there must be dozens of girls waiting up late nights, gazing longingly at their telephones - hoping you'd call. Maybe if you're single it's because you find those girls dissatisfying on an emotional and mental level. Their innocent charm wears off in the cold realization that they cannot offer you any new or stimulating insights - their hesitance and naivete a swift turn off. I would very timidly offer an alternative - instead of some flighty girl only interested in your flashing dark eyes and clefted chin you would instead consider someone who is slightly older, slightly more..experienced in all matters of life both emotional, and..well I leave that to you guess.
I can always be reached here at my office at American Fencing, and do look forward to any and all future correspondence. Nobody is going to believe that I actually talked to you but I don't care - it's not recognition that I am after - only the intimate interaction of a young, majestic man.

Yours, now and always,
- Christine Simmons

(p.s. I don't ever want to be greater than an advance-lunge distance from you. C.S.)

[erik_blank]

Another quote from the article, this time dealing with one of the "false" assertions found on the internet caht rooms:

In order to be guilty of covering target area with the head, a fencers head must be tilted at some specific degree or angle.(wrong, this is solely up to the referee or side judge's discretion, not a slide ruler's!)

So now Jeff is not only suggesting that we are wrong, but that the rules are subjective and only understandable by an elite core of people and all others are subject to the whims of those people with no way of judging if their interpretation is correct.

[Gav]

Another quote from the article, this time dealing with one of the "false" assertions found on the internet caht rooms:

So now Jeff is not only suggesting that we are wrong, but that the rules are subjective and only understandable by an elite core of people and all others are subject to the whims of those people with no way of judging if their interpretation is correct.

I think you're over reacting to that statement. When Mr Bukantz talks about "referee or side judge" he could be talking about anyone who is officiating. Without reading the rest of that article, for context, I am going to concede I might be wrong*. But as long as I can't put it in context then that's the impression he's giving. Which is much like Refereeing!

* Is there somewhere I can read it online/ I am genuinely curious. I've been on the USFencing.org site and can't find it.

[Craig]

I've been meaning to write up my response to this article, but other things have kept cropping up. Once I get the writeups of the Qatar GP done I'll get that posted. I'm sure members of the community would find it interesting at least.

Gav - I'll get you text of the article.

Craig

[Timacheff]

I think you're over reacting to that statement. When Mr Bukantz talks about "referee or side judge" he could be talking about anyone who is officiating. Without reading the rest of that article, for context, I am going to concede I might be wrong*. But as long as I can't put it in context then that's the impression he's giving. Which is much like Refereeing!

* Is there somewhere I can read it online/ I am genuinely curious. I've been on the USFencing.org site and can't find it.

We currently don't post American Fencing online, but it's in the works. At the very least, I'd like to see us get PDFs up and ultimately we'll have more. If I could get it done today, I would.

[Gav]

We currently don't post American Fencing online, but it's in the works. At the very least, I'd like to see us get PDFs up and ultimately we'll have more. If I could get it done today, I would.

It's really easy to produce PDF's. Assuming you're using a half decent content management system then it should be a doddle to set up some page where you can download the last few issues.

[Allen Evans]

This was a very odd article. I would say that:

1. The internet is not the best (or even second best) place to get information about right of way calls. It's a difficult medium at best, and often the people who speak the loudest are not necessary the ones who know the most. However, as MyrddinsPrecint points out, there are some pretty good referees who frequent this board, and most of us know when to shut up and listen to them. I'll emphasize the word most here.

2. Mr. Bukantz seems to have failed to see the big picture that his article should have addressed: there is a gap between what the rules cover and what actually happens in a bout with two fencers (this gap is often refered to as "the referees interpretation" but is often more than that). New fencers (and referees) try hard to fill this gap themselves by their understanding of the rules, but they often fail due to inexperiance.

Expert knowlege is not always locally available, and the FOC has failed to fill this gap by anything other than one-on-one and word of mouth education at NACs. One of the exceptions to this was a very helpful piece by George Kolombotovitch about a few years ago about the line, and a few other situations. More of these -- one every quarter -- would be useful, yet the FOC doesn't usually speak as a body about interpretations.

3. Mr. Bukantz is a referee of some note. But I find it odd that he would take to task the very people who are sitting on a committee by virtue of their own ability and skills as referees.

4. Christine Simmons for Right of Way questions? Really? It seems almost cruel to make her the focus of these sorts of questions. Doesn't she have enough to do?

[Allen Evans]

It's really easy to produce PDF's. Assuming you're using a half decent content management system then it should be a doddle to set up some page where you can download the last few issues.

Ah...Gav....about the USFA and their embrace of technology....

We should talk.

[Gav]

Ah...Gav....about the USFA and their embrace of technology....

We should talk.

But but but...

Ok. So this is the sort of conversation I find myself having at work... a lot.

I am sure there's plenty of members who can give the USFA chieftains some pointers...

[oso97]

It's interesting that your FOC has chosed to write and publish this ariticle in their own magazine.

Its been pointed out, but I'll say it again. The writer of the article, Jeff Bukantz, is not a member of the USFA Fencing Officials Commission. He also holds no current FIE position. Heck, he hasn't even refereed at a national event, in ... a long time (at >least< 5 years), that I'm aware of (I suppose he could have worked some event that I missed). The main thing he does these days is be in charge of referees at NCAA Championships.

This will probably be construed by some as an attack on Mr. Bukantz, but its not. Its a recounting of the facts.