Loud People on the Piste

[Catal]

this person you are accusing of not taking the sport seriously has the following creds, just to name a few:
Ratings: F:C03 E:B03 S:A02
Refs Ratings: F:6 E:5 S:8
Currently chair of North Atlantic Secion (largest section in the country, I believe)
Head Coach of the National Club Champion UMass Fencing Team


Michael Massick and his credentials.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/speci...ontent/sports/

He talks the talk about fencing, but after 7yrs has he done any of what he says in this interview... nope. Credentials are meaningless without results.

[epeemike81]

The reason curling gets coverage and fencing doesn't is VERY easy: It's easier to understand. there is a clear and defined goal. look at what is covered on television. they are all sports with CLEAR goals, such as best time wins, targets, or points that are easy to see (how close the stones are to the center, how many balls are sunk in pool). people WILL watch less well known sports, but they need to be easy to understand. The hand signals help with this, but not enough. just knowing that the fencer on the right got the touch isn't enough. people need to be able to second guess the ref. to have SOME idea who SHOULD get the touch.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Catal
this person you are accusing of not taking the sport seriously has the following creds, just to name a few:
Ratings: F:C03 E:B03 S:A02
Refs Ratings: F:6 E:5 S:8
Currently chair of North Atlantic Secion (largest section in the country, I believe)
Head Coach of the National Club Champion UMass Fencing Team


Michael Massick and his credentials.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/speci...ontent/sports/

He talks the talk about fencing, but after 7yrs has he done any of what he says in this interview... nope. Credentials are meaningless without results.

First of all, YOU are the one who brought up credentials, and you STILL haven't given me yours.

Secondly, Results were included in that: his ratings show a level of excelence, and coaching a team to a national championship isn't bad either.

-m

[NJP3]

Ok Catal, you are probably going to jump down my throught about not having done "research", but here goes:

It may be true that curling has fewer sponsors and members than fencing, BUT the average Joe can flip the channel to curling and be entertained, while if he sees fencing he wont know what the hell is going on, blades swinging everywhere two lights how come only one got the touche?, whats the diff. b/w the white light and the colored one?.

The point is curling is much more televisable than fencing, the camera can zoom in on the players concentrated face as glides the thing down the ice. Curling also resembles sports that most viewers have participated in, ie: bowling and shuffle board.
Where as fencing is complicated with rules unlike other sports and short, fast actions that the viewer cant grasp nor hardly see.

If more people fenced than the general audience would have a better grasp of the sport and would watch it, like in europe where fencing is more popular and more televised. One may not know ALL the rules of curling but can still grasp the general concept the first time they see it.

[NJP3]

oops epee mike said it before me!

Sorry about that, Mike I started typing before you made that post.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by afc fencer
By not screaming i think it would make the publics image of the D&D or or being a rich snob stick.

Look at all the sports have tons of fans and plenty of TV time.
Baseball-fights between teams break out a few times a year. Players and mangers are thrown out all the time for saying something not so polite to the ump.
Football- when someone gts a touchdown they do a little victory dance.
Hockey- fights break out all the time
Soccer- when a team wins they all crazy and rip of there shirts.
Basketball- dirty looks are exchanged all the time.

All of these actions show emotion, fans love them.

great point. In B-ball, btw, the dirty looks are the least of it. LOTS of trash talking. In baseball, the most exciting pitchers to watch are the ones with great "Mound Presence," which is projecting a powerful image through the looks they give batters, and their dominance of the plate (don't get me started on the importance of pitching inside).

Additionally, look at NASCAR, which people watch largely for the excitement, or look at any of the non-sports, like wrestling. Before anybody takes this WAY too far, I'm not suggesting fencing try to emulate any of these, just using them as examples to show that the public wants emotion and excitement, not silent skill.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by NJP3
Ok Catal, you are probably going to jump down my throught about not having done "research", but here goes:

It may be true that curling has fewer sponsors and members than fencing, BUT the average Joe can flip the channel to curling and be entertained, while if he sees fencing he wont know what the hell is going on, blades swinging everywhere two lights how come only one got the touche?, whats the diff. b/w the white light and the colored one?.

