Fencing and the Cult of Personality

[FoilyGeezer]

There is no doubt that most of us want to see fencing become more popular. Fencing programs spring up and fade away based on depth. I'm not talking about depth of participation as much as depth of staffing. Most of these programs were started by and still rely on the will and guidance of one person. The success and longevity of most of the fencing programs in this country rely on a single person. Remove that person and the program dies...sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.

I'm not saying everyone's program is like that. But in a sport that has never even scratched the surface of market saturation, I find that the prevalence of these types of programs is astonishing. Probably on slighly less astonishing is the way we've built the sport around the protection of this model.

As long as our attitude is one of "How many national level competitors has your salle produced" instead of "How many new fencers has your salle brought to the sport" we're doomed to be an incestuous little enclave of percieved hyper-competitors.

I look at the sport of golf as a model we should try and emulate more. The sports are similar in that they can pretty much only be played in an appropriately prepared area with an initial investment in the proper equipment. It's important for most golf course's prestige to have a competent and accomplished pro. But the big difference here is that it isn't vital to the immediate future of the course to have a top notch pro to maintain the bulk of their clientele.

I've heard of more than few programs where the maitre d'armes is bumping heads with staff members to the ultimate penalty of the clients. I've seen too many programs fizzle out of existence due to the creation of a void caused by the retirement of an owner who had used that position since the inception of the program to protect their own prestige and relative prowess.

I'm not saying that this is epidemic or anything, just that it's more common than this sport needs it to be. I'm also not saying that the competitive aspects of this sport aren't important either. It is after all a sport concerning itself with person to person combat. It is, however, as a popular pastime, way too prone to institutionally shooting itself in the foot.

[magma]

I don't think we can add much to that except, well written analysis. We might ask ourselves the same question of any sport, does the mere fact that a school has opened imply that it must produce world champions? For every person who has taken up the sport of golf; [something that has never had an appeal for me, they load pounds and pounds of herbicides on the ground to keep the weeds away] will they all be like arnold palmer? For one thing golf courses are mere space takers, allowing very few to participate on the green at the same time, whereas a salle can pack about 50 people into a fairly small space, without hogging the environment. If any sport can be called elitist, i would say it's golf.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

And let's not even get into the scandalous amount of water a golf course consumes!

FoilyG is dead on target with his observation about how we perceive success on a club basis. The clubs are often their own worst enemy. Think about any major salle you've been inside. Do they have banners listing the numbers and names of people they've introduced to fencing, or do they have racks of pictures and posters of the competitors who have won national/international championships?

If you're a beginning fencer, are you more impressed with this pantheon of heroes coupled with a bandy-legged fencing master who speaks in a heavily accented patois, or some guy named Fred who hands you a sweat-stained foil at the local rec center and says, "Here, put your feet like this"?

Having large numbers of participants and multiple coaches is a great way to diminish the cult of personality for an individual fencing master. The problem is getting to that level without the self-perpetuating "Look at all our national champions!" mindset.

It's an admirable goal, but let's be honest. At this year's Summer Nationals, which club will most of us be impressed with: The XYZ Fencing Consortium that brings 128 new members in matching jackets, or the Hoary Old Euromasters Salle that places a fencer in nearly every final?

As long as we measure a salle's success by national/international results, the problem will persist.

[reawl]

If it's numbers you want then you're not looking in the right place. There are plenty of clubs around who lack a resident fencing master; they survive by passing their knowledge down to the next generation. For clubs like this the general mindset is to get as much exposure for the club & sport as possible. Each year we see roughly 120 new people introduced to fencing. Granted not all of them stay, but they don't all leave either ;-)

[MikeHarm]

I think that a franchise with a properly thought out marketing and growth strategy would grow the ranks of fencers greatly, increase the profitablilty of fencing clubs and our media visibility would grow signifigantly once the revenues got to the point of being able to advertise properly.

