Impressions of the USFA

[sallearmourer]

It's could be alot worse then you all can image. At least the USFA doesn't change it's Excutive Dicetor every 2 years like some of the sports. Michael Massik does a very good job that is a thankless job. The staff at the USFA does a outstanding job. Has far as buying a building best move that they did. They are with in a mile of the the OTC and not the 15 miles they were in the booines. I been to both locations the new one is so conviet to were they need to do bussiness. What must of you don't know that if they took office space on the OTC they can also be moved at the OTC pleasure.


Tim

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Just ran some numbers from an old USFA membership report (June 1 2001, so the next to most recent).

Here are the top 10 divisions ranked by size:
New England 1451
New Jersey 819
Long Island 532
Metropolitan 486
Southern Cal 461
Philidelphia 457
Cen Calif 452
South Texas 433
Virginia 411
North Carolina 407

coming in at #16 and #17 (respectively) are:
Colorado 333
Illinois 308

-B

Interesting numbers. Anyway, the membership at each division is always changing. There is no point in moving to where there is the most number of members. It's at the Olympic Training Center and that's fine. Seriously, it's just an office with papers, filing cabinet, office machines, furniture, etc. They don't have some golden orb with magical powers atop a stone altar. That's in Paris.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81


I would say NYC is just as easily navigable as Chicago. I would also say Boston is, but I think I'm in the minority in that belief.

-m

Having tried to drive in Boston as a visitor quite a few times, I would say the phrase "Navigable Boston" ranks right up there with "Giant Shrimp" for a classic oxymoron!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by three_hundred_fifty_five
Interesting numbers. Anyway, the membership at each division is always changing.

Not really. In this country, it is a fact of life that the northeast is more concentrated and has more. This is not just true in fencing, though it seems to be especially true in fencing. how about this, I'll make a friendly wager with you every year for the next 10 years that the new numbers will still breakdown with more than a third of the fencers in the Northeast. k?

There is no point in moving to where there is the most number of members. It's at the Olympic Training Center and that's fine. Seriously, it's just an office with papers, filing cabinet, office machines, furniture, etc. They don't have some golden orb with magical powers atop a stone altar. That's in Paris.

Well, this I agree with because there is no point in moving PERIOD. whereever you are, you will still be far away from the majority of fencers. thus, it shouldn't be a major consideration.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Having tried to drive in Boston as a visitor quite a few times, I would say the phrase "Navigable Boston" ranks right up there with "Giant Shrimp" for a classic oxymoron!

Well I don't know what YOUR problem is. I have no trouble driving in Boston!

[mfp]

Originally posted by Slavheart
I'm somewhat new to fencing and I've been trying to join USFA. So far, I'm having some absolutely miserable impressions of this organization. I'm wondering whether it's just a temporary bad streak or whether other people have had similar experiences.

You should realize that you're asking about an organization that sent out batches of membership cards with the spelling "United States Fencing Assoctiation" on them.

Efficiency and even competency in member services doesn't seem to rank very high in the USFA's charter (or at least their results).

I've heard that the USFA staff includes some nice folks. That's wonderful, but beside the point -- i.e. they need to get their act together.

[Slavheart]

Thanks everyone for responding on this. I have to say that my impression about USFA has not improved in the slightest, though I am more understanding of the challenges the organization faces. Nonetheless, if what MFP writes is on the mark (the "Assoctiation" mistake) then that's just another reason to believe that USFA is seriously lacking in some professionalism. Oh, and their phone lines still are not working and their website is still down (that's two days running now...). For someone who wants to take the plunge and join the "organized" fencing community, this is just really discouraging. There might be reasons for all these things but there are no excuses, especially when they're taking my money (and yours and yours and yours and yours....)

And as someone else noted in this thread, it IS possible for a small organization with a small staff to prefessionally handle a large workload and a high volume of calls.

