Let Us Get Real

[Mo]

Originally posted by lochinvar

My position is this: Fencing—in fact, any sport—is healthier when more people are doing it (even at reduced talent levels) than it is when fewer people are doing it (even of world-class caliber). I would rather see thousands of mediocre fencers participating and enjoying than only a handful of competitors with gold medals festooned around their necks. I believe that shifting emphasis to promoting and strengthening fencing as a recreation at the Divisional and Regional level would acomplish more to increase the number of people participating than a string of world and Olympic champions would.

But I appreciate that your position is different. Let’s just leave it at that. [/b]

Beginner fencers should always start fencing for recreational purposes. To enter a sport to go the the OLYMPICS is an exercise in futility. There are so many variables and possibilities for any given Olympics.
Champions are squeezed out, they keep doing little things that the other fencers/athletes do not do or cannot accomplish.
Having said that, a medal or two especially an Olympic medal escalates interest in the sport. When little Mary Lou won the Gold in gymnastics for the good ole USA, gymnastics became a HUGE SPORT with thousands and thousands of young kids participating. Out of tens and thousands of gymnasts, 6 are on the Olympic team but they have a huge base pool of kids to chose from now.
Fencing is not nearly that big but of all the fencers in the US, three of each weapon will be on the USA Fencing team.
I really don't think the USFA is there to cater to these possible 18 people. What I meant was that the USFA is there to create a sport and having some spectacular results will not hurt.
We need both sets of people, less than 20 to become the World Champions and the rest to get out and fence!!
However, if you want to be taken seriously as a fencer and if fencing is to be a serious sport, there is an extreme amount of effort required in any Olympic sport. The USFA knows this and does what it can to support the people making the extreme efforts.

[DHCJr]

Let us just suppose that every single stay fencing if we loose the Olympics, where do we get new people as the current one retires. Most, not all fencers I know started at a College or High School. Here in the West, what has been said about the NCAA is being dramatically shown. Right now there are 5 NCAA teams, Air Force, Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Tech and U.C. San Diego. In Southern California there are 3 club teams, Santa Barbara, UCLA and Irvine. There used to be many more NCAA teams and when they went so did many of the clubs. With only 1 school up North, Stanford, they have to travel to Southern California or East to compete. When I started there were more than twice as many NCAA and clubs in Southern California. But as the coaches retire, the schools decide they don't need the expense. Sometimes there is a club at USC, San Diego State, LA Valley College, and others, but they can't maintain it. And when they start again, where do they get the equipment, many times it is gone.

Okay, maybe we will keep everyone, but people grow old and retire. Where do the new ones come from? The USFA won't have less money to work with to promote. The NCAA will drop fencing, because we are already below the threshold of non-Olympic sports. Maybe you do not see any use for the Olympics, but the NCAA does. I was with a strong program for the West, but when the coach retired, so did the program. When that program went, so did some of the clubs. Maybe it is a coincidence, but in the over 25 years I have been involved with Collegiate fencing, I have never seen more club teams than NCAA teams in Southern California. Does that mean that Collegiate Fencing will end if the NCAA drops fencing? I don't know! Do you? But I definitely do not want to find out.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by epeemike81
well, this doesn't seem to jive with your earlier statement that the USFA doesn't give elite fencers squat.

First, a clarification: I didn’t say that the USFA doesn’t give elite fencers squat—one of the elite fencers said it. I merely quoted it. I hestitate to call Jon Tiomkin a liar, but maybe you don’t.

... you are correct that they wouldn't be worried about producing olympians anymore..... now they would be worried about producing world champions.

Essentially you are saying that the USFA would simply trade one monkey on their back for another, and since they can’t shake the addiction they need the income. Hardly a flattering picture of them.

I think...that raising the bar on the elites raises the level of everybody's fencing. you get better by fencing better people. eliminate teh better people, and the fencing degrades across the board.

What is this—the “trickle-down” theory of athletic excellence? Mark Spitz wins seven gold medals, and now suddenly I’m a better swimmer? Cliff Byer wins a bronze, and so now my results in a local tournament will improve? I’m all for it if it’s true, but I don’t quite grasp the mechanics—perhaps you could explain...?

the question is is it better to have X fencers at a lower overall level, or X fencers at a higher overall level? When you pose the question this way, I think it is clear that the Olympics provides major benefits.

