Golubitsky's peers

[shamshir]

Ok, who are the fencers that won olympic golds in the years in which Golubitsky himself competed in the Olympics? I'm guessing he did 1992, 1996, and 2000. I think he got silver in 1992, and 6th in 96, and 5th in 2000.

So who won in those years? It seemed as if Golubitsky had a record number of Worlds victories in between those olympics (and countless WC #1 finishes).

I always thought Golubitsky was like undisputed overlord of men's foil. Or is he basically the MF equivalent of Pozdniakov (who's been at the top, more or less, since I remember following, like from 1995 onwards).

[veeco]

in 2000 it was Kim
in 1996 it was Puccini
in 1992 it was Omnes

http://www.fie.ch has all the info, under "Palmares"

[edew]

The Poz did actually win an Olympic gold medal at the 1996 Olympics, so he didn't break apart like the Serge into little bitskies.

[haggis]

Edew, you're a very cruel man. In 92 Golubitsky was young (22 or 23?)and Omnes was a wily old git, in 96 Puccini was a surprise winner but at that point Golubitsky still hadn't won a worlds and in 2000 Kim kicked his a$$ but had looked likely to do that for a while and G wasn't physically in best shape. Given his record it's a bit harsh to accuse him of being a choker. The Olympics are only one day every four years and everyone is gunning to be in peak shape on that day. So totally possible to be the best of a generation still not quite get it right on the big day. I'd guess that most of us would settle (reluctantly ) for an Olympic silver and a couple of finals.

[CvilleFencer]

Speaking strictly for myself of course, I would gun down a bus load of nuns at PBR just to be on the US team. I would most likely recieve the news and then spend the next few months in catatonic bliss and therefore miss the whole thing to begin with.

Besides the Olympics are not that big a deal. Anymore they are one giant commercial and the whole thing is rigged by the French anyway. Now the Worlds and WC's and so forth, those are the ones that count. When you can win 3 Worlds back to back, who cares about the Cambells Games at Wheaties Stadium that only happen every 4 years anyway! And yes I am still pissed about the Fed-Ex field thing (Regional joke, do not feel bad if you are baffled)!

[Tsu-La]

I would give anything to be in the Olympics. To be able to represent your country in the games must feel amazing

[veeco]

Originally posted by CvilleFencer


Besides the Olympics are not that big a deal. Anymore they are one giant commercial and the whole thing is rigged by the French anyway.

Hey, we're talking about fencing here, not figure skating... I don't really see how the olympics could be rigged by the French in fencing. For one thing, there are not many opportunities to do so, seeing that the olympics are just a handful of fencers, and that most people on the olympic comitees aren't French and do not even necessarily sympathize with the French.

You can't blame one country for everything that happens in the world of sports! If I followed your argument, I would say that track is rigged by the Americans, seeing how successful they are in those events ;-)

[haggis]

Blaming the French is always a popular pastime in Britain and seems to be catching on in the USA as well.

[edew]

Yeah, and guess who's fault that is!

[nahouw]

Originally posted by veeco
Hey, we're talking about fencing here, not figure skating... I don't really see how the olympics could be rigged by the French in fencing. For one thing, there are not many opportunities to do so, seeing that the olympics are just a handful of fencers, and that most people on the olympic comitees aren't French and do not even necessarily sympathize with the French.

You can't blame one country for everything that happens in the world of sports! If I followed your argument, I would say that track is rigged by the Americans, seeing how successful they are in those events ;-)

I agree with veeco, in that problems in fencing are different than the problems that plaque figure skating, however, there is still a comparision to be made to the problems that is the same. And as to the complaint that it is rigged by the French, that is totally out of line -- at least the French still respect the conventions of the rules, no matter how much modern fencing has changed, and many federations do not agree with the French.

In figure skating, when the scoring is so tight, the judges can do things that they shouldn't (and this takes an enourmous amount of work if they choose to do so) -- however, since I also figure skate, I can see where technical ticks can be deducted -- many casual observers do not see this, and there is a vast majority of casual observers, so unknowledgeable public opinion can drive controversy. In figure skating, marks are delineated in both technical ability and artistic impression -- this is the checks and balances that exist to keep it fair.

In fencing, there are not several judges, their is only 1. There are different schools of thought, and each referee has his own perception, and his authority is final. On the Olympic stage, the fine differentiations of actions are not perceptible to an unknowledgeable body of spectators, and when certain fencers meet in which their schools of thought clash, there is bound to be controversy -- and all that the spectators perceive is that there is a problem with the officiating. This is a much worse perception than what occurs in figure skating.

What the FIE should do, in order to make it more understandable to the public, to decrease the individual nation's feeling of wrong-doing and scenes, is to institute a new policy that the only time a touch is considered valid is when it is 1-light. In this way, it will make the fencers fence better, it will elimate controversy, and also make it more spectator friendly and understandable. The referee is there then only to conduct the bout and enforce penalties.

[haggis]

Edew

The French, right?

[edew]

Mai oui, n'est-ce pas?

[veeco]

Originally posted by nahouw
What the FIE should do, in order to make it more understandable to the public, to decrease the individual nation's feeling of wrong-doing and scenes, is to institute a new policy that the only time a touch is considered valid is when it is 1-light. In this way, it will make the fencers fence better, it will elimate controversy, and also make it more spectator friendly and understandable. The referee is there then only to conduct the bout and enforce penalties.

You're kidding right? I don't want ROW conventions to be thrown out of the window because it will make fencing more spectator friendly and understandable.

In figure skating, and you explained it better than I could do, there are technical differences that might not be easy for the public to understand, yet figure skating is a quite popular sport to watch among a certain audience. That is because there is an artistic element which makes figure skating akin to a dance and people watch more for the spectacle than for the sport.

So I don't think that removing the ROW conventions will without any doubt make fencing more spectator friendly, however, staging fencing bouts better and making them more spectacular will.

But even then, honestly, I don't think fencing will ever have a following as big as say, soccer, or basketball or baseball in the US, unless the number of participants dramatically increases in the future. What I think might be possible to do, in order to make fencing more popular, is to install it as kind of a niche sport that can be shown on TV everyonce in a while. For example, there are fishing and hunting channels on TV. Why? Because there is a certain segment of the population that is interested enough in those activities to make it worth someone time and money to create a tv channel dedicated to it. I think that if there is enough participants, and enough competitions, and enough interest (which comes from participants) then fencing will eventually get its own channel. From then the audience might grow and we will eventually see fencing on TV. There is no reason that people like those who run Fencing Footage for example don't create a TV channel in the future, if they realise there is a market for that. However that time is not here yet, as the number of fencers, or people who have fenced and are ready to pay a subscription fee to such a channel is not enough.

My comments were mostly light-hearted btw, as I am sure Cville's were. But as far as the controversy that bouts are rigged, it might have been possible in the past when referees where mostly europeans. Nowadays, nations only send one referee to international tournaments and it is much harder to rig bouts. However in the past it was quite common that fencing bouts would be arranged or that referees would unpartially favor one fencer for the other for unethical reasons...

[I see dead people]

Originally posted by edew
Yeah, and guess who's fault that is!

Al Bundy's.