Let Us Get Real

[Jason]

I don't really think there is any definitive way to assess the sustainability of fencing if it were no longer in the Olympics. There are (as repeatedly demonstrated above) loads and loads of factors.

lochinvar's inference (as I understand it) that disassociating the USFA and the USOC will help increase the numbers of fencers in the US seems a little tricky.
Especially since--according to everything I've read and seen, personally--the numbers are already growing.
Though I think the USFA could change some things, there is nothing to suggest that its connection to the USOC is hurting the number of US fencers.

While the sport of fencing might survive being knocked out of the Olympics, would it improve?
Would not being part of the "Movement" benefit the sport?
I mean, what is so bad about the USFA being married to the USOC?
We don't get good discounts on flights?

I don't think there are too many people here who would want to see fencing out of the Olympics.
So, if the argument has degraded into "Can fencing survive without the Olympics?", it seems a little moot.
If we are trying to figure out what we could do if fencing was out, then the question should really be "HOW can fencing survive without the Olympics?"

Other than that, I think we should direct our attention to boobies.

[lochinvar]

Well, actually, I think this whole discussion has degenerated to the level of "silly".

I don't really care if the USFA remains associated with the USOC or not. Doesn't really hurt fencing, as you say, and doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'll keep fencing regardless.

Mike seems to think that world championships and Olympic medals is the only way to increase the "level" of fencing, though I'm not really sure what he means by that. If he dreams of being clobbered by elites on a regular basis to experience some small "increase" in his game, more power to him. (May all your dreams come true, Mike.)

[Idle speculation: if everyone's "level" increases at the same time and rate, won't we all just remain in the same relative place? So how would we know that we'd gotten better? It's not like there's some objective criterion to measure it against...]

Mo has some interest in fencing as a sport and herself as a fencer being taken "seriously", but I don't really know what that means, either. Who's good opinion are we trying to garner here? Our own? Our fellow fencers? The media? The World at Large (whoever they are)? When you come right down to it, it seems rather nebulous and ill-defined.

Myself, I'd like to see more emphasis put on improving and developing the Divisional and Regional competitions, since that's where I spend my time. Don't go to NACs 'cause I don't have either the money or the time...but that's just me.

I also think that better marketing and publicity would go a long way towards increasing the number of fencers overall, and that would be a good thing. I get the feeling that not everybody agrees that "more people participating"="better for the sport", however. To each his/her own.

In the meantime, I'll keep sending my $40 to USFA and keep trying to make things better where I am. I hope the rest of you are doing the same. It'll all work out--or not.

And I'll still sneak a peek at the butts and boobs, whenever the opportunity arises.

[swordsen]

I honestly don't think there is very much the USFA can do to develope local and regional competitions. Especially local. That is going to be up to us.

[vigia]

Originally posted by swordsen
I honestly don't think there is very much the USFA can do to develope local and regional competitions. Especially local. That is going to be up to us.

The USFA can't make the local scene happen directly, but indirect support and development is a different thing entirely. If you read your current (just came today) copy of American Fencing magazine, you will note part two of a discussion of how to approach improving our television coverage. This is exactly the kind of thing that the USFA could do if it had more resources -- pull together the sponsorships and the marketing program to improve fencing's visibility and televisibility. This will help the grassroots as well as our toehold as an Olympic sport. (Personally, I think it helps that fencing is an Olympic sport -- it does legitimize us a bit in the eyes of non-fencers, and adds some intensity to the elite competitions. But I agree with earlier commentary that by far most kids (Future Fencers of America (tm)) come to the sport because they saw a great Zorro flick.

Also as noted above, Soccer did not grow because we had world champions. Exactly the other way around. We have world champions because over the last 3 decades thousands of towns around the US discovered that soccer was a) cheap to run as a sports program, b) boys and girls both liked it, c) the basic rules were simple to understand, and d) it was easy and enjoyable to play and watch at an entry level. I remember when soccer was only played at private schools and a few public high schools, and was heavily looked down upon by the football, baseball, and basketball players. It took a lot of time to change that. What made the most differece was that soccer was cheap, easy, and fun. Once lots of kids were doing it, it became less stigmatized.