All this about the OTC just leads me to believe that USFA is far too beholden to that organization and not nearly beholden enough to those who want to fence just to fence. Olympics Shmolympics in my book. I just want to have a good time, enjoy the purported benefits of USFA membership, have the membership in place in case I ever want to compete, and be served by the organization that's supposed to represent and further the interests of the fencing community as a whole....not just the cream of the crop who will actually advance to Olympian levels.

A lot of folks opine that the state of fencing in the U.S. is in bad shape and that more needs to be done to further the sport and increase its popularity. And, as I understand it, this is what the USFA is supposed to be doing. Yet a number of the posts here indicate that USFA is falling down in a major way. But that's just me and my opinion. If anyone else is happy to fork over their money and get less than professional customer service...that's your rightful opinion and expectation. As for me, I'm reconsidering a USFA membership.

Slavheart

[DHCJr]

I disagree with you, but that is also an opinion. But I do take issue with your putting down the web site. This is NOT done by the USFA, is NOT paid for by the USFA and is done by volunteers with their own money and equipment. Your dues is not paying for that. They have other jobs that pay them. I don't blame them for how long the web site is down, when it is up, the information we get is faster than we get with the magazines and snail mail. Like Craig putting this forum up, they should be praised.

Yes, I will agree there are problems, but they are trying to correct them. One is keeping staff. We are lucky that Michael Massik and Carla Mae Richards have stayed around, but each time a new staff is brought in (because the pay is not good) they have to teach them what fencing is about. We are not well known.

There are problems, how about helping. Many times the help will not be appreciated (those Armorers out there will know what I am talking about), but we shouldn't stop complaining, but we should also do something about it.

As I said before, if people would be considerate and get their information in earlier, use the local divisions for questions, instead of always calling the National Office.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Slavheart
All this about the OTC just leads me to believe that USFA is far too beholden to that organization and not nearly beholden enough to those who want to fence just to fence. Olympics Shmolympics in my book. I just want to have a good time, enjoy the purported benefits of USFA membership, have the membership in place in case I ever want to compete, and be served by the organization that's supposed to represent and further the interests of the fencing community as a whole....not just the cream of the crop who will actually advance to Olympian levels.

When we have a large enough membership to give the USFA NEARLY as much money as OTC does, then I guarantee you the office will be MUCH larger and better run and you won't be complaining about it. Also, let me ask you this: is there a better value for $40/ year?? Its not like you are paying a huge amount of dues.....

Also, it should be noted that it is not just the USFA that is run this way. most of the National Governing Bodies for olympic sports are centered in CS with small offices and staff.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Slavheart
. If anyone else is happy to fork over their money and get less than professional customer service...that's your rightful opinion and expectation. As for me, I'm reconsidering a USFA membership.
Slavheart

Slav: That's a little close to the nose/face/spite saying. If you're gonna be fencing competitively, eventually, you'll have to have USFA membership. But that doesn't mean we fail to feel your pain...it's been a source of irritation for a while.

Humorous case in point: in the last issue of American Fencing...there was an appeal to not ask for return faxes if we didn't have to have them, becuz the staff was wasting lots of time trying to return faxes to lines occupied by phones, computers, etc. Now, I have a dedicated fax line, but on the San Diego entry, in 36-point type, I wrote to return proof of entry by e-mail (as requested in the AF article).

What did I get (after finally faxing in the entry on the 10th try?)
a return FAX confirmation. But hey, it was only about an hour after the submission, so by my books, they got right on it!

[Inquartata]

I think the website has been down more like four or five days---it was down when I tried to do my daily check on Monday. However, I remember the days before there WAS a website, and somehow we survived in that primitive age, so if it's down a week or a month it will not put me out overmuch. It's a nice thing to have, but not essential.

The problem with the USFA is not, apart from isolated flubs like "Assoctiation", in the area of execution. It is in the direction and caliber of its strategic thinking ( and I use the word loosely ). Some very disconnected and ivory-tower decisions come out of it, and its emphasis, as has been noted, is not on the vast majority of fencers whom it purports to serve and who pay the dues that finance it, but on a tiny number of elite fencers and their coaches for whom it is forever bending over backwards. It has its priorities wrong, in other words...