The point is curling is much more televisable than fencing, the camera can zoom in on the players concentrated face as glides the thing down the ice. Curling also resembles sports that most viewers have participated in, ie: bowling and shuffle board.
Where as fencing is complicated with rules unlike other sports and short, fast actions that the viewer cant grasp nor hardly see.

If more people fenced than the general audience would have a better grasp of the sport and would watch it, like in europe where fencing is more popular and more televised. One may not know ALL the rules of curling but can still grasp the general concept the first time they see it.

I would make a minor distinction here: Curling is more easily understandable, not more televisable. the distinction, in my mind, is that if well edited, fencing looks very good on television and more exciting than curling (provided the competitors show emotion ), just not easy to understand. There is only one sport on the current market which is NOT inherently simple to understand: Baseball (note: I am not saying the other sports are simple in strategy, just in rules and concept). Why is baseball popular despite being so difficult to understand? because we all grew up with it, so we all know the rules. the problem is that to get coverage, fencing needs to get to a level where a significant amount of the population is used to watching it, which we can't do without television coverage. A real catch 22. to me, the solution is to do what the lumberjack games did, and pay ESPN to cover it. pay for it to be on for a few years, and then you can start getting paid once you have built a fan base.

Another idea which I proposed to the board before is for the NCAA to reform itself and actually promote ALL the sports rather than being fully money driven. they aren't SUPPOSED to be profit driven. It would be nice to see them take a smaller contract for the popular championships on the condition that a 1 hour edit of the fencing championships (and other less well known sports) be created and broadcast as well. I do think ESPN/ESPN2 can spare 1 hour of their 18-24 hours of sportscenter a day! Do I think this is likely to happen?? almost certainly not. but I do think it should.

-m

[Marcos]

now that is what i call thread drift

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Catal
Why do you people place so much importance on ratings? I've known lowly D's and E's with a far better grip of the fencing situation than yourself, and they contribute a great deal to fencing in the area. Your A means nothing, it's just a letter.

so, when somebody disagrees with them, you belittle them and ask for credentials, but when they give you credentials, you call them meaningless?? so, essentially, the only way you'll give anybody credit for being knowledgeable is if they agree with you.... well, then, this isn't a very useful forum. despite my frequently harsh tone, I do at least respect the knowledge of most other fencers on this forum. for example, Capt. Slo-Mo and i disagree on the armoring thread, but I know that it isn't for a lack of intelligence on his part. EDew and I frequently disagree, but I think each of us knows that the other is quite knowledgable on a great many topics. for a discussion forum like this to work, you must be able to acknowledge when somebody who disagrees with you is, nonetheless, knowledgable and intelligent. Feel free to be as harsh as you want (lord knows I am ), but if you aren't going to recognize how knowledgable your partners in this debate are, then you reach the end of your tether rather quickly.

To resort so frequently to belittling those who disagree with you makes it painfully clear just how weak your argument is. you present a position, others present a different position, with evidence (AT LEAST of the anecdotal variety) to back them up, and you dismiss their argument without addressing their points!

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Marcos
now that is what i call thread drift

yep, and thank god for it!

I don't really understand what the big deal about off topic posts are. admittedly, if somebody thinks that we want to rehash this debate YET AGAIN in a more complex manner, they should start another thread, but for a few posts, I don't see an issue with it.

-m

[veeco]

If you ever watch curling, you'll see that the competitors scream all the way through it.

Also, one more thing that makes curling more televised is that this is a team event. It's much easier to cheer for, say Japan even if it's not your own country because you feel more attached to them somehow than the other team than to cheer for one lone Japanese guy fencing another guy from another country.

[Marcos]

epeemike

would it be easier if you and Catal just met up at your club and sorted this out !

first to 10 in each weapon

[mtarascio]

Seems to me the only person not making any sense is catal. You are doing a lot of complaining, I'm curious what are you doing about it? Are you involved in any leadership roles in your club, division? Saying that a D or E classified fencer has a better grip on fencing than a A classified fencer is ridiculous. Many fencers feel that classifications don't mean anything. I would venture to guess that the majority of those who feel this way have not attained these higher classifications.

I am also curious on what your credential are.