Unfortunatly for us, while fencing is fun, it isn't that cheap or that easy. We don't have the option of dumping a ton of gear on a thousand town rec centers and just telling the kids to put on masks and start running around and stab each other. No question the kids would probably love it, but not really an option.

So what can the USFA potentially do for the grassroots if it had more funding?

They could help fund the training of coaches who would start more clubs or high school teams or teach rec center classes.

They could provide seed money for said programs, along with bulk equipment purchase savings (the same way they provide insurance)

They could develop marketing programs and expertise that can be used both at the club level (promote-a-club-in-a-box kind of thing), as well as at the national level.

They could fund high-quality television presentation research that could result in a way to package what we do in a way that looks very, very cool on TV.

All of this would both grow the sport at the grassroots level, increase public awareness, and increase our Olympic stature and possibly even demand for TV coverage.

Look -- someone cobbled together "Tae-Bo" or whatever from a bunch of random parts, marketed the hell out of it and it grew like hotcakes. Arguably we could do the same. (Whether or not we should is a different question).

Right now the USFA doesn't have the money to do this. It could conceivable hire an experienced fundraiser, and possibly line up some sponsorship and seed funding. I don't know that fundraising is the USFA's strength, but that doesn't mean that money might not be out there.

It could also raise dues for everyone, and be clearer to it memebers what it is doing on their behalf.

In short, there is a lot the USFA could do, and needs to explore more and different ways of funding it. The problem isn't that we are tied to the USOC and push an Olympic agenda, but that it doesn't spend any time or effort exploring other avenues of funding, or the cost/benefit of the other services it could provide.

IMHO

[oiuyt]

[quote[So what can the USFA potentially do for the grassroots if it had more funding?

They could help fund the training of coaches who would start more clubs or high school teams or teach rec center classes.[/quote]

They subsidize Coaches College every summer at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. A VERY worthwhile program IMO for any of those interested. Many of the level 1 participants are looking for pretty much what you describe, enough to start and run a school or rec center club in their home town.

They could provide seed money for said programs, along with bulk equipment purchase savings (the same way they provide insurance)

They have programs for equipment grants for clubs where they pay matching dollars up to some amount ($500 I think).

They could develop marketing programs and expertise that can be used both at the club level (promote-a-club-in-a-box kind of thing), as well as at the national level.

They ran a club marketing clinic at Summer Nationals in Greenville last July and at it said that something basically like what you mention here was in the works. No estimate on availability date however.

They could fund high-quality television presentation research that could result in a way to package what we do in a way that looks very, very cool on TV.

I'm not aware of any such program, and you're right it would be good. They have put together a promotional video, a copy of which was given to each section at nationals in Greenville. Coming up with ways to help promote TV coverage is DEFINATELY on the radar (see the above comment about American Fencign having an article on same).

The USFA IS trying to do most of the things that people suggest. They ARE trying to improve the sport, especially the sport in this country. If you have suggestions I'd suggest sending them along to the national office staff. usfencing.org has email addresses, use them. They LIKE getting suggestions for ways to improve or new ideas.

-B :)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by lochinvar
[Idle speculation: if everyone's "level" increases at the same time and rate, won't we all just remain in the same relative place? So how would we know that we'd gotten better? It's not like there's some objective criterion to measure it against...]

An increase in the average level of fencing is NOT the same as an average increase in everyone's level of fencing.

I also think that better marketing an[d publicity would go a long way towards increasing the number of fencers overall, and that would be a good thing. I get the feeling that not everybody agrees that "more people participating"="better for the sport", however. To each his/her own.

Actually, I would doubt there is anybody on this board who doesn't think more fencers would be better for the sport. We just think that the fact that we are trying to increase numbers isn't a reason to neglect the other needs of our sport. As to the marketing issue, see the above post from oiuyt.

-m

[vigia]

Originally posted by oiuyt
[quote[So what can the USFA potentially do for the grassroots if it had more funding?

So maybe part of what they need to do is market themselves and their efforts better to their membership We could have skipped a lot of this thread!