Here you present first a false dichotomy and then a non sequitur.

First, the false dichotomy:
We are not forced to choose between X number of lower quality fencers or X number of higher quality fencers; the possibility exists to have X number of higer caliber fencers or X+ (or even 2X) number of lesser caliber fencers. I would prefer the latter over the former. This will never happen, however, as long as we shackle ourselves to the pernicious myth that winning international championships is somehow the only path to greater participation. There are other ways to increase the numbers of fencers; if you don’t wish to consider them, fine, but don’t posit an either/or situation to bolster your position when no such either/or situation actually exists.

Second, the non sequitur:
It was not demonstrated in any of the statements that preceded this one that the Olympics provide the major benefit cited, namely that of raising the quality of everyone’s fencing. (My own fencing, as an anecdotal example, remains pretty much the same regardless of how many Olympic hopefuls the USFA might nurture. ‘Course, if we actually won a medal I would expect my performance to improve—according to your “trickle-down” theory above.)

In addition, I AGAIN pose a challenge to you: Name one organized sport which enjoys good levels of participation in this country without Olympic, NCAA, or Professional status.

An artificial challenge based on a false premise.
You seem to be positing that if an organized sport enjoys high participation and if that sport is sponsored in the Olympics or the NCAA or has a professional status, therefore the high level of participation must be attributable to its position as either Olympic, NCAA, or professional.

Correlation is not causality. High participation may or may not have anything to do with a professional presence or inclusion in the Olympics.

I submit soccer as an example. Every weekend, from spring through fall, the local fields are overflowing with soccer teams ranging in age from first-graders through college and even adult. Yet if we accept your assertion that soccer enjoys its popularity because it is an Olympic sport or has a professional presence, we would then expect that interest in such events as the World Cup would be rampant and attendance at professional soccer games high.

But neither of those expectations is met. Professional soccer continues to struggle for fans in this country and disinterest in the World Cup is so rife as to be cliche. (The spike in interest during the last rounds of the last Cup was due solely to the possibility that the US team might have a shot; as their chance died, so did interest.) Yet the level of participation next summer will probably be as high if not higher than it was this summer.

So where does this leave our Hero-Worship-of-Champions-as-Great-Spur-to-Participation model? I think even you will have to admit that these legions of dribblers and kickers take the pitch for some other reason or reasons entirely, and would do so even if soccer were dropped from the Olympics tomorrow.

And while we’re on the subject of challenges, I will issue you a counter-challenge: Explain the continued low participation and interest in certain sports despite their inclusion in the Olympics. Fencing is one obvious example, but I was thinking of some even more obscure—such as Synchronized Swimming, eh?

Explain that, if you can.

[lochinvar]

DHCJr:

You can thank the way Title IX has been implemented and the fact that fencing is a "non-revenue-producing" sport for the decline in NCAA fencing--but that was a topic covered in another thread, and need not be broached here.

Here in Michigan, we retain only two of the many former NCAA fencing schools: Wayne State University and University of Detroit-Mercy.

However, I can name many more collegiate club teams: University of Michigan, Western Michigan, Michigan State, Oakland University (although I'm not sure of that one), Schoolcraft College, and Oakland Community College.

I can't speak for the West Coast, but here in Michigan collegiate fencing is alive and well--despite reduced NCAA presence.

[DHCJr]

Lochinvar, none of us have said, that being part of the Olympics will bring in members, just that loosing the Olympics will drop participation. You also answered your own question as shown below.

"(The spike in interest during the last rounds of the last Cup was due solely to the possibility that the US team might have a shot; as their chance died, so did interest.) Yet the level of participation next summer will probably be as high if not higher than it was this summer. "

Thank you for proving the point, maybe that will also work for fencing.

But also, here is a question, was there more teams, both NCAA and club combined then there is now?

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by DHCJr
Lochinvar, none of us have said, that being part of the Olympics will bring in members, just that loosing the Olympics will drop participation. You also answered your own question as shown below.

"(The spike in interest during the last rounds of the last Cup was due solely to the possibility that the US team might have a shot; as their chance died, so did interest.) Yet the level of participation next summer will probably be as high if not higher than it was this summer. "

Thank you for proving the point, maybe that will also work for fencing.