I look at it like we're kind of where karate was before TKD came on the scene with a well thought out plan to market karate when before everyone was doing whatever like we do things now.

Mike

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
If you're a beginning fencer, are you more impressed with this pantheon of heroes coupled with a bandy-legged fencing master who speaks in a heavily accented patois, or some guy named Fred who hands you a sweat-stained foil at the local rec center and says, "Here, put your feet like this"?

Regardless of who you are, you're probably more IMPRESSED with the trophies. Which one of these guys is more USEFUL to you as a beginner? Probably Fred.

Having large numbers of participants and multiple coaches is a great way to diminish the cult of personality for an individual fencing master. The problem is getting to that level without the self-perpetuating "Look at all our national champions!" mindset.

It's an admirable goal, but let's be honest. At this year's Summer Nationals, which club will most of us be impressed with: The XYZ Fencing Consortium that brings 128 new members in matching jackets, or the Hoary Old Euromasters Salle that places a fencer in nearly every final?

I'm not really arguing that the two types of salles are mutually exclusive. Or even that they should be. What I'm saying is that fencing suffers from OSS (Odd Sport Syndrome). In most neighborhoods in this country you could feel perfectly comfortable telling your kid, "Hey son, let's go out in the front yard and throw a few around" and people who drove by your house would think "Aww isn't that nice". But if you were to say "Hey son, lets go fence a few points out in the front yard", chances are the cops would be pulling up in an hour or so asking WTF you thought you were doing, or at the very least people in the grocery store would give you a wide berth on your next shopping day.

As long as we measure a salle's success by national/international results, the problem will persist.

I think the USFA does a fair amount of very positive work to support the infrastructure of fencing in this country. I'm a little surprised at the Salle as Citystate mentality that exists in areas that could surely support multiple Salles, and I think that in part it is the insular nature of the athletes who have achieve success based on the merits of their own hard work, yet still feel parsimonious about sharing the value of their experience on the one hand with anyone who doesn't have the same level of talent and appreciation for the sport, and being protective of their reputation on the other. It's a big fish in a small pond problem. In other words, even though it's the fencer's who gripe about the sport not being as widespread as it could be, it's also the fencers who make sure that it's kept that way.

Until the sport creates a critical mass, and then learns to capitalise on that momentum then where we are is where we'll pretty much stay. I do my fencing in a borrowed Karate studio. I wonder how many parents (a lot I would suspect) enroll their kids in Karate class with the idea of instilling a sense of discipline and mastery but end up with their kids just kicking everything that moves. One of the things I've noted about fencing as a martial art, is that you really can't take it into the streets...and that's a good thing, yet it does a superb job in teaching the appropriateness of restraint, discipline, and tactical thinking combined with physical demand. Let me see you do THAT on your Game Boy!

[corinna2u]

If fencing recreational...I would pick the club with the most fencers...more variety...more fun.

If fencing competitive...I would pick the club with the drive to produce 'trophies'. I must clarify that it is the drive, the knowledge, the ability to coach effectively, not the 'trophies'.

[Feanor]

This was an excellent analysis! and though I just entered the world of fencing (last week *laughing*) I think my plebe status in Fencing's Social struction gives me a unique insight...

The general concensus of people outside of fencing, which I might still be considered as belonging to, is that it is elitest, stocked full of eccentric snobs whose personalities border on the level of say, an Opera Tenor, or a Formula 1 race car driver...

Of course, this assessment is incorrect, as almost all of these types of assessments are, but the stigma remains...

Golf indeed is an elitest activity, but it enjoys two great advantages over Fencing... 1) it is perceived as a vehicle for social advancement (My Mom even payed for lessons for my younger brother because she considered being good at golf as important in the business world ) and 2) You are competing with an abstract; "par" even if you are golfing with others...

I wonder if the martial connotations of fencing work against its acceptance as well? or if their is a "sissyness" factor amongst youth that operates in the same vein as a phenomena I saw in junior high where boys who took up the flute or violin were regularly made fun of, and worse...

