The Lettter in American Fencing

[Mo]

This is the letter as it appears verbatim in the American Fencing Magazine, Spring 2003 Issue. It is on page 5 in the Letters to the Editor Section


Women's Saber:More Debate

Reguarding USFA President Stacey Johnson's Column in the fall 2002 Issue of American Fencing, it ought to be evident to everyone that the sport of fencing is experiencing a crisis. The question thus devolves: Do we want to weather this crisis by taking appropriate steps or do we want to throw fuel on this incipient fire?

The International Olympic Committee has it's own concerns and priorities. Keeping one of the original Olympic sports does not appear to be one of these. Ot seems the IOC is concerned with television income and putting on the broadest and most popular show featuring a "viewing experience." There is no secret about this. While visiting the IOC's Olympic Museum and library in Lausanne some years ago I read a copy of a book espousing this concept, unfortunately as it is now presented fencing fails to meet these criteria. We read that men and women's modern pentathalon, women's softball and men's baseball are being considered for elimination.

Modern Pentathalon which was a sport initiated by the founder of the Olympics, Baron DeCoubertin has had it's team event dropped and the number of participants dropped by three quarters. All demonstration sports are being eliminated andsome sports are under pressure to cut down the number of events they host.
In a recent NY Times article James Rogge, the president of the IOC is quoted as saying, "we think the Olympic games need to made smaller and less costly so they can be held on all continents and subcontinents." Should we, at this time make things more difficult for the IOC or should we work until there is a possibility that things will get better?
President Johnson writes that unless women's saber is included in this 2004 Olympics, it will never get in. She recommends that pressure be put on the FIE and the IOC reguardless to the fairness of fencers of other weapons, to include women's saber. She has approached other national federations to recruit opposition.

I would like to point out the following considerations:
!. FEncing has existed in the Olympics for over 100 years without women's saber. While not perfectly administered, it is relatively firm in it's status.
2.The IOC is under continuous pressure from many different non-Olympic sport organizations to include their sport. One of the problems that the IOC faces is the Olympics cannot be scheduled for more than 17 days which it now takes and the logistics of accommodating over 12,000 athletes and a huge media corps are becoming almost insurmountable.
3.By approaching other fencing federations to support Women's saber, are we not also risking antagonizing the established fencing nations of the FIE??
4. This cannot be good policy or politics.
It seems foolish to jeopardize the future of all fencing in the Olympics by insisting on the inclusion of this unnatural and johnny-come-lately event. The right way to go is to make fencing as interesting to the TV audience as we who participate know it can be. I am informed that the IOC is considering wu-shu, rugby and golf in the Olympic program. If our leaders cannot figure out how to make fencing more attractive than golf, I think we should pack it in.

Richard J Gradkowski
New York, NY

[edew]

Thanks for the article. I seem to be on the USFA's "late-mailing" list for the magazine.

Anyway, Mr. Gradkowski appears to have a lack of imagination, lack of reasoning skills, and lack of logic. He posits strawman arguments, then tears them down. Well, good job for defeating that windmill. "Do we weather this crisis or throw fuel on the fire?" Are we limited to these two options? I don't think so. There's no crisis, other than the imaginary one that he has created. There are plenty of other options other than throwing fuel on fire.

Fencing, despite whatever crises Mr. Gradkowski has fermenting in his head, is growing by leaps and bounds in the US. We have been having double-digit percent growth for the past few years, and there is no reason to see the downturn, considering how more market-savvy the current crop of coaches are.

One of the main growth factors has been women's sabre. To ignore that market segment makes absolutely no sense.

Now, in regards to the Olympics. First off, the Olympics is not the end-all and be-all for fencing. Many fencers (like me) will continue to participate in all capacity in the sport regardless of the state of fencing in the Olympics. I have probably as good a chance of making any Olympic team as Saddam has of being the next Iraqi leader. Well, I think he has a better chance. That said, my involvement in the sport has not worsen because of this reality. And the vast number of competitors who fence are in that same boat.

