Designs on Masks

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly

Nobody is advocating a change in the fundamental makeup of fencing (such as removing ROW from foil).

To some extent, they are.

Take the plexiglass mask issue, for instance. This would necessitate removal of a segment of target area from sabre, until someone can figure out how to make plexiglas conductive...

nobody is advocating unrestricted expression; OF COURSE there would have to be restrictions. The discussion should be over what those restrictions are.

I am still maintaining that such a discusion will not end until all restrictions are removed. Such has been, historically, the nature of such change. It tends to be driven by envelope-pushers, who view each subsequent plateau as a launching pad for renewed demands for "latitude"...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by shlepzig
all for adornment that can enhance the sport.

OK, so how exactly will they do that?

I mean, what positive changes will they make in the sport itself, as opposed to simply making some fencers "feel better" about it and their own images?

From what I can tell, this is ALL about image. I cannot for the life of me see what substance such changes would impart to fencing quafencing.

Many sports now are endorsing individual colors and dress to allow for personal expression and corporate sponsorship.

You aren't seriously advancing the "But Ma, everyone ELSE is doing it!" argument, are you?

Part of the move was to make the sports seem less gentrified which would serve fencing well, as it is viewed as a country club sport.

Why is this assumed to be a desideratum?

I am fine with "gentrified". How is that image harmful to the sport? Better to be thought tony than common, no? Better to be elite than lumpenproletariat....

Another part of the move allowed sponsors more space to advertise,

Something else I think more likely to be harmful than not.

People find the thought of fencing and the idea behind it visceral and exciting. Watching a bout with no knowledge of the sport can be as agonizing as watching grass grow.

Agreed. But how will wearing flashy uniforms make the conventions clearer to the uninitiated?

That and it's hard to identify one person and another without being able to read the name on their uniform.

Go to an SCA event, where personal choice in garb has run amok, and you will find it no easier to identify participants or separate one from the other without a scorecard or a knowledge of heraldry. It seems unlikely that it will be simpler to pick one person out of a riot of colors and designs than it is from a sea of white...

I have heard stories that there was skepticism and other doubts about the future of electric scoring when it was introduced to the sport (well before my time so I have no first hand knowlege). It has been wholeheartedly integrated into the sport since. I still hear purists go on and on about orthopedic grips and how they diminish the subtlety of bladework. Orthopedic grips are also here to stay.

Indeed. But in what way is color fundamental to the way the game is played? The two examples you give affected the fencing itself, not merely the gratification of egoistic desires...

[Wizardly]

Context context context. Plexiglass masks DO fundamentally change saber. Your conterexample does not counter.

No, trends do not favor the inevitable elimination of restriction.

There is a reason, when you go to a horse race, that the horses have colors. The jockey knows what horse he's on, the owner knows what horse she's entered, the track knows which horse has won, all without needing to know the colors. It certainly isn't like the colors make the horses run any faster.

Football players don't actually need colors. It's not like the team logo affects play. Why do golfers wear colors at all? Do race cars need to have designs on them?

What exactly is wrong with self-expression, team-expression, or group-expression?

[Inquartata]

Self-expression?! The examples you cite all come down to one thing: commerce. Not "expression". Or do you think that each member of a football team has independently chosen the particular colors which the team OWNER has decided he will wear?

In what way is this the expression of any preference other than that of some capitalist or marketer?

Are you advocating that we all become creatures of this or that corporate sponsor? Or only that the few elite members of our sport do so?

To answer your final question, there is nothing "wrong" with individual expression. But it is not the only, nor even the most important, value in most avenues of life, including fencing. There are other, competing values, and the color faction seems to believe that there are not, or that they are somehow of less consequence than ego satisfaction. Moreover, self-expression is NOT a universal good, appropriate in every imaginable circumstance. There is no need to advertise one's "difference" every minute of every hour of every day----and opportunities for doing that already abound elsewhere, do they not?

[Wizardly]

In the way that fencers in this country aren't paid for their activities. In the way that high school and college fencers are specifically barred from receiving any money asside from schollarships. In the way that expression exists in any number of non-commercial venues. This is how it is not capitalistic. Furthermore, it is illogical to assume the list of examples I've cited is exhaustive or indicative of anything but self/group-expression of both the athletes and for the benefit of the non-participants. For that matter, only the last example (race cars) have coloration for corporate reasons. Football does exist outside of professional levels.

Even though the point is moot since a clearly definable distinction can be made between corporate sponsorship and colored uniforms/masks, as to creatures of the corporate sponsor...I for one would love it if somebody paid me to participate in my hobby. I'll slap a 20cm square Coco Cola patch on my back if it means I can buy a decent pair of fencing shoes and blades instead of scrounging like I do. It isn't as if anybody will be selling their soul or compromising their principles (if they are people of principle) should corporate sponsorship (though highly unlikely given current discussions of fencing on television) does take root in the fencing world. Creatures of the corporate sponsor? Do you take prescription drugs, watch television, read newspapers or magazines, play video games, post on website forums, listen to the radio, or frankly buy anything? Take a look at the banner add at the top of fencing.net. Don't be so quick to stigmatize the concept.

And again, nobody is making moral or universal statements. Nobody is saying expression should be the most important factor. In fact, I was under the impression that all of the "color faction" members wanted fencing to always come first and that as long as expression doesn't inhibit it should be allowed. You've pointed out your impression of the "color faction," that is, the perceived lack of credence given to the downsides, but I've asked you and I'll ask again: what are the specific downsides??? What is so bad that can't be mitigated by standards e.g. no pornography? If you really believe there are none, then we've pretty much come to an agreement, haven't we? I mean, why the "but?"

[shlepzig]

All the response to Inquartata I can muster:

Indeed. But in what way is color fundamental to the way the game is played? The two examples you give affected the fencing itself, not merely the gratification of egoistic desires...