If a sport cannot get a foothold in acceptance by youth, I would think that would translate to very difficult acceptance at all later periods and levels... and if this is true, it is very sad, for it means that fencing will continue to be religated to the category of "Weird, non mainstream sporting activities" for a long time

Just rambling...

Feanor

[KBayDog]

Originally posted by Feanor
The general concensus of people outside of fencing, which I might still be considered as belonging to, is that it is elitest, stocked full of eccentric snobs whose personalities border on the level of say, an Opera Tenor, or a Formula 1 race car driver...

Eccentric? Guilty as charged. Snob? Who? ME? Eech - As IF!


Seriously, welcome aboard! I am sure you will more than enjoy the pursuit of fencing knowledge. (Even if our sport is full of eccentric snobs...)

BTW, I think I am more the F/A-18D-type than the F-1 type

[axelbcorlu]

i think there are some very good insights and observations in this discussion. my addition to what has been said would be this:

we're concerned about the popularity of fencing, at different levels perhaps, but i think most of us are; one thinks, was it always like this, some mis-perceived, relatively unknown sport to the majority of the public?

hardly. if an activity with centuries of history and popularity behind it manages to keep its elan as well as the masses' interest (as paradoxical as that may sound) up to the middle of the last century, where amateur and pro bouts had thousands of people watching and many others left out for lack of space inside, what happened suddenly?

did people lose their interest for some obscure reason? i know that there are hundred thousands around the world who fence; but of course our collective numbers as humankind have slightly increased too. the comparison of ratios might be interesting, but public/media coverage is a clear indicator that fencing has lost most of its popularity compared to 60 years ago.

in my opinion, what most people (not all, but again, most) who're interested in fencing have in common is the "wow, sword!" swashbuckling connection (simple as it sounds, and unrelated as it might be). this doesn't mean that i think a majority of people interested in fencing dream of being a pirate, but rather that there is a connection with the notion of "swordplay" and "fencing" in people's minds (and i like to think that they're not universes apart, historically, no matter how much things changed).

what did the people of 1930's see when they looked at fencing then? be it foil, sabre, or epee, they saw things they could understand and follow, even if they did not know much about what was going on. this was not because fencers were moving in slow motion; but it was because what they did still had the traces and logic of; and connection to, the history of fencing, where in that mythical -for some- time, deadly duels were fought in dark alleys. imagination is a potent thing indeed. we might know the qualitative, or even existential differences, but that has little to do with how people not afflicted with our virus see it. they see something that resembles swordplay, and many of them are interested. they see olympic fencing today, (and no, i don't think technology is necessarily "bad" for fencing; and i'm not trying to dream some nostalgia) and they see something that does not really quite make that connection.

i don't want to go into the inefficient, dead horse of an argument of "classical" vs "modern, or sport" fencing; but nevertheless, when we talk about a phenomenon that was immensely popular in a time period quite close to us; a phenomenon that has become far less than what it had been when you look at media or the "people on the street," part of that dead horse is not that dead; it does have significance. i say, leave the rest of what can/and has become a pseudo-argument, but look at this part, what makes people interested, and why is fencing not a mass attraction today, from this perspective too...

how many people in the world know the name golubitsky today? how many knew names like nadi or gaudien then? it is food for thought if you ask me...

[axelbcorlu]

would be gaudin, of course; fast typing demons...

[FoilyGeezer]

The question has been asked as to why fencing seemingly was more popular in the past than now.

Here are a few things to chew on.

1) Fencing was part of ANY military education well into the first part of the last century. This means that any cadet at any military school, regardless of branch of service was trained to fence some weapon and develop a competence which would allow them to be effective in real combat. Today many of the service academy's no longer have even club programs.

2) Fencing was included to varying degrees in many classical educations. It was a gentleman's sport and in some cases a source of social arbitration. Keep in mind that legal or not, dueling still existed here and to a probable higher degree in Europe during the end of the 19th century.