[Catal]

Originally posted by epeemike81
The hand signals help with this, but not enough. just knowing that the fencer on the right got the touch isn't enough. people need to be able to second guess the ref. to have SOME idea who SHOULD get the touch.

Well, let's take the simpliest of the three styles. Epee is as easy as hit the other guy, don't go out of bounds, and the lights tell you who got the point. That's all the observer needs to know. I've never seen a newbie who failed to understand epee after a few minutes. An understanding of the remaining rules is made after the intitial interest, the same as with any sport.

Compare epee rules to boxing rules. Do you understand the 10-point must rule, or why after 300 punches thrown and 150 landed, a boxer only receives 9 or 10 points? How many people actually see the 150 punches landed, and how do they count as points? It doesn't matter. All one needs to know is hit the other guy, don't go out of bounds and the bell ends the round.

Complexity of rules isn't the problem, conduct on the piste alone isn't the problem. The problem is social/cultural/behavioral:

I've been saying a lot of what is wrong, and not much of what one should do, but here's a small list:

1. Fencers need to take baths. At every event I've been to, there are always two fencers who didn't wash themselves or their clothes the night before and they arrive at the event smelling like mildew. It's disgusting.

2. Do not, I repeat, do not change your clothes in front of people. Changing your clothes is bad enough, but don't do it if you have mounds and mounds of fat rippling from your skin. Gymasts, and tennis players look good, fatty fencers with chest hair do not. Again, this is an image issue. It also raises the question, if fencing is so athletic, why are so many fencers shapeless?

3. Keep your oddities to yourself. Don't talk about how cool the Renaissance is, and how you saved Queen Whosit from the ogres in D&D when you're around new observers. This is another image issue. Let people get accustomed to the sport before you start railing off about honor and how you wish the US would make the duel legal.

4. Put a greater emphasis on bringing in observers to see the "A" level events, not general opens. Let the new observer see top level fencing to get interested, it'll put more punch on the "awe" factor. The greatest compliment an observer can give you is when you make a blindingly fast action, and they say "holy ****." I've gotten more people interested in fencing that way, than with any paper advertisement. A lot of new fencing clubs make the mistake of giving lackluster demonstrations to a bored crowd. Hollywood makes fencing look good on TV, it's time fencing started making fencing look good.

[Catal]

First of all, YOU are the one who brought up credentials, and you STILL haven't given me yours.

My credentials aren't in question. I'm not the one saying, how good I am. I'm the one pointing out that all of you think your credentials make you so great, yet not a single one of you can give a good answer as to why your efforts to make fencing more well known have amounted to nothing.


Secondly, Results were included in that: his ratings show a level of excelence, and coaching a team to a national championship isn't bad either.

Great, so he's a good fencer. Has that helped put USFencing on television? No.

[Catal]

Another idea which I proposed to the board before is for the NCAA to reform itself and actually promote ALL the sports rather than being fully money driven.

You actually want to tell the NCAA that they should give up a SIX BILLION dollar a year industry so that a few unpopular sports can have a little more attention? That is absolutely, the most inane thing you could possibly tell the NCAA. That's your sales pitch? "It's not fair. We want attention, give us money."


I do think ESPN/ESPN2 can spare 1 hour of their 18-24 hours of sportscenter a day!

No. No they can't spare 1 hour because 1 hour could mean the difference between $1,000,000 and $150,000. ESPN is too busy trying to run a business to listen to your complaints.

[a517dogg]

getting fencing on television is not and should not be the end all be all of american fencing. television is a free market - when there is demand enough for fencing on tv then it will come. currently there isn't enough demand, it's not that it's not showy enough or anything.

[Catal]

Originally posted by epeemike81
so, when somebody disagrees with them, you belittle them and ask for credentials, but when they give you credentials, you call them meaningless??

Actually, that's not how I was using it, and it's very sneaky of you to try and spin my comment. MP said he was captain, and that he was captain because he was serious. I questioned his credentials.

MP goes on later to say that because his section chair makes noises, that insults on the piste can't be all that bad. I said, I don't care.

Then, I flippantly said if the section chair was anything like MP, then I didn't think he took fencing seriously.

Later, you tell me said chair's ratings and I flippantly respond, again. We're talking about two different people.

