fencing and the US media

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

This is an old topic. How do we make fencing more popular in the US? how do we get fencing on TV in the US? etc. Whatever ideas you come up with, it won't matter. Why? Fencing just doesn't have the elements to draw a large (that's the key word) viewing audience.

Outside of the popular televised sporting events like baseball, football, and hockey, these lesser sports are televised. Each one has one or more elements that will draw a large audience to be televised at least once in a year by a major network, ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN. Gymnastics, swimming, diving, billiards, poker, bass fishing, skiing, rowing, equestrian, cheerleading, sumo wrestling, track and field, cycling, marathon running, wrestling. motocross, figure skating, kayaking.
The following sports cannot draw an audience, and therefore don't get televised in the US: fencing, table tennis, squash, handball, Olympic weight-lifting, field hockey, GP motorcycle racing, judo, badminton.

Those are only some events. Canadian television, CBC, will cover those "sucky" events at least once in a year. I don't know how, maybe the Canadian government sponsors the network so they don't need to televise something that guarantees advertisement money.

So, I hope that no one brings up the idea "What can we do to get fencing on TV?" The answer is nothing. I say this because I recently saw a bit of tournament bass fishing on ESPN, which led me to the conclusion that fencing cannot make it on television without scantilly-clad women prancing around 90% of the time.

[Craig]

Get participation up, have a built in audience that thinks it's cool, and then you can start thinking about TV.

The USFA only has 17,000 members. The USTA (US Tennis Assoc) has over 700,000. 700,000 registered members and still not a lot of tennis on the tube.

Craig

[remise]

Participation and education. Most people honestly believe that fencing involves swinging from chandeliers, curtains, and jumping with swords down a flight of stairs. Hollywood has damaged fencing more than helped it.

I have had the occasion to approach several TV personalities and ask them if they would like to come to our local club and give fencing a try. Their response,"I am not athletic enough to swing from a curtain or a chandelier."

These were faces that Marylanders see on TV all of the time. Perception is 9/10ths of reality. We have GOT to change the perception, first.

[Ramrod]

I look forward to th day, and actively encourage scantily clad women to prance around at fencing tournaments.

So far though, there have been no takers.

[Katman]

Socialize it as a fun sport that needs a large amount of participation and viewing. Start with the young 'uns.

[afc fencer]

We need to get a beer to sponsor us.

[hawaii kid]

posted by 355
... - which led me to the conclusion that fencing cannot make it on television without scantilly-clad women prancing around 90% of the time.

posted by AFC Fencer
... - We need to get a beer to sponsor us.


Introducing, for the first time on Television,
The 2004 Hooters Fencing Tournament of Champions!!!
Available in HDTV and 3-D!!!
Only $24.95 on Pay-per-view Channel 524
(3-D glasses extra)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Craig
Get participation up, have a built in audience that thinks it's cool, and then you can start thinking about TV.

The USFA only has 17,000 members. The USTA (US Tennis Assoc) has over 700,000. 700,000 registered members and still not a lot of tennis on the tube.

Craig

not to mention that there are a ton of recreational tennis players in this country who wouldn't even know what the USTA is, but play once a week (or more sparingly) and would watch it.

-m

[lochinvar]

There are scantily-clad women prancing around at bass fishing tournaments?? (Where's my rod and reel...maybe if I just tie a line onto the end of this foil...?)

Seriously, what makes an event TV friendly is the ability of your average viewer--who knows nothing of the sport--to follow the action, especially who's winning and who's losing. It has to be visually gratifying, or pursued by a large casual membership (like golf--and fishing, more's the pity).

And I don't know the answer. I've been thinking about this for years, and I still haven't a clue.

[Wizardly]

Since this is the water cooler, I'll feel free to tie in a tangent - FCC relaxing restrictions on media ownership. This can't be a good thing for the prospects of televised fencing.

On another tangent, do you think it would help to have a corporate sponsored event? For example, Gatorade holds the Iron Man (of which we get to see the dramatised version on television), Tostitoes has the Fiesta Bowl, and so on. Since we don't have a free market where media is concerned (except perhaps the internet), should fencing become a marketing tool? How does one go about organizing a (insert company name here) (insert tournament type here), e.g. McDoanald's Open or Pfizer Cup?

[daeceg]

Hmm...the Viagra manufacturers sponsering fencing? What are the Freudian implications there?

The biggest problem with televised fencing is that it moves so fast. Too hard to follow if you're not in the know. Competitive level fencing is tough in real life...and televised would make that even worse. Did you try watching the fencing they showed as part of the X-games this year?

What we need to do is use that technology that the NHL that puts the red contrail on the puck.

Do that with fencing, and you get some sort of televised light saber type thing....That'll get people's attention. Create fencing stables of individual competitors, so that people can get into the team aspect. The "Salle Slashers" vs. the "Piste Pistolliers"

[Wizardly]

I suggest the blade highlighting back in '99. Didn't go over well. "Too Star Wars."

[Wizardly]

Besides, the Freudian implications are the precise reason Pfizer should do it! Seriously though, in the industry that is among the heaviest advertisers while also recording the highest profits of ANY industry out there, you'd think they'd be looking for means to advertise that they can get.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Originally posted by daeceg
...What we need to do is use that technology that the NHL that puts the red contrail on the puck....

That was totally retarded and was a complete joke for any real fan of hockey.