It would be nice for the Olympics to add women's sabre, and women's sabre team to the other fencing sports without removing anything. I think the amount of additional medals (3 individuals, 3 sets of teams) is insignificant. The amount of time it takes is equally insignificant. Adding a women's sabre event to the fencing events will not require lengthening the Olympics from 17 to 18 days. It will not require lengthening even the current number of days dedicated to fencing.

Also, it would be the absolute last demand from the fencing federation. It's not as though there's an unrecognized gender or missing weapon to be included in the sport. The disparity is more glaring than the parity.

Fencing has existed for over 100 years but has evolved greatly during those hundred years. Adding women's sabre is just another manifestation of the durability and malleability of the sport.

The IOC may be under continuous pressure from non-Olympics sports for inclusion into the Olympics. But how does that argument have any relevance to fencing, which is already an Olympics sport, and the request is to achieve ultimate parity? The FIE has managed to run junior and senior World Championships with these six weapon-gender events for the past 5+ years with no apparent glitch in logistics or accomodations. We'll use the same event format for the Olympics and be done with it.

Other fencing federations also see a benefit to having women's fencing. China has a world champion in women's sabre. It also has a very strong junior program. France and Italy love women's sabre. Russia and Hungary have strong women's sabre programs as well. Maybe the Iraqi federation is unhappy? I don't think the US's stance for women's sabre will antagonize the rest of the FIE. I do think that some of what the US agreed to give up in concessions for the Olympics made several other delegations unhappy.

I don't know how one judges whether something is good politics or good policy.

As for jeopardizing the future of fencing in the Olympics, I think it's time we should be wagging the tail rather than the other way around. The existence of fencing will no die out because it is or is not part of the Olympics. If anything, it's the USOC that has to be converted rather than the IOC. There are other delegates to the IOC who sees fencing as a great sport (because they win a lot of the medals). The US hasn't won many medals in fencing and the USOC would like to have only sports in the Olympics where the US can win. Well, that's a selfish and bad policy. If Richard Gradkowski wishes to see fencing in the Olympics, he should ***** and moan to the USOC and make sure that they keep that sport in there.

[pammie003]

Just out of curiousity, was there a similar debate surounding the inclusion of women's epee? I wasn't into fencing yet then, so I have no idea. This wasn't all that long ago, right?

I also don't understand why the inclusion of women's sabre would jeopardize the future of fencing in olympics as Mr. Gradkowski seems to fear. To me, the inclusion of another fencing event shows that there is still considerable interest in the sport and should be seen as a positive thing. I don't understand why the men, in Mr. Gradkowski's opinion deserve to compete in saber while the women do not.

And as we all know, although it's nice to hold secret olympic dreams, if fencing does get cut from the program, there would be very few, if any, fencers that would quit the sport for this reason.

[DHCJr]

There was controversy, but not like this. The problem comes from external sources, rather than internal sources. The IOC is the stumbling block this time. The IOC stated before any decision was made that there would be no additional medals, no additional competitors, no additional time and no new formats. When the FIE came up with the combined Men's, Women's and Co-ed Teams to bring Women's Sabre in (Which I think was a wonderful compromise). This did not please the IOC, so they have decided to play hardball. Some of you may remember a few issues ago that Stacy Johnson stated that the teams will be rotated in according to the FIE. I have heard the IOC has stated they will not allow rotating of teams in. If the FIE insists on bringing Women's Sabre in, the format for 2008 will be the same or Fencing will be out.

I do not have direct knowledge of what I related above, but I did hear it from someone who should know.

I still think the combined team idea was a good idea. I just think the Olympics of the 19th Century was Men Only, the 20th Century was Men and Women. Now for the first Olympics of the 21st Century, I like the idea of Fencing leading the way with a Co-ed competiton.

[oiuyt]

this unnatural and johnny-come-lately event.

Heh. My WS fencers were pleased to see this characterization of what they do....