[jkormann]

I hope there were some USFA Officials lurking on this thread and they at least got some ideas of what the people would like to see.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Some of these posts are so surprising so that I just *must* answer them. I am aware that there are differences in fundamental opinions concerning what is desirable and what is not, but here goes:

Lochinvar writes: (many snips by me)
>Mike seems to think that world championships and Olympic >medals is the only way to increase the "level" of fencing, though >I'm not really sure what he means by that. If he dreams of >being clobbered by elites on a regular basis to experience some >small "increase" in his game, more power to him. (May all your >dreams come true, Mike.)

I am not all that good a fencer, I guess that if I would compete in USA I would get a E rating. Earlier this year, I competed in a local competition and fenced twice against Magnus Malmgren, 2 times running Sw. Champion and 20th (IIRC) in the 2002 WC (ME). In poules, he beat me 5-1 (straight attack to the inside of his weapon hand palm, even I have my moments), in the 1st round DE he hammered me 15-0. Did I learn anything from that? Dunno. Did I like proving to myself that I *can* score against a world-class fencer? You bet.

I do not believe that these rare A-E bouts cause "skills trickle-down". I believe that it works this way: When Malmgren trains (paid for by the Sw. Olympics organization) the other Natl. team members, and fencers with a good shot at the team, get better when they bout against him. When these fencers bout against fencers somewhat weaker than them, those in turn get better. And so on, until throughout several layers, fencers at my level get better.

If you do not believe in trickle-down, then it seems to me that by analogy you should believe that bouting against someone somewhat better than you would not sharpen your skills. Do you believe that?

>[Idle speculation: if everyone's "level" increases at the same >time and rate, won't we all just remain in the same relative >place? So how would we know that we'd gotten better? It's not >like there's some objective criterion to measure it against...]

In the measurable sports, World records have become better over decades, and personal records by low-level sportsmen have also become better. Why would fencing differ?

>Myself, I'd like to see more emphasis put on improving and >developing the Divisional and Regional competitions, since that's >where I spend my time.

Considered volunteering time as voted official/meet organizer/whatever? Furthermore, the line of thinking "Emphasis should go where I spend my time" does not match all that well with my idea of greater good.

>I also think that better marketing and publicity would go a long >way towards increasing the number of fencers overall, and that >would be a good thing. I get the feeling that not everybody >agrees that "more people participating"="better for the sport", >however. To each his/her own.

Yes, fencing needs publicity, without which marketing becomes very difficult indeed. An olympic medal would be one of the best things imaginable for fencing publicity. Some sports can get a lot of publicity due to other things than results (scandals, huge amounts of money, etc) but that only goes for a few sports and fencing is not among them.

My beliefs are:

more participating -> better for the sport
stay in olympics -> better for the sport
international medals -> better for the sport
stay in olympics -> chance at getting medals
international medals -> publicity opportunity
etc.

Mo writes: (many snips)
>Numbers:
>I went to Google, my favorite search engine and started looking >things up.

>The Summer games in Sydney had 10,000 athletes, so for all >practical purposes lets say 1000 of them were from the USA.
>The population of the United States according to the Census >2000 was 281,400,000. So if 1000 athletes came out of the >general population of the US, that would equal a chance of >roughly 1 in 281,400.

>The odds are long, very very long. I figure with all the variables >it has to be at least one in 750,000 to a million.

Your number are correct, but you calculation does not estimate what is purports to do - the fraction of all americans who eventually will go to the summer games. Instead, you should compare the number of newborn americans in each 4-year period to the 1st-time olympians in each game. If the Sw. Olympic team is anything to go by, a rough estimate of that latter figure would be about 500. The first figure is obtained by using the birth rate, total population, and multiplying for 4 years. We get: 281400000* (1/75)*4 = 15,000,000.

The ratio then becomes: 500/15000000 = 1/30000.

Long odds, yes, but far better than accoding to your calculation.

(Immigration/emigration will affect number, yes, but those are second order effects.)


Inquartata writes: (many snips)
>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?

Well, there are some of the older top-level fencers whose only reason for continue hard fencing training is the next games, which they set as their last and final goal. If fencing goes from the games, they will probably stop on their own accord, or lose sponsoring pretty quickly. Heck, I would wager that a sizable portion of the very top - worldwise - consists of fencers who are sponsored with the olympics in mind. No olympics, very little sponsoring.

>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---

The countries which fit this description - or have recently fit it - actually those that supply most of the very top fencers.