So you had a cadre of people who understood the sport, whether they were participants in it or not. Most people who had access to a private education were familiar with, if not well versed in fencing for reasons of social or occupational pragmatism. The pragmatic reasons to learn to fence today do not exist.

Though much of this social pragmatism has dissipated over time, the underlying symbolic value and skill set to be taught by this sport are the same, and are just as valuable in other aspects of life as they ever were. You can find metaphores for most social and business interaction that are brutally clear in fencing. In a sense it contains the essence of strategic and logical thinking that promotes problem solving skills not otherwise taught in todays educational environment of standardized testing.

[Feanor]

Originally posted by FoilyGeezer
You can find metaphores for most social and business interaction that are brutally clear in fencing. In a sense it contains the essence of strategic and logical thinking that promotes problem solving skills not otherwise taught in todays educational environment of standardized testing.

This is an incredibly insightful observation! and it crystallizes the attraction that I could previously find no words for for what drew me to fencing just recently...

As the years have passed I've found many athletic pursuits to latch onto, but now have come to realize that forms such as fencing, which stress tactical decision making, self control, discipline and "thinking on your feet" is a workout for the body AND the mind.

As FoilyGeezer mentioned, problem solving skills are almost completely lacking in the current educational tendencies toward standardized testing in schools... and "categorization" has become more important than "stimulation" and "inspiration"

Rote memory will get you far in today's educational system, but pitifully far in life... Rote memory (muscle memory?) I would think is an important component in all forms of fencing, but only the very beginning (forms, technique, practice etc) and like a Black Belt in Karate, marks only the start of where the real learning begins.

What I probably find MOST attractive about fencing is that it is a controlled expression of the spirit of combat, that is, it is an interaction between opponents where each can "drive" the other to the pinnacle of performance, without the spectre of "dumb-luck" or the danger of uncontrolled rage. In this way, both combatants learn immeasurably more than simply bashing at each other mindlessly...

In alot of ways, I would think that master fencers are more than simply "Master Fencers" (someone who has mastery of a skill) but instead are those who have learned to apply themselves wholely, and more completely at a skill; a trait that WILL get you far in life...

As an aside, I was at a meeting just last week... Two department heads were arguing over budget matters... I had the VERY distinct impression that one of the managers was versed in Foil Fencing because of his approach to the argument... While the other was very brutish and reliant on volume and interruption to get his point accross, the other listened, started his reply after acknowledging the others remarks and then after countering with his own, again waited (listened) for the appropriate response (which almost never came unfortunately)

Every time the brutish manager interrupted (quite rudely) I said in my mind (come on! yield the right-of-way!) I think it was quite apparent to all present that his technique of using rudeness was simply because he HAD no appropriate response (counter)... What we needed I think was a lighted scoring system at the meeting *laughing* or at least a facilitator with some guts!

Have fun all!

Feanor

[graphixaddict]

what we need is some nike style fencing commercials that just blows peoples minds. I mean i can almost see it in my head, you could make fencing look so good, i mean if anyone has ever seen the nike ad for frisbee then you would know that fencing could be made to look so cool. Just picture like a bout filmed from a extreme clusep angle that cuts from sped up video to ulta slow motion and switches angles with optimized sounds of blades beating. at the end a guy pulls off his mask dripping sweat. oh man it could be so cool. marketing is the key in the US. whens the last time you saw a fencing commercial. i think the problem is their is no one with balls large enough to put money into that kind of advertising, risking no profit turnover. I dont know if USFA has the cash or not, but if not they should start collecting more dues or something. Making it look cool and popular, thats how you will draw people.
Graphix