Although I would hate to discuss gratification of egoistic desires with Inquartata, I do have to say this;

What exactly is so wrong with the change of the sport in this superficial way? The fact that we wear all white currently is a necessity to a convention that is long gone (visual scoring with markers). If it does not change the rules of the game what is the big deal. Fencers are egoist's, it's an egoists sport. One man pitted against another in a physical and mental contest, what could be more gratifying to the ego. That is not to say that all fencers are conceited, but they are egoists.

The argument of image and exposure, we need more exposure so we can recruit the top athletic talent to our sport. If we had a spokesman in this country like a Michael Jordan, or Lance Armstrong or Pele we would see a huge boost in competition at all levels of the game. That is what I think the USFA and the FIE are shooting for with this evolution of the rules to make it more watchable and accessible to the masses. Corporate money can't hurt them either.

Exposure is good, more people in our sport is good, competition is great, and fencing is fun. That's the deal, and that's why the sport will evolve in this way and others.

Shlepzig

[JEC]

At Nationals, Santelli had a few interesting painted masks. A cyclop, a skull, a pirate, among others.

[kbo518]

It's just like a hockey goalie, a matter of expression. I like the idea of painted masks

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
In the way that high school and college fencers are specifically barred from receiving any money asside from schollarships.

You mean, the same way football players, and players of every NCAA sport, are barred? What's the difference?

it is illogical to assume the list of examples I've cited is exhaustive

I was addressing only the examples you provided. I made no claim that they were "exhaustive".

or indicative of anything but self/group-expression of both the athletes and for the benefit of the non-participants.

I very much doubt that you will find any football team beyond the Pop Warner level which permits the players to select the colors or designs of their team uniforms. Those are chosen by the school, the sponsor, or the owner. Hence, NO "self expression" for the athletes, and "group-expression" only in the sense of a Hobson's choice...

I for one would love it if somebody paid me to participate in my hobby. I'll slap a 20cm square Coco Cola patch on my back if it means I can buy a decent pair of fencing shoes and blades instead of scrounging like I do.

All well and good...but there goes your "self expression" argument. You will at that point be expressing someone else's preferences---just as you do now. Right?

I've asked you and I'll ask again: what are the specific downsides???

How many times would you like me to reply? Or perhaps you could reread my past posts? I know this is a gargantuan thread, but still, I HAVE given my reasons ere this. They may not be there in a 1-2-3 list, but I am not ignoring the subject.

What is so bad that can't be mitigated by standards e.g. no pornography?

It is standards of taste that we are discussing. Who is going to be an acceptable arbiter of both my tastes and yours, thus acceptable as a setter of these standards? And as I've said, I do not believe that any such standards would be left alone for long. You mention pornography...if even the Supreme Court cannot define it, how will the FIE do so in such a way that it cannot be challenged? Is an image of my GF in a bikini on the back of my lame "pornography"? How about a depiction of a Rubens painting? A Frazetta babe on your mask?

Standards? O what a can of worms that would open...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by shlepzig
What exactly is so wrong with the change of the sport in this superficial way?

Equally, what is so important about it? Why bother incurring the costs when the current system "ain't broke"?

The argument of image and exposure, we need more exposure so we can recruit the top athletic talent to our sport. If we had a spokesman in this country like a Michael Jordan, or Lance Armstrong or Pele we would see a huge boost in competition at all levels of the game.

You say this as though it's an indisputable Truth, but you are assuming facts not in evidence and predicting the future on that basis. I do not think there is anything like that clear a cause-effect connection.

Basketball and soccer and even biking were vastly popular and widely practiced sports well before the stars you mention turned up. Fencing was not, and is not---and BTW, fencing once had its "stars", men such as Nadi. Yet participation was if anything even lower than it is today, and the image was even more "elitist" then....

That is what I think the USFA and the FIE are shooting for with this evolution of the rules to make it more watchable and accessible to the masses.

Of course they are. And they are failing. Thus far I have seen only costs to their efforts, and no dividends. I scarcely think that is a valid rationale for redoubling the effort in the same directions.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by JEC
At Nationals, Santelli had a few interesting painted masks. A cyclop, a skull, a pirate, among others.

Heh, "interesting" as in the old Chinese curse?

[Craig]

The horse is dead.

Please bury it.

[Inquartata]

Very well---but the shroud MUST be white!

[Craig]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Very well---but the shroud MUST be white!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by JEC
At Nationals, Santelli had a few interesting painted masks. A cyclop, a skull, a pirate, among others.

For those that didn't go the the Summer Nats, here's an example of the santelli designs:

[oiuyt]

The masks in question were those borrowed from Alan Blakeborough's new PFL^H^H^HSwordmaster Series. As discussed in "Proffesional Fencing league... For Money!" [sic].

-B :)

[Marcos]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
For those that didn't go the the Summer Nats, here's an example of the santelli designs:

that's horrible!

[CarlKnoch]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Football players don't actually need colors. It's not like the team logo affects play. Why do golfers wear colors at all? Do race cars need to have designs on them?

What exactly is wrong with self-expression, team-expression, or group-expression?

Sorry for the late thought on this comment, but football players DO need colored jerseys so the quarterbacks can more easily see who to throw the ball to. If everyone on the field was in white, he would not be able to discern at a glance who was for him and who against, and thus it would become a running game and not a passing game. It would change the sport entirely if it were to go to all white jerseys. Fencing isn't like that. There are only two people on the strip.

[R. Exnicios]

So if my opponents wore a different color than me I would know to hit him and not myself. That might help

[bug]

Originally posted by R. Exnicios
So if my opponents wore a different color than me I would know to hit him and not myself. That might help

Hear hear!