But also, here is a question, was there more teams, both NCAA and club combined then there is now?

On the contrary, that is exactly what people are saying. Maybe you don't realize it.

If losing the Olympics will drop participation, then participation must be at its current level because of the Olympics. If that's not saying that being part of the Olympics brings in participants, then what is it saying?

And the point I was making was that participation in soccer in this country does not vary directly with interest in international championships. On the contrary, participation in soccer is high despite our lack of international champion status.

As for total numbers of clubs pre- and post- NCAA, I'm afraid I can't help you on that one--I'm not originally from around here. Maybe someone else can fill us both in.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by lochinvar
First, a clarification: I didn’t say that the USFA doesn’t give elite fencers squat—one of the elite fencers said it. I merely quoted it. I hestitate to call Jon Tiomkin a liar, but maybe you don’t.

As I said, this issue isn't really germaine, since either way there aren't budgetary cuts to make up for the funding cuts. thus, lets drop this portion of the debate, since it is meaningless.

Essentially you are saying that the USFA would simply trade one monkey on their back for another, and since they can’t shake the addiction they need the income. Hardly a flattering picture of them.

Essentially I am saying that the USFA would trade one attempt to improve our results for another. if you see that as a problem, then we simply disagree.

What is this—the “trickle-down” theory of athletic excellence? Mark Spitz wins seven gold medals, and now suddenly I’m a better swimmer? Cliff Byer wins a bronze, and so now my results in a local tournament will improve? I’m all for it if it’s true, but I don’t quite grasp the mechanics—perhaps you could explain...?

Have you ever been to a NAC or Nationals? Have you ever fenced somebody who was far above your level at one of these events? Didn't it improve your game slightly? one of my teammates still maintains (correctly, I believe) that the single thing which improved his fencing the most was going to a NAC and WATCHING the Junior's. just WATCHING high level fencing and saying "that looks cool, I think I'll try it." can VASTLY improve your fencing. Without USOC and NCAA funding, the coaches won't be funded and the level of these examples will degrade. I submit that you don't realize how much the existence of elite level programs has helped you. it is a sort of indirect benefit, and thus not one which most people think about extensively.

First, the false dichotomy:
We are not forced to choose between X number of lower quality fencers or X number of higher quality fencers; the possibility exists to have X number of higer caliber fencers or X+ (or even 2X) number of lesser caliber fencers. I would prefer the latter over the former. This will never happen, however, as long as we shackle ourselves to the pernicious myth that winning international championships is somehow the only path to greater participation. There are other ways to increase the numbers of fencers; if you don’t wish to consider them, fine, but don’t posit an either/or situation to bolster your position when no such either/or situation actually exists.

Well, if there are so many other viable paths to increased participation, why are you unable to find one sport which has employed such a path and thrives without the high level? But fine, lets assume you are right that there are other paths. How are you going to fund new programs??? remember, the floor just got cut out of your funding via lack of USOC money. Where is this magical capital gonna come from?? You ARE right, however, that the choice is not, in reality, between X higher or X lower level fencers. in reality, the choice is between X higher or far-less-than X lower level fencers.

It was not demonstrated in any of the statements that preceded this one that the Olympics provide the major benefit cited, namely that of raising the quality of everyone’s fencing. (My own fencing, as an anecdotal example, remains pretty much the same regardless of how many Olympic hopefuls the USFA might nurture. ‘Course, if we actually won a medal I would expect my performance to improve—according to your “trickle-down” theory above.)

See above

I submit soccer as an example. Every weekend, from spring through fall, the local fields are overflowing with soccer teams ranging in age from first-graders through college and even adult. Yet if we accept your assertion that soccer enjoys its popularity because it is an Olympic sport or has a professional presence, we would then expect that interest in such events as the World Cup would be rampant and attendance at professional soccer games high.

your logic is flawed. Many thousands of children took up golf because they dreamt of being the next tiger woods (or their parents dreamt of it, but that is an entirely different can of worms). that is why they PLAYED golf. those same children do not watch the PGA, though. So, I fear it is you who has fallen into a causality trap. spectator base and competitor base, while related, are not the same thing, especially at the young ages you are talking about.

