Let Us Get Real

[earlie]

Er...... gidgings, gidgings.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by DHCJr
Lochinvar, you missed the whole point of Oyuit argument.
<snip>
...but most of the fencers are in Europe. If the Olympic goes, so would they. <snip>

...U.S. Television, which is what pays the bills for the Olympics, which pays for the USOC, which pays for the USFA.

I didn't miss his point--I simply disagree with it, and with yours.

Do you seriously suggest that the only reason Europeans fence is because it's an Olympic sport? Do you really believe that the salles in France, Italy, and Germany will close their doors if fencing is dropped from the games? That children will stop enrolling in fencing classes? That Golubitsky will put away his foil and take up knitting?

As the title of the thread says: Get real. Stop and think for a moment, and I believe you will realize just how absurd that sounds.

I understand that the US only accounts for a small fraction of worldwide fencing; I only used the US as an example to draw a larger point: The majority of people throughout the world fence for reasons that have nothing to do with the Olympics except in a very few isolated cases. Folks in Mexico and Morocco didn't start fencing because it's an Olympic event, and people in Singapore and Moscow won't stop fencing if it ceases to be an Olympic event.

Perhaps one could make an arguement that fencing would suffer significantly if there was no venue for world-class competition, but what are the World Cups? Are they just "practice" for the "real" event that comes along once in four years? I doubt that the participants see them as such.

And if the USOC pays for the USFA, they do so for their own agenda: the USFA needs the USOC's money, but the reason the USFA needs the money is to develop and field competitors for the USOC. If they weren't working to develop Olympic champions, they wouldn't need the money. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

If you want to believe that the Olympics is the keystone that holds up all of the fencing communities and organizations in the world, then be my guest. But I don't believe it.

I think the IOC and the national OCs have sold everyone a load of smoke and mirrors, and you've bought it lock, stock, and barrel.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by lochinvar
I don't know what the situation is in Europe, but here in the US I have never yet met anyone who took up fencing because it was an Olympic sport, nor do I know anyone who would stop fencing if it were dropped from the Olympics.

you're right. You DON'T know what the situation is in Europe, or in much of the US, for that matter. I know many people who took up fencing with Olympic aspirations. I, in fact, have a friend who had Olympic aspirations, so he took up skulling. he wanted to go to the Olympics, so he chose a sport to do it in. Sports DO get interest from prestige.

Furthermore, regardless of the effect on the number of fencers in the world, there is no question that the cost of fencing would go up significantly due to the fact that USFA would lose USOC funding. you seem to have ignored that point, so I figured I'd remind you.

-m

[oiuyt]

K, how would it affect US fencing if we lost NCAA status? Fencing has dropped to the level where one of the larger forces helping keep it going at the collegiate level is the fact that it's an Olympic sport (the NCAA is trying to maintain minor Olympic sports including others such as fencing, men's gymnastics and wrestling, etc. that might otherwise drop below the level of sustainability). We drop out of the Olympics and that goes away. Would we immediately lose NCAA participation? No, that would take a while. Is it likely to happen? Perhaps. How many people in the US learned to fence in college (or for college)? How many of the US coaches are funded partially or fully from coaching collegiately?

Whether or not a fencer would quit if fencing were not an Olympic sport, you still have to look at the people who wouldn't ever start without that extra bit of status that fencing enjoys because of it.

Money from the Olympics funds fencing around the world. The USFA gets more money from the USOC then it spends on elite programs. Without the Olympics that money is gone. Now look at the same factors in every other fencing country. Olympic money helps keep fencing alive. The Olympics are good for fencing.