>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.

Well, wen you find that you "have what it takes" would you not find it fun and enjoy it?

>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?

I say: all recruiting is good recruiting, (almost). Most of those who enter fencing for this reason will fail to rise to the top, but on the way many will become better people, and all will buy hardware, supporting the fencing gear companies and giving the rest of us a source of cheap used stuff when they quit.

>Oh, and there is this constant challenge to "name a sport" >which is successful despite a lack of Olympic, NCAA, or pro >status.

Well look at today´s TV schedule in the sports channels. How much is shown of sports that do not fit in those three categories? Today´s Eurosport gives...nothing. tomorrow: 1 hour of Scottish Highland games, out of 16.5 hours of airtime. You get the picture. I would suspect that it is about the same in your channels.

>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...

Do a web search.

>What about Cowboy Action Shooting?

USA thing only.

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

Whenever they are written about in papers (seldom) rules have to be explained!

>What about sports such as Ultimate Frisbee?
Another USA thing.

Sorry, but a sport that has not risen above curiosity level in another country than its origin just does not cut it.

>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.

Yes, there will be recruitment after a drop from the games. By why lose one draw? Why risk starting a vicious cycle, when we are stretched thin as it is?

I have more to say on this matter, but that will have to wait for later.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[swordsen]

Peter wrote "Sorry, but a sport that has not risen above curiosity level in another country than its origin just does not cut it."

Well, they put curling in the Olympics and I don't think anyone outside of canada had even heard of it before they did that.

If we want ot help fencing on the local level here are my suggestions.

1. Go to ALL of the competitions you can. (Even the ones where you don't like the guy running it and the ones where it isn't going to be any challenge for you)

2. Don't ***** and whine about what isn't perfect. Offer to help fix it. (for example: If you feel an event wouldn't be a challenge for you go and REF at it.)

3. Stop perpetuating the myth that fencing is some esoteric activity that the average american wouldn't comprehend. Fencing takes 5 minutes to learn. (and a lifetime to get good at)

4. Don't whine about how the Division/Section is run. Go and help run it.

5. Raise money and set up a trust fund for your Divison so it has money to help local start up clubs (the Georgia Division has $15,000 in such a fund. Thanks Bill)

6. IF you are a "serious" competitor (i.e. looking only for points), Get over yourself and go help/fence on the local level anyway. (I'm with Peter G, I love meeting Nationally ranked fencers just to see how I fare)

Just a few ideas

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Off to the side-topic of starting a sport in order to go to the olympics:

oiuyt writes: (many snips)
>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.

In sports where you need teammates to compete a start like this won´t work out. In sports where the IGB (international governing bodies) decides who goes to the games (fencing etc.), you must also be very good indeed to get to the games. Now, there are a few sports where the number of total participants is not limited by IOC or the IGB, and in those sports you an go to the olympics with limited results. In Sydney, there was a swimmer from somewhere in africa who swam slower than many spectators wold have done!

>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.

A curling team consists of 4 players and 1 alternate. In the winter games, curling has 10 teams for each gender, maximum of one per country. Since Canada has 80% of the world´s curlers, competition from there is significantly more difficult. However, if you come from a curling-weak country, there is a large risk that your country won´t get a spot at all, evening up the odds.

Back to central issue:
Lochinvar writes: (many snips)
>What is this—the “trickle-down” theory of athletic excellence? >Mark Spitz wins seven gold medals, and now suddenly I’m a >better swimmer?

Not suddenly, and maybe not you. However, it works over time and for the fencing community as a whole. See previous post.

>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.

IMO, the choice is X number of lower quality fencers or X+ of average higher caliber, depending on whether there is no olympics for fencing, or whether there is.

>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.

Not the only. But look at the correlation between number of international medals and number of fencers for different countries!

>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.

Take away olympic funding, and many fencing NGB´s would go belly up before they had got the chance to adjust themselves. General mess would ensue.

>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

No, but high correlation merits further investigation.

>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.

Here, USA is the anomaly. In just about all of the rest of the world, soccer is #1 in public attendance, and the soccer World Cup had a worldwide interest rivaling the summer games. Your counterexample is based on one single country in which soccer is not top dog.

>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.