My two footras.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
its emphasis, as has been noted, is not on the vast majority of fencers whom it purports to serve and who pay the dues that finance it, but on a tiny number of elite fencers and their coaches for whom it is forever bending over backwards. It has its priorities wrong, in other words...

again, the majority of their funding does NOT come from us, but from the USOC. thus, the USOC's interests should be more important to USFA. the USOC cares about one thing: results. Again, until us non-elites provide the majority of the funding, I don't think we should be complaining about it. for the money I pay in dues, I get MORE than adequate compensation.

-m

[Inquartata]

What are the figures, comparatively?

[mfp]

Originally posted by DHCJr
I But I do take issue with your putting down the web site. This is NOT done by the USFA, is NOT paid for by the USFA and is done by volunteers with their own money and equipment. Your dues is not paying for that. They have other jobs that pay them. I don't blame them for how long the web site is down, when it is up, the information we get is faster than we get with the magazines and snail mail. Like Craig putting this forum up, they should be praised.

You seem to have missed an important point -- while the volunteer running the USFA website is to be thanked, the USFA deservedly earns heaps of scorn for the website NOT being done by the USFA and NOT being paid for by the USFA. I.e., fencers wouldn't have to depend on the volunteer if the USFA accepted responsibility for running the thing. Since to many the website is the public "face" of the USFA, you'd think they'd pay more attention to it.

An example: fencers are frustrated by things such as seemingly always busy USFA fax machines around registration deadlines. Apologists for the USFA blame the lack of resources -- apparently getting another fax and phone line or two is beyond USFA's means. However even if more fax machines and phone lines were in place and the applications got through I'd imagine there'd still be protests that USFA doesn't have the staff power to efficiently deal with a deluge of applications. That process likely involves tending the fax machine, collecting applications, verifying payment and probably keying the info into a computer. One wonders just exactly how much "fencing knowledge" is needed for that.

Enabling online registration via a website would help save USFA staff time and money by eliminating some of the resources devoted to changing fax paper, processing payments and (good grief) rekeying stuff off of faxes. While website registration software isn't rocket science, it is likely beyond USFA's realm of expertise. However that shouldn't stop them from making some sort of arrangement with someone to setup a simple system for them, perhaps in exchange for a small fee per online registration payable by the fencer.

I imagine many people would be willing to pay a small fee to get immediate confirmation of a registration and to avoid spending late nights with a fax machine.

[JEC]

In the past, I attempted to fill in the PDF file for NAC applications and returned them online. Most years, the PDF file with NAC application has been locked, and they were not accepted by email. Disclaimer: My last application for competition was Summer Nationals.

[peircer]

You think Chicago is easy to navigate? What have you been smoking?

[epeemike81]

mfp, how about we raise dues to $100 a year?? that should easily cover a fax machine, full time web programmer, and some extra clerical staff.

Don't like the idea of a massive dues increase?? then quit yer *****in! The USFA does its best with VERY limited resources.
Do like the idea? then start getting a petition together of fencers willing to pay more. or, better yet, just encourage people to make a donation on their annual membership form.

-m

[Mergs]

Here's a thought, what about setting up an organization that focuses on the recreational fencer and let the USFA concentrate on supporting the devil it is tied to, the USOC? Hell, we could call it the Assocaited Fencing League of America, or some such. What would it look like? What would it do? But most of all, how much would if cost to run? Anyone care to take a crack at doing the business plan? And then try to find funding to get started?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mergs
Here's a thought, what about setting up an organization that focuses on the recreational fencer and let the USFA concentrate on supporting the devil it is tied to, the USOC? Hell, we could call it the Assocaited Fencing League of America, or some such. What would it look like? What would it do? But most of all, how much would if cost to run? Anyone care to take a crack at doing the business plan? And then try to find funding to get started?

Fencing is a small enough sport that to split is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

-m

[DHCJr]

Just to let everyone know, the web site is up.