[graphixaddict]

actually to add to this...what fencing needs is a combined effort of companies orginazations and people, just as say dairy farmers have done, tons of farms and milk companies combine together funds to help promote them as a whole (no pun intended). What we need is some kind of Association for the promotion of modern fencing. APMF, lol
And they would then collect funds from salles, fencing companies, maybe even nike, if nike saw that there was a serious enough movement to promote it they see it as a way to sell their shoes, they would give money. They then take the funds and just pay to get fencing commercials on TV with sponsor blurbs and such, make bumper stickers, and tshirts, and clothing to promote the sport. With enough money you can make anything popular, you want to watch fencing on TV donate money to promote fencing, dont expect fencing to go anywhere if their are no funds to support it.
Graphix

[Feanor]

Graphix addict,

Its amazing the power advertising and the media has on the general mindset of the viewing public... It often amazes me how some people can say that images in something like a computer game has NO EFFECT on the participant, while at the same time being fully cognizant that companies like Nike spend literally billions on media advertising...

If in some bizarre alternate reality Nike put the full weight of their advertising juggernaut behind fencing, I have no doubt that collegiate, high school and even primary school fencing programs would spring up overnight!

They could do something like this... a rapid fire bombardment of images and combat angles of two opponents in a fencing bout complete with ultra slo-mo sequences shaky cam and bright flash transitions up to the final coup-de-grace...

then you could have the victor strip off his mask and with beads of sweat trailing down his face he could say something directly into the camera like

"Why are there so few of us in Fencing?

... because so few of us are good enough...

Nike... just do it..."



Just a thought...

Feanor

[KBayDog]

Originally posted by Feanor
They could do something like this... a rapid fire bombardment of images and combat angles of two opponents in a fencing bout complete with ultra slo-mo sequences shaky cam and bright flash transitions up to the final coup-de-grace...

then you could have the victor strip off his mask and with beads of sweat trailing down his face he could say something directly into the camera like

"Why are there so few of us in Fencing?

... because so few of us are good enough...

Nike... just do it..."

Feanor,

Tsk, tsk, tsk - best of luck with fencing, because you have no future in magic...giving away all of your secrets like that!

It makes me wonder, though - Adidas is a large company with lots of moolah. And, they make fencing shoes. Why have they not marketed them the way Nike would? Why does a visit to the Adidas website yield nothing about their fencing shoes?

Well, in all fairness, if I have to see a naked British fencer (Nike's "Shox" campaign), maybe it is a good thing we have not had their marketing.

Now, if Reebok could take the Office Linebacker campaign and give us "Terry Tate - Office Sabreur," you would see a dramatic spike in new fencers...

(D'oh! I just gave away my secrets! Abra-Kadabra...)

[Artisan]

Originally posted by KBayDog
It makes me wonder, though - Adidas is a large company with lots of moolah. And, they make fencing shoes. Why have they not marketed them the way Nike would? Why does a visit to the Adidas website yield nothing about their fencing shoes?

I too have fantisized about what the sport would be like, not to mention the new equipment designs if Nike threw their hat into the ring.
At some point a few years ago an exec at Nike woke up one day and said..."Hockey...we don't do anything in hockey yet." Seemingly overnight they bought out a major skate manufacturer, put their name on sticks helmets and pads, and got the NHL to use their jerseys. Instant market penetration and decent market share.
I imagine Nike's Industrial designers could produce a super slick fencing mask, as well as produce a high tech fencing shoe and some sort of special glove to outsell the Uhlmann washable....
As for Adidas and advertising their fencing shoes...take a look at peoples feet at the next big competition you go to. Adidas already has huge market share, and if you've fenced for more than say.... beginners class, you know about adidas shoes, already own a pair, want a pair and can't afford them, or have odd feet that can't fit a pair of adidas. Why spend money preaching to the choir

[KBayDog]

Originally posted by Artisan
As for Adidas and advertising their fencing shoes...take a look at peoples feet at the next big competition you go to. Adidas already has huge market share, and if you've fenced for more than say.... beginners class, you know about adidas shoes, already own a pair, want a pair and can't afford them, or have odd feet that can't fit a pair of adidas. Why spend money preaching to the choir

You will get no argument from me; Adidas has an overwhelming market share. I need no further convincing that Adidas is a large (and quite good) shoe manufacturer.