Whether or not fencing would wither and die once it lost Olympic status, I would argue that an expanded Olympic presence would benefit it. How do we get an expanded presence and what does it mean? Well, now you've hit something that comes down to one thing. TV time and money generated from it. The two go together inextricably. The way to get fencing a higher Olympic profile is for more money to come in from it. As DHC mentioned, 90% of the money for the IOC comes from the US TV feed. How popular a sport is in the rest of the world therefore gets dwarfed by US popularity (whether or not this is "right" or "the way ti should be" or whatever doesn't really matter, it's the world we're in). To help a sport grow in the Olympics it therefore is REQUIRED that it get airtime in the US. If the US becomes good at fencing will we get more airtime and more general-population interest? That's the hope. Not much else will help keep fencing growing (at the Olympic level). Keeping fencing growing (or getting it growing again, more accurately) would help fencing, both in the US and the rest of the world.

-B :)

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by Mo
... They are not here so you guys can have a good weekend fencing and looking at female fencer's butts and boobs...

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the USFA, or groups associated with the USFA. More importantly, fencing.net is not directly associated with the USFA but a website for those interested in fencing.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Money from the Olympics funds fencing around the world. The USFA gets more money from the USOC then it spends on elite programs. Without the Olympics that money is gone. Now look at the same factors in every other fencing country. Olympic money helps keep fencing alive. The Olympics are good for fencing.

Not to mention that even without the olympics, we would still have elite level programs to compete at World Championships and World Cups. Thus, we would lose ALL USOC funding, but not all the expense.

-m

[Mo]

"Men like women, and, thank whatever powers there may be, women like men. Vive la difference, and all that! Inquarta"

Heck yes Brother!!! That is the way it should be and you finally in a post admitted that women are more than boobs and butts. That is what I was looking for, the way most of you talk about women and fencing meets is the same way people talk about going to zoos and looking at the animals.
If you male types said things like, "I want to have events separated so I can cheer on and watch the women fencers and perhaps learn something." or "Meeting people from all different places and finding out about their clubs is part of what I like so much about fencing."
It is making women into things, body parts, that is what is offensive. See the difference??

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by DHCJr
During the Soviet era, there were more registered fencers in Moscow, then in all of the U.S.

Assuming this is the case, what is the relevance of the figure? The Soviets had their own equipment manufacturers, who had no profit motive to consider, and all these Moscow fencers weren't buying from the European makers, I would hazard.

If most of the fencers were in the U.S., I'm sure we would have the manufacturers move here, but most of the fencers are in Europe. If the Olympic goes, so would they. Then because most of their customers are gone, so would the manufacturers.

On what basis do you believe so? Are European fencers so very different than American ones in the motives that draw them into fencing? Would they just quit en masse and turn to soccer if fencing were ousted from the Olympics? And if they did not---if instead they are like fencers everywhere, who fence not because of an impossible ( for most ) Olympic dream but because they enjoy doing it, why would the equipment makers go out of business?

There are markets in equipment for some activities participation in which is far less widespread than fencing. The number of makers might---might---shrink, their production might get a bit pricier as quantity demanded fell, but I cannot see a situation in which no one would remain to serve the market at all. It just doesn't make economic sense.

Why do you think, Golf, Bowling and Ballroom dancing are being considered for the Olympics? Television, you may not watch, but there are those that watch on U.S. Television, which is what pays the bills for the Olympics, which pays for the USOC, which pays for the USFA.

This is a very apropos point, but it can be read in the opposite way, too. These activities exist and flourish WITHOUT Olympic status, and have done for a long time. Why? Because their participants enjoy them in their own rights, just as do the vast majority of fencers. So why assume that fencing is so different that it would promptly vanish without Olympic status?

Extend the metaphor to other sports. Baseball is being considered for removal from the Olympics. How likely is it that it will become extinct if that happens, that the manufacturing industry which serves it will crumble and go out of business?

OK, but baseball is a successful, revenue sport in its own right, unlike fencing. So lets look elsewhere. If the Olympics dropped, say, judo, does anyone believe judo would soon cease to be played? How about skiing? Swimming? Shooting? Archery? And the list goes on.

So what makes fencing so fragile that it cannot survive without the draw of an Olympic medal?