As additional food for thought, Richard Gradkowski had been Secretary/Treasurer of the USFCA for the past 17 years until about a year ago when he resigned. Interesting point of view for a higher-up in our most visible coaching organization to hold....

-B :)

[Jupiter]

Well, my present coach is a female saborist. I feel it's important to keep all the doors an opportunities open, women who compete on a local, and national level, may not have international aspirations, but the gains of having fellow countrymen and women participate abroad can only compliment the sport in the future. I support their efforts and am completly amazed at the strides and courage it takes to fence saber! I really wish I could get into it. I almost decide, but two weapons is aleady an expense. The letters here are very strongly worded and women truly appreciate it. The other teams couldn't possibly feel competitive without the us there.

[FoilyGeezer]

First of all thanks to Edew for his very well reasoned analysis and rebuttal to this letter. I have to say that I agree to everything said thus far.

But the cynic in me has some observations.

I have been around long enough to see the emphasis of sport shifting away from the sport onto the sportspeople, and ultimately coming to rest on the accomplishment or struggle of the sport. The beauty contest that is today's corporate sponsorship reality is predicated on how much their backing can be spun to increase sales...often to the detriment of the sport itself. It is a difficult proposition indeed to expand the inclusion of any additional event in a world where telegenics and the ability of an event to generate revenue eclipse the spirit of the sports, and indeed their participants.

For those who are struggling to come up with a way to make fencing more "mainstream" or more "appealing". Forget it. It isn't a sport you can easily feed the masses. It takes significant investment to even understand what might potentially be going on, and the nuances of the sport when done at a world class level will never fit comfortably in the psyche of the average consumer. The sport has a certain ruthlessly viscious beauty that the palate of the modern consumer currently lacks the capacity to fathom. And so I believe that by succumbing to our base wish to be popular, we risk surrendering much of what makes this sport popular in the first place. Hang all the corporate logos you want on it, it isn't going to make a brilliant feint beat disengage any more accessible to the public at large. And that's what the Olympic Committee is concerned about.

Though they have far more hours of events than they could ever hope to broadcast, their wish is for more brilliant and popular options from which to choose. Find a way to legitimise Female Jello Wrestling, and you probably wouldn't hear a whisper of a controversy as it was included into the Olympic program.

However, we who participate in this sport do have a say as to what it becomes, and at some point it's critical mass takes over. I would hope that the future of this sport supports the honor, tradition, and decorum that it has always had. The best way to support this sport's growth is to support this sport. And that means, bringing even more people into the Salles, and teaching them what makes this sport the unique contest that it is. The best way to ensure the inclusion of events such as FS is to promulgate a demand for them.

[edew]

Corporate sponsorships will not make the audience more understanding of feint-disengages. But that's not the point. Look, even with the complete inundation and domination of basketball around the world, I still don't understand or see the many nuances in that sport (I prefer football or baseball over basketball because I don't understand basketball as much).

But with corporate sponsorship, one will be able to "claim" they understand the sport more. It's the emperor's new clothes influence on people: when something is legitimized, people will be more likely to claim understanding of it. And in today's society, legitimization is through corporate sponsorship.

[FoilyGeezer]

Professional basketball is an excellent example of a sport where the original game has been changed to make it more telegenic...The result is that most people who really enjoy the game prefer to watch College ball because it's more dynamic (though not as high scoring).

Extrapolate that onto fencing and we'll end up with a sport where our coaches will be telling us, move really slowly so they can have more of an opportunity to call play by play. Most of the changes which have occured in the last 20 years in professional sports have been motivated by the desire to make the game at hand more suitable for telivision, not the improvement of the intrinsic qualities of the sport. Note the failure of soccer in the US to be mass marketed because you can't break for commercial without potentially missing something, and soccer isn't willing to have everyone take a knee every five minutes of play so they can sell some sodas, life insurance and some cars. You may be able to do an uninterrupted broadcast anywhere else in the world, but not in this country.