Soccer has a bunch of other things going for it:
1. Steady stream of immigrants from soccer countries
2. personal equipment is easily affordable for most people
3. Equipment on the grounds is relatively vandal-proof, making it a viable buy for counties
4. low demands on clothing
5. percieved low risk of large injuries
6. easy to take part in, even for unsupervised beginners
7. Lots of sporting grounds

Fencing has none of this. But baskeball has all 7, and BB is big in many countries.

>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?

See list above. SS fails on #1 and #6. I can not think of any obscure olympic sport that does not fail at least one of there criteria. Can you?

>Explain that, if you can.

See above.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Swordsen writesheavy snippage)
>Peter wrote "Sorry, but a sport that has not risen above >curiosity level in another country than its origin just does not cut >it."

>Well, they put curling in the Olympics and I don't think anyone >outside of canada had even heard of it before they did that.

Curling was invented in Scotland, it has (I have read, at least) a relatively high presence there. Most sport interested people here in Sweden know about it, and know the general rules. In Eurosport, the show 20 hours of curling a year (my rough guesstimate), considerably more than of fencing. Curling is easy to film, and provides ample preplanned breaks for commercials. They showed a fair amount of it *before* it was taken into the winter games.

A totally different thing in this thread is the USA-centrism in many posts. Considering that a removal of fencing from the games would affect all fencing NGB´s worldwide, this is a limitation that I feel that must comment on.

Many fencing NGB rely on their NOC, or IOC itself, for funding to an even larger extent than USFA. Would the removal happen, I believe that many 3rd world fencing NGB´s would go bankrupt or fold. Many of the other would experience big problems.

Even if you happen to believe that the removal would be good for you as an individual fencer, or for the USFA as a whole, would you find those consequences acceptable?

Back to the 1st world. I will describe how it is in Sweden, since that is the case that I know best. However, I am reasonably sure that the situation is fairly similar in most other European countries.

In Sweden, each olympic sport has a designated national high school (some high-profile sports, cross-country skiiing, soccer, etc. have several). The olympic NGB will choose a small number of very promising athletes which are junior high school graduates, and those can go to that designated high school, if they wish (competition is severe). This is the only case in the Swedish school system in which school admittance is based on anything else than grade averages.

In the designated school, tuition is free (as it is in 99% of the rest of thhe school system). The promising athletes get to train with, and against, the cream of the country. They have a paid coach, special grounds for that sport, etc. They also provide a healthy boost for the club in that town. Most of the Sw. olympic team members have gone to a designated school. When not training for their sport, the promising athletes study usual studies - except no PE.

There are 2 other academic fencing coaches in Sweden, paid for by the University. They work at the 2 old universities, and their posts were created in the 15th or 16th century (I forget) when universities also had the duty of military training for the students. Those posts have then been grand-fathered along the centuries.

Since Universities may not admit students by anything else than grade averages (correction: in some cases you must prove by audition that you merit a place, but those are very much the exception), sports stipends do not exist, universities may not (by law) handle admittance procedure themselves (that is done by a national office of its own), the new universities would never contemplate spending money on a sports coach.

Now, where would this leave us if fencing was removed from the summer games?

Budget axing would make the designated national fencing high school fold when the present coach retires, if not sooner. The two University coaches would also be up for budget cuts. There are 10, at the very most, full-time paid fencing coaches here in Sweden. Three of them are not paid for by fencers themselves. If we lose them, it would be a big loss for the whole fencing community.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[swordsen]

Yes the board does tend to be US centric but that is to be expected as the vast majority of posters are in the US.

Thanks for the lesson on the history of curling Peter.

More TV coverage for curling than fencing. for some reason that alternates between horrifying me and making me laugh wildly.

[Inquartata]

Heh, trying to catch up to this lengthy thread all at once, eh? Been there. Sometimes missing a day or two here portends some serious carpal tunnel pain...

Anyway---

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson


Well, there are some of the older top-level fencers whose only reason for continue hard fencing training is the next games, which they set as their last and final goal.

There's always the World Championships, or even the Veteran's Championships.

If fencing goes from the games, they will probably stop on their own accord, or lose sponsoring pretty quickly.

And probably take up coaching---so do we really lose them as a resource?

