Impressions of the USFA

[edew]

Hmmm...still not yet for me.

Maybe the server crashed again with 2000 people hitting it at the same time.

[DHCJr]

I tried again and it came right up. I not sure, but this could be a problem. I sometimes used to use USFA.org and USFencing.org. I tried USFA.org and could not get in this time, but using USFencing.org works.

I tried it also using the pointers put in by Craig on this web site both under clubs and site search (organizations) and was able to get to the USFA web site.

[edew]

I always use usfencing.org (without the capitalization that you put in).

[mfp]

Originally posted by 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.

Apparently, you didn't comprehend the post . . . which suggested a possible way to not have to buy more fax machines, not hire a full time programmer and not hire some extra clerical staff. In fact, the idea was to improve some member services while even managing to reduce the "busy work" load on the staff.

Don't like the idea of a massive dues increase?? then quit yer *****in! The USFA does its best with VERY limited resources.

Believing you are doing your best is the biggest obstacle to doing better.

[Slavheart]

Epeemike, what you call *****ing others would call a valid complaint about an organization that appears unable to fulfill the expectations of a lot of fencers.

Whenever you cite the fact that the majority of USFA's funding comes from USOC, you underscore my point that USFA is too beholden to Olympic stuff. I believe there are a lot of people who would like to further the interests of fencing without necessarily putting the Olympics front and center all of the time.

So, what's so fearful about increasing membership dues? Especially if it would lead to a more professional organization that could hire people with qualified fencing backgrounds (someone mentioned the need to train new USFA staff on what fencing is), an organzation that could afford to run its own website, and an organization that would put the interests of the majority of regular fencers ahead of the interests of Olympians? Seems to me that once an athlete reaches Olympian levels, the world pretty much comes knocking on their door and takes care of them.

I'm not familiar with the administrative structure of the USFA. Maybe it could at least lump all this Olympic stuff into a separate department and devote some other department to focus on the rest of us. Is this already the case? I'm sincerely asking.

And why not create some other organization if this one isn't living up to the expectations of so many fencers? Sure, there would be a lot of work involved with funding, getting recognition, establishing credibility, having someone spell check membership cards before they're mailed, and so on. But anything worth having is worth the time and effort to achieve. I don't see anything sacred about USFA, especially if there's so much dissatisfaction.

Slavheart

[Slavheart]

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?

Mergs, this isn't such a bad or farfetched idea. I'm sure that AFLA didn't start out with a business plan and go up to bankers in search of financing. That must have developed over time. And this forum/network already provides something of a basis for alternatives to the the USFA. (Of course, the owner of this site just might have their own thoughts on the matter. ) Anyway, my point is just that establishing alternatives probably isn't as outlandish as it sounds.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Epeemike, what you call *****ing others would call a valid complaint about an organization that appears unable to fulfill the expectations of a lot of fencers.

Whenever you cite the fact that the majority of USFA's funding comes from USOC, you underscore my point that USFA is too beholden to Olympic stuff. I believe there are a lot of people who would like to further the interests of fencing without necessarily putting the Olympics front and center all of the time.

So, what's so fearful about increasing membership dues? Especially if it would lead to a more professional organization that could hire people with qualified fencing backgrounds (someone mentioned the need to train new USFA staff on what fencing is), an organzation that could afford to run its own website, and an organization that would put the interests of the majority of regular fencers ahead of the interests of Olympians? Seems to me that once an athlete reaches Olympian levels, the world pretty much comes knocking on their door and takes care of them.

I'm not familiar with the administrative structure of the USFA. Maybe it could at least lump all this Olympic stuff into a separate department and devote some other department to focus on the rest of us. Is this already the case? I'm sincerely asking.

And why not create some other organization if this one isn't living up to the expectations of so many fencers? Sure, there would be a lot of work involved with funding, getting recognition, establishing credibility, having someone spell check membership cards before they're mailed, and so on. But anything worth having is worth the time and effort to achieve. I don't see anything sacred about USFA, especially if there's so much dissatisfaction.

Slavheart

So, let me get this straight: you don't believe the USFA is doing a good enough job for the average fencer. k. so, your solution is for them to be "less beholden" to the olympics. so, they will apparently be better able to serve us after you hamstring them by getting rid of a large portion of their budget??? I must admit that i'm just not seeing that.....