I'm afraid I'm in loch's camp here. I have met a couple of fencers who are on track for the Olympic team, and none of them would quit were that goal to go away. Fencing is too big a part of their lives, and too deeply rooted in their hearts. Most of the the rest of the fencers I know realize that they will never be Olympians, and they go on fencing anyway. A few have ( IMO ) illusions of making the team one day, but they too express an independent love of the sport. Recruiting wise, far more novices come in because of Zorro or the Three Musketeers than due to ambitions regarding the Olympics.

So what real reasons do we have to believe that, aside from the admittedly not negligible funding, we would be likely to lose a great deal or indeed everything should Olympic status go away?

It is possible, I guess, that ONLY American fencers feel this way, and that all other fencers elsewhere are only in the sport for cynical, utilitarian, goal-oriented reasons, and would just as soon throw their hands up and quit the game entirely should that one top level of it go away. I don't know a lot of foreign fencers, I admit. But I am skeptical about it. Human beings simply do not vary that much in basic ways according to nationality.


N.B. Oops, didn't notice that there was a "page 2" to this debate. A lot of my points have already been expressed, I see ( belatedly )...oh, well, just think of it as underscoring!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
[BThat is the way it should be and you finally in a post admitted that women are more than boobs and butts. [/b]

Uh, me specifically? I don't ever remember having said otherwise. I've mostly stayed out of this dust-up, and certainly I don't think I ever came out on the "that is only interesting which jiggles" side of the fray...

If somewhere along the line I gave that impression, I am aghast and hasten to protest that it was purely unwittingly.

[lochinvar]

Mo:

If no one has yet explicitly stated: "We like women as people and individuals who have much more of interest to offer than just their body parts," maybe it's because we assume some things as given without having to be spelled out.

Evidently, this is an erroneous assumption. It's a sad day when insecurity overrides common sense.

For the record: I like women as people first. I find them fascinating as friends and feel that they posess complexities and intricacies of personality that far outstrip their value as a collection of body parts. I respect them and never assume that they exist purely for my visual entertainment.

Having said that, however, I will add the codicil: I also very much enjoy the "jiggly bits" as Inq has so picturesquely expressed it. As I stated above, that's bonus.

Feel better now?

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by epeemike81
you're right. You DON'T know what the situation is in Europe, or in much of the US, for that matter. I know many people who took up fencing with Olympic aspirations.

I would wager, however, that you also know many, many more people who took up fencing without Olympic aspirations...unless you run with a very much more athletic crowd than most of us. Which you might.

Furthermore, regardless of the effect on the number of fencers in the world, there is no question that the cost of fencing would go up significantly due to the fact that USFA would lose USOC funding. you seem to have ignored that point, so I figured I'd remind you.

On the contrary; I dealt with it specifically. Re-read what I wrote. I disagree that the cost of fencing would go up "significantly"...but that's what makes horse races, isn't it?

Not to mention that even without the olympics, we would still have elite level programs to compete at World Championships and World Cups. Thus, we would lose ALL USOC funding, but not all the expense.

Ask Dupree, Tiomkin, Kelner, and our other "world-class" competitors how much the USFA contributes to their programs. I believe Tiomkin stated in so many words in these forums a few years back that they didn't give him "squat". If the USFA isn't funding these guys now, when they have USOC money, what makes you think that it will be a significant hardship for the elites if that money goes away?

Originally posted by oiuyt
How many people in the US learned to fence in college (or for college)? How many of the US coaches are funded partially or fully from coaching collegiately?

How many colleges have NCAA sponsored fencing programs? Not nearly as many as there once were; the majority of college programs are "club" sports--yet collegiate fencing seems to be alive and well despite the lack of varsity status. The loss of NCAA participation doesn't seem to have hurt fencing much at all, as far as I can see. Coaches are still coaching and getting paid, and students are still joining.

I think drawing a direct cause-and-effect link between the Olympics, the NCAA, and the health of collegiate fencing is spurious. The evidence doesn't appear to support it.