There is no use preaching to the choir, true. However, a little marketing - which does not need to be on the level of the Air Jordan campaign - could introduce the general public to fencing, and keep present fencers informed about new products. The general public has never heard of Uhlmann, Leon Paul, etc., but they HAVE heard of Adidas. Adidas could play a major part in promoting our sport, recruiting new fencers, etc.

In all fairness, I have no clue what the financial status of Adidas is, nor do I know the mindset of the "brass" in the company. I just see an untapped market that they already have their foot in...

[Artisan]

Just as the Adidas Exec might say " why spend on a market we already own?" A different - more intreped exec - (think microsoft), might attempt to first dominate the market, then expand it by promoting it to bring in new consumers, new demographic niches.

If you have a product, and the market does not know it exists, then the preliminary marketing campaign is focused on education - informing of its existence. All the talk about refining fencing and its rules or form to make it more telegenic is pointless when the vast public doesn't even have it on its radar.

The special format created especially for the Titan games was pointless in light of the fact that they broadcast less than one minute of coverage in two hours of airtime - thank you ESPN, another failed experiment. Who at USFA brokered that deal? TV coverage is part of popularizing ANYTHING, but as we all should know TV follows, it does not lead.



I believe what it comes down to is a convergence of elements to bring American fencing to the next level:

- 1. Personality: basketball has (had) Jordan, and before him others - Dr. J, etc...Golf has Tiger Woods, Tennis has had a swath of pretty bad boys, and the Williams girls... These are all athetes who brought something to their sport to transform it and make interesting to the layperson who may not be familiar with the subtle intricacies of the game.
- 2. Winning: The stars have to win, at the world championship level, as in Womens Soccer, and US Olympic hockey gold. Everyone loves an underdog - thats the essence of the "Just Do It" that Nike has gotten so much milage out of.
- 3. When you have 1 & 2, then sponsors will become attracted - even if there may not be a direct relationship to revenue, a multinational like Nike may be interested simply from the corporate identity standpoint.
- 4. Then the ultimate reality. Where there's money, there will be growth. How about significant purses for high level competitions - not $1000 for the duel in the desert, but $10,000...$50,000 - enough ot make it worthwhile for people to really commit to the sport.
Bike racing was brought to Philadelphia a dozen years or so ago by a bank sponsoring the Corestates Race with enough of a purse ($25k) that European teams would bother to comeand make it competative. Within a couple years the purse grew to a million bucks. Thats what captures the publics attention. Why does the public watch "Survivor", "Joe Millionaire", "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", "Married to a Millionaire" and the rest of that crap since the $64,000 question was on in the fifties? Because we all dream of being wealthy and can relate to the story of an athlete who by shear will and determination achieves the penultimate level of performance and is rewarded for it.

- 4. I've heard about the ill-fated attempt at starting a professional fencing circuit - thats another thread. But why are there no independant promoters of one on one fencing events as in boxing? If FOX can get people to sit in their chairs for an hour to watch two anonymous people married at the will of a public vote don't you think they could hawk a big match between POZDNIAKOV and SMART, rekindle that old US / Soviet rivalry, AND sell a ****load of advertising? On a different tact, why not run some Fencing the way Jai-Alai or dog racing is done in Florida?

- 5. The last crucial element is the most important: The person to pull it off, the Donald Trumpp of Fencing - Who will make the deal with the fencers, pitch it to the networks, sign-up Adidas, Coke, Budweiser. Get Westbrook for the color commentary and put it in Madison Square garden.

The USFA can't do it. A horse designed by commitee comes out as a camel - plus they are too close to it, the history, the development, and all the politics. An entrepenuer who treats the event like a commodity to turn a profit will have the motivation to pull it off - can we get Don King?