-m

[Slavheart]

Originally posted by epeemike81
So, let me get this straight: you don't believe the USFA is doing a good enough job for the average fencer. k. so, your solution is for them to be "less beholden" to the olympics. so, they will apparently be better able to serve us after you hamstring them by getting rid of a large portion of their budget??? I must admit that i'm just not seeing that.....

-m

Epeemike,

I didn't say that THE solution is SOLELY for USFA to be less beholden to the Olympics, though it might well be a healthy PART of the solution. There are plenty of people who simply don't live for the Olympics.

And who said anything about taking any sort of steps that would result in losing any of the USFA's budget sources? That’s just hasty reasoning that jumps to conclusions about what I wrote. In fact, I sincerely asked whether the USFA has an administrative structure that differentiates and sets Olympic and non-Olympic goals.

So, based on what you’re saying now, I ask: is there really some kind of underlying, punitive zero sum game at work between USFA and its USOC creditors? What I’m hearing sounds like, "If USFA does more for the non-Olympian then that means it is doing less for the Olympian. This will result in USOC reducing or altogether withdrawing funds for the USFA." Is that really your reasoning? The USOC's? Both?

If it's a question of budget resources, maybe part of the solution to this would be making the pie bigger: increase the USFA's budget so that USOC does not have (or even appear to have) a stranglehold on what it does/does not do by virtue of holding most or all of the purse strings. And "increase the USFA's budget" could probably be accomplished in many ways, only one of which might include increasing member dues...if such a step were needed. I’m sure there are other alternatives that a healthy and constructive dialog could examine.

Slavheart

[DHCJr]

The USOC bases the funding on Medals, they don't care that we are building numbers. They are short-sighted and could care less if we are adding thousands of recreational fencers, so the USFA has to be. I'm sure everyone would agree that it takes years and money to become competitive, let alone to obtain medals. If the USFA, backs away from the cost of working with getting the top fencers and turned that into helping the recreational fencer the USOC would take it's ball and go home. Yes the amount of money spent on each top level fencer, could possibly pay for 100 or more recreational fencers.

I'll give you another example, why don't you convince USC, Notre Dame or one of the big football powerhouses to forgo football and turn the money to help the recreational athelete. I came from Long Beach State, which was never a football powerhouse and funding for 1 football player for one year would have more than what the fencing program received for 10 years.

The USOC is telling fencing, you either get medals, which they have been getting more of the last few years or they will take their money. I don't know the actual figure, but I heard it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 to 1/2. Would you be willing to give up over 1/3 of your income.

Yes, each top level fencer, less than 200, probably get the bulk of the funding, but if they do get the medals, there will be more money for the rest of us.

[edew]

To be fair to the USFA, their four-year goal includes increasing the membership numbers. That number has been steadily increasing over the years. The immediate goal for this quadrennial (maybe not this, but probably by the end of the next) is to get to 20,000 members.

To achieve that, they do have various programs to help people form clubs and make themselves into a real business. They provide insurance for coaches and clubs, for example.

They also rely on regional or local level personnel to create the grass-roots development. Why don't the USFA do that? I personally don't think they should be involved (directly) in grass-roots development. What works in Kansas City, MO won't necessarily work in St. Paul, MN; or Davenport, IA. Thus, USFA don't meddle too much with local development. However, where there is benefits in similar activities (like obtaining a 501(c)(3) non-profit status for the division), USFA will help provide. Ok, this particular example isn't up and running yet, but it's a start to at least offer the idea.

That said, I think the USFA should take a good, hard look at their on-line user interface. Pay the d**n $50/month fee or whatever and get a professionally hosted website, with quicker uploading of results and information.

I run the Bay Cup website for our local competition and usually update the results by the end of the weekend. The bottleneck for me is getting results from competition venues where I was not present (so that I can take the results home with me).

I run a little program and voila, I get the points standings generated. How hard is that? (Not aiming any *****-and-moans at David Sapery, of course.)

The only competition USFA runs are the national-level competition. Those follow USFA formats and processes. They're not showcase events in any stretch of the imagination. They're rather meat-grinder type competitions: get the fencers in, get them fencing, get them out (and add a couple hours here and there for re-seeding).

For showcase events, go to the regional level and check out events like the Duel In The Desert and others. There, the tournament organizer has time to creatively add bells and whistles that most NACs can't afford to put on.

[Slavheart]

Originally posted by DHCJr
The USOC bases the funding on Medals, they don't care that we are building numbers. They are short-sighted and could care less if we are adding thousands of recreational fencers, so the USFA has to be. I'm sure everyone would agree that it takes years and money to become competitive, let alone to obtain medals. If the USFA, backs away from the cost of working with getting the top fencers and turned that into helping the recreational fencer the USOC would take it's ball and go home. Yes the amount of money spent on each top level fencer, could possibly pay for 100 or more recreational fencers.