Keep in mind that few sports that exist today have developed from the dire potential of "Do it like this, or there is a very good chance you'll die" like fencing has. I think that the call of "Crisis" is a knee-jerk reaction to a carrot that may end up being a rubber one in the end.

I don't want to see this sport end up compromising much of what it stands for only to have a pack of network executives shrug and say "Sorry, this just didn't work the way we figured it would", and leaving us with a subverted mess on our hands.

[Sarah]

I agree with Foilygeezer. I don't wnat fencing to change just because some beer-drinking pot-bellied guys (no offense to them) to say, "Lets get drunk while watching the nationals fence-off!!". I won't like it one bit.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I'm not totally convinced that fencing would need to change that much to work on TV. (Although if I was the show producer, I'd have some words with the epee boys/girls about putting on a show for the folks back home, rather than bouncing around quite so much)

I work in TV, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Here's just one of the ways it could go:

Pick an event like the Div 1 championships...heck, CREATE an event. You bring a mobile production unit in---they're like a semi trailer full of TV gear...there's a bunch scattered all over the country...they do all sorts of sporting events.

I'd probably want to do it live to tape...you shoot it as it happens, then go back and edit it down, add extra camera angles, graphics, etc. Three main cameras; one wide master...slightly elevated and straight on to the strip, two isolation cameras slaved one to each fencer. If cost is no object, rig an overhead wire camera to dolly back and forth with the action. Throw in a couple of handhelds for crowd reaction and referee/commentator shots, and you're getting close. I'd want at least the two iso cameras and the main master to tie to high frame rate super-slo-mo replay decks (just like football or gymnastic routine replays). Put a wireless microphone on the ref so we can hear each call, if need be.

As part of the telecast, I'd want an explainer package giving the basic rules of fencing for each weapon, including some point of view video with a small camera mounted on the arm and/or mask so we can see the fencer's action clearly--just like in Olympic downhill skiing, where they put a camera on the chest of a skiier and send them down the course to visualise it for the audience.

Announcers would be critical to the success. I'd want one professional play by play guy to move things along and generate excitement, plus one or two weapon/reffing experts to talk and do the voice over for the slo-mo replays, outlining strategies and tactics. (think any of the 28,503 manufactured TV skating events for the way a 3 person panel can work).

Take it home, slice and dice, and send it off. Unfortunately, that's the easy part.

When measured in terms of likely pairs of eyeballs interested in watching such a program, it makes it a very tough sell to a network or sports channel. Somewhere along the way, you have to either find a number of deep-pocket sponsors, or a broadcast/cable entity that will gamble on making back the cost of production through advertising sales.

Right now, that's where I would see the most difficulty in bringing fencing to TV. Not that fencing is so esoteric that they won't get it in Peoria (as the old saw goes), but that no one will take the financial risk to make the first show.

[wflaschka]

We clearly need to simplify fencing. Too many events at the Olympics? FIE feeling the pinch? Old school fencers and new school fencers coming into conflict?

Sounds like we need to replace the three weapons with one weapon -- an amalgam that takes all the best from each weapon, and can be fenced by either gender. We can drop the Olympic fencing investment to 4 medals (1 men's, 1 women's, 1 men's team, 1 women's team).

Executive overview:

Bouts would be fenced to 30.

The whole body is target, but different values are assigned to body parts.

1 points for any touch, with or without right-of-way (for Epee fencers).

2 points for flat of the blade touches (for Sabre fencers), as well as for hitting the extremities (arms and legs).

3 points for hitting the torso with Right of Way, or for head cut, or for hand touch.

Crossovers would be allowed.

I'm trying to figure out the 3-weapon blade. And a handle that allows pointy stabbing as well as cutting.

[Sarah]

I don't think that I'd like to fence 'simple weapon', it sounds interesting, but I like to fence the complicated foil and argue with the refs on touches. It sounds very, creative. But I really don't want to change fencing too much. I like it the way it is.