Money from the Olympics funds fencing around the world. The USFA gets more money from the USOC then it spends on elite programs. Without the Olympics that money is gone. Now look at the same factors in every other fencing country. Olympic money helps keep fencing alive. The Olympics are good for fencing. <snip>...Whether or not fencing would wither and die once it lost Olympic status, I would argue that an expanded Olympic presence would benefit it.

Agreed. But my argument was never that the Olympics didn't benefit fencing at all; my argument is that being part of the Olympics is not vital to fencing's very existence, as some seem to be advocating.

I believe that fencing in this country would be better served if more emphasis was placed on Divisional and Regional programs and organizations and less energy expended on worrying about winning Olympic medals and appeasing the USOC.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by lochinvar
On the contrary; I dealt with it specifically. Re-read what I wrote. I disagree that the cost of fencing would go up "significantly"...but that's what makes horse races, isn't it?

Re-read MY post. I didn't say that you didn't address how you feel about the cost of fencing going up. What I said is that you didn't addresss the specific issue of how a loss of USOC funding would raise costs, which it clearly would. more on this below.

Ask Dupree, Tiomkin, Kelner, and our other "world-class" competitors how much the USFA contributes to their programs. I believe Tiomkin stated in so many words in these forums a few years back that they didn't give him "squat". If the USFA isn't funding these guys now, when they have USOC money, what makes you think that it will be a significant hardship for the elites if that money goes away?

This is a red herring. I didn't say it would be a hardship for elite programs. quite the opposite, actually. what I said is that since we are STILL going to have what programs we have, there will be no drop in cost to offset the drop in funding. Thus, more funding will have to come from the USFA's other sources of funding. since ALL of the other sources of funding are through recreational fencers (NAC entry, dues, etc.), your cost WILL go up. There is a direct link. loss of USOC funding = Increased costs to members. unless you can give me a credable reason why that link doesn't hold, I don't much care that you disagree. USOC funding + Member funding = Total budget. If your budget stays the same, and your USOC funding goes down (to zero, in this case), your member funding MUST go up.

How many colleges have NCAA sponsored fencing programs? Not nearly as many as there once were; the majority of college programs are "club" sports--yet collegiate fencing seems to be alive and well despite the lack of varsity status. The loss of NCAA participation doesn't seem to have hurt fencing much at all, as far as I can see. Coaches are still coaching and getting paid, and students are still joining.

But the best coaches in the country are supported by NCAA programs. Sure, there are any number of coaches at collegiate clubs. None of them are world class and none of them are full time. If you lose USOC and NCAA funding, world class coaching will become a thing of the past.

I think drawing a direct cause-and-effect link between the Olympics, the NCAA, and the health of collegiate fencing is spurious. The evidence doesn't appear to support it. Agreed. But my argument was never that the Olympics didn't benefit fencing at all; my argument is that being part of the Olympics is not vital to fencing's very existence, as some seem to be advocating.

this depends on the definition of "fencing's existence". Though it will exist in some form for the forseeable future, to exist in its current form it depends heavily on the olympics. the level of fencing worldwide, but especially in this country, will degrade if the Olympics drop it. Name one sport which thrives without being involved in the Olympics, NCAA, or a professional venture.

I believe that fencing in this country would be better served if more emphasis was placed on Divisional and Regional programs and organizations and less energy expended on worrying about winning Olympic medals and appeasing the USOC.

define "better served". See above argument about the degradation of the level of fencing.

-m

[Inquartata]

Technically, Mike, the equation you've iterated, "USOC funding+Member funding=Total budget" is not entirely correct. There are sponsorships, there are gifts from benefactors ( tax deductible? ), there are bequests from decedents, there is ( if the USFA is doing its job right ) revenue from interest, and potentially investment income, as well as a host of possible miscellaneous sources. Howesoever these are drops in the bucket compared to the two sources you mentioned, they are still available. Were USOC funding to go away, they might be increased.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Technically, Mike, the equation you've iterated, "USOC funding+Member funding=Total budget" is not entirely correct.