Heck, I would wager that a sizable portion of the very top - worldwise - consists of fencers who are sponsored with the olympics in mind. No olympics, very little sponsoring.

Weeell....maybe. I'm not sure quite how the linkages between sponsors and athletes works ( I suspect each is different ). I mean, auto racing isn't in the Olympics, and look at the billboard your average NASCAR driver resembles. But you may be right on this point.

The countries which fit this description - or have recently fit it - actually those that supply most of the very top fencers.

Yes, and there are reasons for it, but I'm not sure they are ones we ought to encourage, even if they would increase the general level of fencing skill. I mean, we could probably create some great fencers through surgery and sophisticated use of drugs, but we've already decided that these methods are reprehensible and not worth the gains they might bring. Maybe forced the way these countries went/go about doing things is a bit too close to slavery to be worth the gains THEY have/are bringing?

Well, wen you find that you "have what it takes" would you not find it fun and enjoy it?

Not necessarily...or we would not have the well-known phenomenon of the great actor who "really wants to direct/write/sing/paint/etc.". The world is full of people who are very good at something but couldn't care less about doing it...I know a few fencers who are that way.

I say: all recruiting is good recruiting, (almost). Most of those who enter fencing for this reason will fail to rise to the top, but on the way many will become better people, and all will buy hardware, supporting the fencing gear companies and giving the rest of us a source of cheap used stuff when they quit.

Unless they're Iraqis, where apparently one of Saddam's sons imprisons and tortures athletes who don't win in international competitions...

Well look at today´s TV schedule in the sports channels. How much is shown of sports that do not fit in those three categories?

That I cannot say, I don't get cable. But I see quite a few brief stories about these sports on local new programs. It doesn't amount to what the ball sports get, of course, but there is some, much of it kid-related, but not all of it. I have seen flag-football, frisbee, paintball, all manner of martial arts, the Iditerod Dogsled race gets quite a bit of coverage during its run, even the SCA turns up from time to time...

Do a web search.

For what? Sports+"not in the Olympics"? ( No results were found ) "non-Olympic sports"? 1,240 hits, none of which look to contain anything like a list. Not the greatest of web-searchers, I.

>What about Cowboy Action Shooting?

USA thing only.

Ah, but that wasn't one of the criteria.

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

Whenever they are written about in papers (seldom) rules have to be explained!

And that DOESN'T happen with fencing?

Ultimate Frisbee?
Another USA thing.



Sorry, but a sport that has not risen above curiosity level in another country than its origin just does not cut it.

You mean, like the multi-million-dollar industry of American football? If that isn't "successful" I don't know what is...

But you see, you're hastily adding additional criteria now, just to wave off counterexamples. This is known as the fallacy of definitional retreat: every time ones argument is answered, it is changed in some artificial way so that the answers no longer apply. Tsk!

ill be recruitment after a drop from the games. By why lose one draw? Why risk starting a vicious cycle, when we are stretched thin as it is?

Well, in all candour I am not saying that we ought to be lobbying to get out of the Olympics. I only think that we ought not to bend over backward so far that the sport as we know it is irreparably changed just to satisfy other imperatives, such as mass popularity or telegenic-ness (?), and to placate the IOC. Nor ought local organizations to focus so on the tree of Olympic medals that they lose sight of the forest of fencing as a whole.

The USFA, for instance, does indeed do a number of things to benefit local grassroots fencing, as others have been pointing out, and it does send some money down to the Divisions and to clubs. I merely think that it ought to be doing much more of these things, and that more of its money should be going downward than it is at present.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson

Budget axing would make the designated national fencing high school fold when the present coach retires, if not sooner. The two University coaches would also be up for budget cuts. There are 10, at the very most, full-time paid fencing coaches here in Sweden. Three of them are not paid for by fencers themselves. If we lose them, it would be a big loss for the whole fencing community.

Peter, with respect, I think you're suffering from a bit of a blind spot here---which is to say, a way of thinking which leads people to believe that if the government or some organization does not fund something and provide it to consumers, it will cease to exist.

Should the scenario you mention actually take place in Sweden, why could not the FENCERS continue to school, pay the coaches, etc, as is done elsewhere? Private support, in other words, replacing public...