The spike in interest during the last rounds of the last Cup was due solely to the possibility that the US team might have a shot; as their chance died, so did interest.

so, what you are saying is that the better the US did in the sport, the more interest there was..... gee, where have I heard that before? thank you for supporting my argument!

So where does this leave our Hero-Worship-of-Champions-as-Great-Spur-to-Participation model? I think even you will have to admit that these legions of dribblers and kickers take the pitch for some other reason or reasons entirely, and would do so even if soccer were dropped from the Olympics tomorrow.

no, I most certainly do not have to admit that. as mentioned above, spectator statistics aren't germaine to this discussion. However, you are probably right that Soccer would survive its removal from the Olympics. it is a cycle however. the reason it would survive its removal is that it is popular, which is exactly why it won't be removed.....

And while we’re on the subject of challenges, I will issue you a counter-challenge: Explain the continued low participation and interest in certain sports despite their inclusion in the Olympics. Fencing is one obvious example, but I was thinking of some even more obscure—such as Synchronized Swimming, eh?

Low participation where? in the US?? okay, I can explain it quite simply: it is out of the collective consciousness because the US isn't any good at it and it gets no TV coverage. gee, that was hard. Thank you, once again, for supporting my argument with such a great example.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
To enter a sport to go the the OLYMPICS is an exercise in futility.

Actually, as I believe I mentioned before, a friend of mine decided he wanted to go to the olympics and thus took up skulling (thus doing EXACTLY what you would call an exercise in futility). Though the jury is still out, he only started last year and recently made it past the first qualifier. With the right coaching and athleticism, it is not nearly as futile as you might think.

-m

[Mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Actually, as I believe I mentioned before, a friend of mine decided he wanted to go to the olympics and thus took up skulling (thus doing EXACTLY what you would call an exercise in futility). Though the jury is still out, he only started last year and recently made it past the first qualifier. With the right coaching and athleticism, it is not nearly as futile as you might think.
-m

Maybe it is as futile as I think.
Just because he entered a sport to make the Olympics does not mean in general for the VAST majority of people that it is NOT an exercise in futility. People DO make Olympic Teams but if your only goal is to make the Olympics the astronomical odds of doing so is like buying a lottery ticket and winning a jack pot. YES it does happen but buying lottery tickets should not be your plan for the future.
Of course Mike I am sure you have friends that bought tickets and won the lottery too.

[epeemike81]

Note that what I said is with the right coaching and athleticism it is not nearly as futile as you think.

-m

[MikeHarm]

There is no reason to disagree, just have a poll made.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by lochinvar (in reply to epeemike
Here you present first a false dichotomy and then a non sequitur.

Lochinvar, take it easy on the poor lad. He had purchased a letter of provenance with that dichotomy, and the guy in the Boston back alley who sold him the sequitur swore it was a valid one.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Note that what I said is with the right coaching and athleticism it is not nearly as futile as you think.

-m

Yes it is, look at Vanessa Atler, Gymnast!
Making the Olympics is a CRAP SHOOT a LONG SHOT an almost impossible aspiration unless you live in some tiny country where a person such as yourself would be a good athlete.
You can do you typical, "waahh that is not the way I see it" defense but it is not going to work this time.
What athlete once they start making finals, getting points, getting competant at their sport, does not want to go to the Olympics? How many of them make it? Even CURLING has competition and because of it's size is near impossible to begin that sport.
You are basing your opinion on ONE PERSON, look around. Check out figure skating, swimming, soccer, basketball, track and field, gymnastics, speed skating etc and see how many people actually make the cut.
I watched little kids for years crying their eyes out in pain doing gymnastics because they were "going to the Olympics." They lost their health, their childhood and some their lives, on an almost impossible idea.
Read "Little Girls in Pretty Boxes" which is about figure skating and gymnastics and actually educate yourself on something Mike. Base your arguments on some actual life experience as opposed to NOTHIN. Go to Google and put in Odds on Making Olympics and see what you come up with.

[oiuyt]

Not quite what epeemike said. Starting GYMNASTICS to make an Olympic team is an exercise in futility, starting in A sport for that purpuse isn't always. In this case the athlete intentionally picked a sport which he would pursue with the Olympic goal. The sport selection was made for that purpose.