[Gav]

I don't think that there is any need to change the sport to popularise it. Why? Because it has been covered on television on the European contninent and it's reasonably popular - for a minorty sport - over there. Also because for us in the English speaking world there is has been no attempt to broadcast [or popularise] it. The simple truth is that Fencing needs to attract some money. Bring money and the camera's will follow. If a big corporation was to favour us with a cash infection then I am sure that they would then ensure that their products got the airtime that they deserved. I see that Adidas is still proud to display it's involvement in Fencing in adverts - has noone ever approached them to get sponsoresip in the US- not even for the nationals?

In the UK there is constant jockeying between all the major stations to to put on football - why? Because it's popular one presumes. But the beebs desire to compete with the likes of BSkyB to put on football actually puzzles me. Why even bother to compete? Why not nurture another sport ... like fencing. Channel 4 managed to popularise [even if it was only briefly] Sumo. In fact I thouroughly enjoyed Sumo and missed it when it went off-air.

As for including WS in the Olympice. I don't feel one or the other about it. I have heard it said that the only reason it got included was due to pressure from the US who - funnily enough - have a very strong team. A controversial statement but there you go.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
I'm not totally convinced that fencing would need to change that much to work on TV. (Although if I was the show producer, I'd have some words with the epee boys/girls about putting on a show for the folks back home, rather than bouncing around quite so much)

I work in TV, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Here's just one of the ways it could go:

(intresting description of filming snipped)

Take it home, slice and dice, and send it off. Unfortunately, that's the easy part.

When measured in terms of likely pairs of eyeballs interested in watching such a program, it makes it a very tough sell to a network or sports channel. Somewhere along the way, you have to either find a number of deep-pocket sponsors, or a broadcast/cable entity that will gamble on making back the cost of production through advertising sales.

Right now, that's where I would see the most difficulty in bringing fencing to TV. Not that fencing is so esoteric that they won't get it in Peoria (as the old saw goes), but that no one will take the financial risk to make the first show.

So - what would this cost? Can you give us a ballpark figure? Would it be financially possible to organize a collection among USFA members to pay for this, and have the whole thing aired as an ad at 04:00 in the morning?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Sarah]

I think that I'd like to get sponsered, what do you have to do to get sponsered? Do you have to be really good at the sport or just show a promise? I'd love to be sponsered! But I don't think I'm good enough yet. In 2 years I'll be great though!!! I'll look into getting sponsered...

[edew]

Well, any attempt at getting sponsorship would require that you spell the word, "sponsor" with an "o" and not an "e".

After that, it's all gravy and downhill from there.

[a517dogg]

What fencers in the US are sponsored?
Also, what constitutes sponsorship, for example, if you get free equipment from a vendor or something, would that be sponsorship, or do you have to have logos, or receive cash, or something?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
So - what would this cost? Can you give us a ballpark figure? Would it be financially possible to organize a collection among USFA members to pay for this, and have the whole thing aired as an ad at 04:00 in the morning?

Peter: to do it as described (and I don't think any of us would want it to look like a low budget informercial) will cost more than is likely to be raised by a collection.

However, I'll make a few calls and see if I can ballpark something.

Stay tuned!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by wflaschka
We clearly need to simplify fencing. Too many events at the Olympics? FIE feeling the pinch? Old school fencers and new school fencers coming into conflict?

Sounds like we need to replace the three weapons with one weapon -- an amalgam that takes all the best from each weapon, and can be fenced by either gender. We can drop the Olympic fencing investment to 4 medals (1 men's, 1 women's, 1 men's team, 1 women's team).

Executive overview:

Bouts would be fenced to 30.

The whole body is target, but different values are assigned to body parts.

1 points for any touch, with or without right-of-way (for Epee fencers).

2 points for flat of the blade touches (for Sabre fencers), as well as for hitting the extremities (arms and legs).

3 points for hitting the torso with Right of Way, or for head cut, or for hand touch.

Crossovers would be allowed.

I'm trying to figure out the 3-weapon blade. And a handle that allows pointy stabbing as well as cutting.

you ARE joking, right?

-m