Though I take the tone of this post to be tongue in cheek, I will respond for the benefit of those who may not realize this.

There are sponsorships,

Seriously, are there any?? as discussed, things like United are through USOC. There aren't any independant sponsorships that I know of....

there are gifts from benefactors ( tax deductible? ),

Actually, I thought about donations, but neglected them since the majority of the small amount they get are from members, anyway.

there are bequests from decedents,

hehe.....

if this has ever happened, it is much less than annually, and should probably not be considered in terms of budget planning.

there is ( if the USFA is doing its job right ) revenue from interest, and potentially investment income, as well as a host of possible miscellaneous sources. Howesoever these are drops in the bucket compared to the two sources you mentioned, they are still available. Were USOC funding to go away, they might be increased.

Not only are they all drops in the bucket, but none of them are anywhere near as easy to increase as member revenues. the sources you list are roughly constant, or can be slightly increased over the long term. Thus, for the purposes of this equation, they are constant and do not affect my argument.

again, I apologize for this serious response to a post that I don't think was meant to be serious (or at least wasn't meant to be meaningful), but the last thing I want is for somebody to take your tongue in cheek/nitpicking statement and use it (and the fact that I didn't refute it) seriously to support a specious argument.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
If you male types said things like, "I want to have events separated so I can cheer on and watch the women fencers and perhaps learn something." or "Meeting people from all different places and finding out about their clubs is part of what I like so much about fencing."
It is making women into things, body parts, that is what is offensive. See the difference??

yeah, but the first one is kinda wordy.

Seriously, though, this is a mistake that you and many others seem to make far too frequently. I CAN express an appreciation of physical attributes without diminishing any other aspect of the total package. Just because I appreciate how a woman looks does not in any way mean that we ONLY appreciate how she looks. Please have a little more respect for me than that.

Also, I dislike double standards. Do you remember a while back somebody made a comment about guys with cute asses at their club?? I don't remember who.... well, I didn't hear an outcry then on behalf of your son about how they should be appreciating this guy's fencing ability and intelligence, not his glutes. Why not?? because you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just one aspect. Why, then, do I not deserve the same courtesy?

-m

[Inquartata]

Well, yes, it was mostly nitpicking whimsy...

( Mostly. I will admit that at present should I expire my will mandates that my estate be divided amongst three organizations, of which the USFA is one. So "It could happen!" )

Oh, and I forgot a source of revenue! Advertising! The USFA does get a modicum of that...such as it is...probably not even enough to make "American Fencing" self-sufficient...but still...

[lochinvar]

This discussion seems to have branched into two separate sub-discussions, so I’ll deal with each separately:

On the impact of disassociation from the USOC:

originally posted by epeemike81 ...you didn't addresss the specific issue of how a loss of USOC funding would raise costs, which it clearly would... USOC funding + Member funding = Total budget. If your budget stays the same, and your USOC funding goes down (to zero, in this case), your member funding MUST go up.

On the face of things, you are correct. X+Y=Z; if Z remains unchanged and X goes down, Y must go up—but that is true only if Z remains unchanged.

what I said is that since we are STILL going to have what programs we have, there will be no drop in cost to offset the drop in funding.

That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Would expenses remain the same if the focus of the USFA shifted away from the Olympics? Will we “still...have the programs we have”? Would those programs be necessary—or even desirable—given a shift in emphasis? If the answer is “yes,” then we need the Olympics and the USOC; if “no,” then we don’t need them.

The unknown here is how much of the expense side of the USFA balance sheet is directly or indirectly related to its association with the USOC and the Olympic movement in general. My gut feeling is that if the USFA spent less time and focus on trying to produce Olympians its expenses would diminish, but I will concede that this warrents further research. I’ll look into it and get back to you—unless, of course, you have the numbers at your elbow, in which case you can enlighten us all.

On the “level” of fencing:

Sure, there are any number of coaches at collegiate clubs. None of them are world class and none of them are full time. If you