I'll give you another example, why don't you convince USC, Notre Dame or one of the big football powerhouses to forgo football and turn the money to help the recreational athelete. I came from Long Beach State, which was never a football powerhouse and funding for 1 football player for one year would have more than what the fencing program received for 10 years.

The USOC is telling fencing, you either get medals, which they have been getting more of the last few years or they will take their money. I don't know the actual figure, but I heard it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 to 1/2. Would you be willing to give up over 1/3 of your income.

Yes, each top level fencer, less than 200, probably get the bulk of the funding, but if they do get the medals, there will be more money for the rest of us.

Thanks, DCHJr. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that it is afterall a zero sum game. Anything done in support of one group will have to take away from the other group. That's not very creative or advanced thinking and any organization that employs it is not dynamic, forward looking, stategically minded, or well placed for a long life.

Please don't miss my point: I never said to use USOC funding on anything that's not related to Olympics training/recruiting. I never said to stop focusing on Olympics efforts. I clearly expressed my points, so I won't re-hash them all here.

Thanks everyone. This discussion has clarified for me what some of you do and don't expect U.S. fencing's flagship organization to accomplish.

Slavheart

[135711]

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.

First, when I tried to fax my membership form and payment I got nothing but busy signals. When I called to inquire, the best they could say was that their machine stays busy. (Even the USFA website admits to having inadequate fax capabilities. Why don't they expand them?) So, I mailed a hardcopy of my application and membership dues a month ago...and they still haven't been processed. Now, their website has been inaccessible for two days. And finally, when I try to call them, their phone lines aren't working!

So...has anyone else run into this sort of thing with USFA?

Thanks.

We've given our impressions of the USFA, and people are not really willing to complain about them too much, because they still want to win, but I don't consider it a complaint to offer a suggestion about moving it's current location, and I stick to it. I like the idea of having headquarters in chicago.

-Slavheart

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Thanks, DCHJr. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that it is afterall a zero sum game. Anything done in support of one group will have to take away from the other group. That's not very creative or advanced thinking and any organization that employs it is not dynamic, forward looking, stategically minded, or well placed for a long life.

Of COURSE its a zero sum game in terms of funding! a dollar can only be spent in one place.....

-m

[edew]

Actually, I was going to propose that it's NOT a zero-sum game. The amount of revenue that the USFA receives constantly goes up because the number of members is constantly increasing, and because it has increased the entry and registration fees for NACs.

But, the expenses, to some degree, have gone up as well. There are more fencers attending world cup touraments, and for every four, USFA has to provide a referee. That's not cheap to send a person to Europe for five days or so.

I certainly think there should be better oversight on what we're spending and for what purpose the expense is for. The main officers, the president, vice-presidents, treasurer, and secretary don't exactly look at the nitty-gritty. The nitty-gritty details are done by the administrative staff with Michael Massik leading the way.

Are there mis-spent funds? No kidding. Can they be corrected? Possibly.

But I don't think it's a zero-sum game. At least not when compared year-over-year.

[vigia]

Originally posted by edew
Are there mis-spent funds? No kidding. Can they be corrected? Possibly.

Where do you think money is being mis-spent? Just curious.

[Slavheart]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Of COURSE its a zero sum game in terms of funding! a dollar can only be spent in one place.....

-m

Thanks, Epeemike, for clarifying whom the USFA really serves.

So, can anyone point me to any other fencing organizations in the U.S.?

Slavheart

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
Actually, I was going to propose that it's NOT a zero-sum game. The amount of revenue that the USFA receives constantly goes up because the number of members is constantly increasing, and because it has increased the entry and registration fees for NACs.

But, the expenses, to some degree, have gone up as well. There are more fencers attending world cup touraments, and for every four, USFA has to provide a referee. That's not cheap to send a person to Europe for five days or so.

I certainly think there should be better oversight on what we're spending and for what purpose the expense is for. The main officers, the president, vice-presidents, treasurer, and secretary don't exactly look at the nitty-gritty. The nitty-gritty details are done by the administrative staff with Michael Massik leading the way.

Are there mis-spent funds? No kidding. Can they be corrected? Possibly.

But I don't think it's a zero-sum game. At least not when compared year-over-year.