I question MP's captainship because he supplied no credentials. I question section chair's seriousness because he can't do anything to get fencing on the big television sports map. If you'd said that he's too busy, he's passed that responsibility to someone else, I'd have left it alone. If you have no results to show, you can't say you're serious about fencing, and getting it on television.

Also, I just noticed you'd mentioned that a grand 20 - 30 people watched the finals at your NAC's... Um... yeah... great. An average of 25 fans watching the last bout of an event, uh, that's impressive.

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by veeco
If you ever watch curling, you'll see that the competitors scream all the way through it.

Is it encouraging yelling, or yelling at the other competitiors, and making a raucous?

It's much easier to cheer for, say Japan even if it's not your own country because you feel more attached to them somehow than the other team than to cheer for one lone Japanese guy fencing another guy from another country.

Hm... I dunno. I see what you're saying, but I can't offer an opinion on that.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Catal
I'll explain in simple terms. MP's argument was that the "roots" of fencing were with the swordplay of noblemen. Thus, he continued, the insults of now are based on what was a European tradition. Since the reality is that the roots of fencing are, in fact, Egyptian, it's easy to see why MP's analysis is wrong. MP was making the comparison, not I. Your question should be directed at him.

First of all, MP is a she. Secondly, talking about medieval Europe as the origins of MODERN fencing is perfectly correct, paintings on Egyptian walls notwithstanding. There is no evidence that those paintings depicted sport as opposed to training. more to the point there is not a direct or migratory line between that and modern fencing. That MAY be the first known instance of armed combat sport, but it did not turn into sport fencing. medieval european swordplay DID.

Why should anyone care? Because anyone who is serious about thing, tries to understand said thing. It stands to reason, if you don't know where fencing came from, and why it exists today as it does, you're probably not as serious about it as you'd like to believe. You remind me of the people who don't even know why fencing is called "Fencing." Get a book, and get educated if you're so serious. Don't come to this board talking about how, "I'm so serious about fencing," and you don't even know from where fencing originated.

Apparently, he feels his time would be better served practicing, competing, and getting lessons. judging from his results (and his level of fencing, speaking as somebody whose seen him go from beginner to his current level), I'd say he's right. History IS important, within reason. Do you know what the difference between NY rules and Massachusetts rules Baseball was??? do you know which one eventually became the modern game? do you know what the first stick and ball game was?? I guarentee you most GM's, managers, owners, and players don't know the answers to any of those questions. are they serious about baseball?

That's in your area, and against you. I've been all over this country and seen this kind of behaviour be tolerated. At a regular open, okay, but a NAC...? It's unacceptable that USFencing can't control the conduct of its fencers.

First of all, speaking as (I believe) the ref who carded adogg on that occasion, let me say that it was VERY much the exception, not the rule. he is actually quite mild in his screaming in general. secondly, as a ref I WILL card people at NACs if I observe them A) disturbing order or B) being unsportsmanlike (though I'll often CALL that disturbing order to give them a G3 red instead of black). The difference is the definitions of those terms. what I consider to be harmless screaming, it appears you consider to be excessive. I HAVE seen examples that I thought should be cards and weren't, but not at high levels.

Y'know, everyone uses that "not enough people fence" excuse, and it's just a bunch of bull. The US Curling association has 15,000 members, and they get a hell of a lot more air time than us. Again, I can't stress enough the point of educated argumentation.

Again, curling has a great advantage of being easy to understand. look at a sport like Gymnastics, which is subjective and hard to understand. It used to get no airtime, as well. One of the major things that helped gymnastics in the early 80's was a massive push to get little kiddies involved in the sport. now, there is at most 1 degree of separation between most people and the sport of gymnastics. thus, they are willing to watch, and to learn what is desirable. people will spend the time to learn if it is relevant to them or somebody they know. Mind you, they also have the additional advantage that they wear skin tight leotards, but they always did that. the major issue is the increased participation.

Better an educated ******* than a non-educated pleb. Be schooled.

well, I really don't care if you're not "nice," as I'm sure most of you know. however, you may want to refrain from calling sumbody UNeducated with the very limited conversations you've had with adogg. sure, you can come to that conclusion through bulletin board conversations alone, but you need far more conversations than you've had with him thus far.

-m