I can imagine that there are at the very least several sports out there which, an athletic person willing to make the time/monetary/emotional commitment to could become one of the best in the world at. Coming from a small country just makes that easier (in some sports).

You bring up the example of curling and point out that the hard bit is getting started. If that's the hardest part.... kinda proves Mike's point, no? I suspect curling is somewhat harder to become world class at than finding 3 (4?) other people to play with. Wouldn't surprise me at all if a significant percentage of the participants that have Olympic aspirations and make the attempt succeed however.

How many people do you know that have choosen a sport to pursue with the goal of making the Olympics? How many of THEM look rationally at the odds and pick a sport where it's (realistically) possible? Epeemike happens to know one such person. I don't know any (and that includes hundreds of little gymnastics kids at the gymnastics studio I attended as a child). I'm guessing that you don't either. Picking a high profile sport makes it very hard. Choosing to go to the Olympics may or may not be (if one takes as a given the ability to make the time/monetary/emotional commitment mentioned above, something which I think is fairly rare).

-B :)

[Inquartata]

OK, I am seeing at least one weak assumption which loch has failed to rebut: that loss of Olympic status will inevitably result in a lower level of skill amongst top fencers, which will vitiate the putative skill-increasing effect they have on all lower levels of fencers.

What exactly is the basis for this assumption? That all or most top fencers will either (a) slack off or (b) throw away their weapons in disgust and take up sculling ( as an example ) if fencing were to be dropped from the Olympics? And is this assumption really rrealistic?

I suspect that most top fencers---apart from those from countries whose governments are wont to force athletes into sports their experts judge them best suited to in pursuit of world prestige--- went into the sport for the same reasons most of us did: because it was fun and because they enjoyed it. They then found that they "had what it takes" to go to the top. Why are we to believe that without Olympic Gold as a goal they would simply shrug and quit the sport?

I am sure a few people take up sports not out of any love for them but for reasons of ego and self-aggrandizement. But is that really the sort we ought to be catering to and trying to recruit? Do we want fellow aficionados, or cynical prima donnas?

Oh, and there is this constant challenge to "name a sport" which is successful despite a lack of Olympic, NCAA, or pro status. Difficult, because trying to come up with one on an ad hoc, unsystematic basis is bound to make for blind spots. I for instance couldn't even tell what sports are or are not in the NCAA stable, and I'm sure that in any list of sports I could name there would be glaringly obvious omissions. BUT...


What about Cowboy Action Shooting?

What about the various things they do in the SCA? What about the burgeoning field of Western Martial Arts, for that matter?

What about sports such as Ultimate Frisbee?

Just a few, I'm sure there are more to be found.

Finally, someone asked "Without the Olympics and NCAA where will future fencers come from?" Answer: The same places they come from now. The vast majority of fencers in this country are neither Olympic hopefuls nor in NCAA programs. They are recruited into, and fence in, private clubs, in college and university intramural clubs, in military academy clubs, in community centers and high schools and athletic clubs. They will come to these and they will fence, not because they have been panting to stand on a podium since infancy but for the same reasons the bulk of us have always come:

Because it's fun.

[Prometheus]

I dont think you will find many stories that go, "well, I just like to run, and then I decided to try the Boston marathon and I came in first! So, I figure Ill give this olympics thing a shot..."

The ammount of commitment (financial, emotional, time, energy) it requires to become a world class athlete tends to make it an intentional thing. I would venture to say it is in all but the most unusual of cases that a highly competitive athlete does not seek the perfection (real or immagined) that is represented by a world title.

So, I think to some extent, to become a contender for a world title, you have to set out to become a champion.

Perhaps it is a cynical assumption. But I think even as far down in the tabeau as most of us reside (by the math, each round of DE's has twice as many loosers as the next) there is still a little gold dust that floats down to us. I would venture to say I have never met anyone who fences solely to achive mastery over themselves and the techincal aspect of the sport with no cares of actual results.

While Olympic status does not define our sport, I think that if the identity of fencing as an olympic sport were to dissappear, the world fencing communitity would suffer greatly. I refuse to belive that a deterioration of international elite fencing would not trickle down into the national and regional levels and deal a blow to our sport from which it would be hard to recover.