My point was that within a budgetary year it is. you have x dollars to spend, and two sets of people to spend it on (if you believe that recreational and elite are competing.... I don't see it that way). whatever funds are spent on one cannot be spent on the other.

-m

[Prometheus]

I think that it would be a better idea to look for a style of fencing rather then an organization to join. All of the organizations that deal with blade sports (that I am aware of) are essentially organizations of practitioners that are highly federalized with member clubs or branches. The national or international level is the smallest and numbers of participants increase at the local level.

For instance the FIE administers World cups and the World championships. The National Federations deal with the National competitions and championships and the local branches, in our case divisions and sections, handle qualifiers and local competitions.

Other groups have few national or international championships, but most eastern and western martial arts groups have regional competitions, seminars and conventions.

Fundamentally, however the level at which most people will interact the most and the level that they should be most concerned about is the local branch.

Finding a club or dojo or whatever where you feel that you fit is essential to having an enjoyable time...

Most people that I have encountered that join the USFA do so not because they agree with the mission statement of the National Governing body for US Olympic fencing, but instead because they want to begin competing in USFA sanctioned tournaments and membership is required. The important distinction is that they are already sport fencers, and the USFA organizes sport competitions.

Now, assuming that modern Olympic fencing is the style that you want to practice you fall on a continuum that at one extreme has elite national team members and at the other has local causal competitors. (I say this because I think that recreational fencer has some sort of connotation of not being interested any kind of competition. If your interest in fencing does not include any competitive bouting I would doubt that you need membership in anything beyond a club that will suit your needs. That is the same reason that there is no organization for people who are not interested in competitions.) There is a significant subgroup of USFA members that go to national tournaments, but even the more causal members can take advantage of local tournaments organized by divisions.

Thus I would argue that the primary function of the USFA (aside from national team selection and NGB functions which are relevant to a minority of fencers) is the organization of competitions between its member clubs in a fashion that ideally maintains consistency in rules. This is inherently useful and necessary to any sport fencer who wants to compete outside their local club. It also provides insurance to member clubs, which is why many clubs require USFA membership.

In summary, the USFA is the large-scale organizational structure for sport fencing in this country. It maintains national standards for Referees, the rules of sport fencing in this country and a certification process for instructors. It organizes national tournaments, selects the members of the US national team and to some degree provides news releases to the media that are pertinent to the sport.

There are classical fencing organizations that also accredit instructors, organize seminars and competitions and maintain a rules base. The same could be said for the several other western martial arts systems including the ARMA/HACCA, SCA and a great number of eastern martial arts organizations including the Olympic forms of TKD and Judo and a host of others that fall on the spectrum of martial/sport arts.

The organization you end up affiliated will follow after you find your niche in the larger community of blade sport folks.

Given that the USFA is the NGB and organizational point for US sport fencers, the issue then becomes whether the resources of the organization are being used optimally for the advancement of the sport, whether rule changes that are appropriate to the betterment of the sport, whether the national tournaments and team selection are occurring in a optimal way and whether the US is adequately represented in the FIE. There are many fencers volunteering their time to committees including the HPC that try to make these things happen.

There are other sports that have multiple groups fighting over who the NGB is and one that I can think of that had the official NGB status changed from one to another. I don’t think anything like that would positively serve our sport or accomplish anything other then increasing sale of antacids.

Would it be nice if the USFA were perfect? Of course. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are not professional fencers in this country (perhaps legally there are, but I don’t think any of our athletes take in anywhere near enough revenue to support themselves with the sport) and that the USFA is largely a volunteer organization make up of people who work all week doing something else and do this for fun. Yes, there is a small national staff, but for the most part we are amateur athletes, parents, retired athletes, and people who are lucky to recoup their expenses, refs armorers etc.

For more information on the declared mission statement, governing documents and programs of the USFA I would encourage perusing http://www.USFencing.org.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by vigia
Where do you think money is being mis-spent? Just curious.

I'll give you one example: air fares.

All the officials get flown to NACs gratis, which is fine, but they do not shop for the fares, they just take United's rates, even if they could do it for 1/3 the cost by using discount airlines. I suspect that whatever discount they get in return for their exclusive arrangement with United comes nowhere near making up for this disparity ( I have never had my USFA discount with United get me anywhere near the lowest fare available ).

Now, if they'd just shop around they could probably afford to pay the refs enough to compensate them for their work loads... ( or maybe not ). But I'm sure they could find a better use for the money than where it goes now.

Let's not even step into the morass of "performance awards" and the like.