Do that with fencing, and you get some sort of televised light saber type thing....That'll get people's attention.
No it won't. Real fencing has lightning quick actions performed with small movements that are difficult to see with or without light saber effects. Only slo-mo helps.

[daeceg]

I wondered why they stopped doing that trail thing...I thought it was a little cheesy, but it helped just to be able to keep an eye on the thing.

Still, there are plenty of TV-unfriendly sports which get shown. Golf especially comes to mind.

Ahh, well...I guess we're just too sophisticated for mass media....

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Indy4ever]

Dare I say it? We could change the rules, to make it a) easier to follow if you have no clue, and thus easy to get into, and b) more exciting.
If you take foil, get rid of the rules about who has attack and then expand the teams to about ten people then it could get pretty exciting even for the average joe. Problems right now include matches being quite short (in a tennis match youve 3 hours of action, whereas in fencing most matches take fifteen minutes plus a few mins of 'what is wrong with the box?'), and the fact that individual players by themselves have a hard time keeping people's interest and attention. If you had ten per team then you have a whole group of people to become interested in, and a whole days worth of fencing if you are doing a team match.

It would also be cool if you could make it into more of a melee environment, with more than one person fencing at once, so that it meets the expectations of people who are brought up seeing the hero fight five people at a time.

Of course, if this becomes popular than you have still failed since you have managed to popularise a completely new sport that you have just invented, one that differs greatly from 'real' fencing. The problems which fencing faces in becoming televised are, unfortunately, integral to the spirit of the entire sport.

But do we really want fencing to become popular? If it does then it will be exposed to a wider environment of people, and thus all the really good people who would otherwise have never had a go at it will be coming out of the woodwork, making those of us who are 'good' now merely 'mediocre' in future. You say there are 17000 fencers in the US? too many in my opinion - we should be forcing people out, not getting them in! This is my bloody sport and I am damned if I am going to lose it!

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by Indy4ever
Dare I say it? We could change the rules, to make it a) easier to follow if you have no clue, and thus easy to get into, and b) more exciting.

Of course, if this becomes popular than you have still failed since you have managed to popularise a completely new sport that you have just invented, one that differs greatly from 'real' fencing. The problems which fencing faces in becoming televised are, unfortunately, integral to the spirit of the entire sport.

That's exactly the reason why you don't change the rules to suit the media.

If you take foil, get rid of the rules about who has attack...

...at which point you have foilepee...which is just a type of epee and not at all foil. You don't like foil, fine, stick with your weapon, but leave foil alone. Asside from the pipe dream of your weapon being the most popular in the near future (foil accounted for very nearly HALF of all fencers at Nationals), I'll draw your attention to the previous point you made: it'll be something else that isn't fencing.

...and then expand the teams to about ten people then it could get pretty exciting even for the average joe. Problems right now include matches being quite short (in a tennis match youve 3 hours of action, whereas in fencing most matches take fifteen minutes plus a few mins of 'what is wrong with the box?'), and the fact that individual players by themselves have a hard time keeping people's interest and attention. If you had ten per team then you have a whole group of people to become interested in, and a whole days worth of fencing if you are doing a team match.

It would also be cool if you could make it into more of a melee environment, with more than one person fencing at once, so that it meets the expectations of people who are brought up seeing the hero fight five people at a time.

-Melee: no - all three weapons have rules about exposing the back.
-Multiple-hour fencing: no - fencing isn't aerobic, tennis is. Furthermore, tennis consists of very short games, moderately timed matches, and very long sets. Fencing consists of very short pool bouts, moderately short DE bouts, and very long tournaments. Tennis is meditativly slow, fencin is action packed and fast. Frankly I'd imagine nobody wants to see 3 days of fencing if we can't even squeeze in a couple hours of it.
-Ten person teams: why? - How do we know that 10 person teams are any more interesting than the current team formats?
-Since when does fencing resemble absolutely ANYTHING people expect from it? People should learn to appreciate reality, not their prejudices.

But do we really want fencing to become popular? If it does then it will be exposed to a wider environment of people, and thus all the really good people who would otherwise have never had a go at it will be coming out of the woodwork, making those of us who are 'good' now merely 'mediocre' in future. You say there are 17000 fencers in the US? too many in my opinion - we should be forcing people out, not getting them in! This is my bloody sport and I am damned if I am going to lose it!

HELL YES! We want fencing t become more popular. I would be ashamed of myself if I declared myself "among the best" simply because my competition sucked! Honestly, who wants to be king of mediocrity? If fencing really does consist of champions of truly mediocre athletic ability in a global sense, we really do NOT deserve to be on television. Do we want fewer students in schools so your kid can feel smarter for having trouble with algebra? "Get rid of all those calculus kids!" Does major league baseball want fewer kids playing so that the chances any pitcher throws over 90 mph diminishes because the kid took up football instead? Should Tiger Woods discourage kids from playing golf just so that he doesn't have any serious competition from the next generation? Who seriously wants to be "the greatest of all time" simply because everyone that came after sucked? I mean, this is the very reason classifications awarded at youth competitions is under fire! "Congratulations, you have an E, but only because you couldn't have earned it in a global competition." Kicking people out? You do that in your division - I hope you enjoy tournaments of only six people...E1's an no better. It's not your bloody sport, it's ours, and I'll be damned if I let you take it away from me, my students, my coaches, my teammates, and anyone else with an interest in it. We're all sitting here wondering why nobody pays attention to us when we say, "look at us - we can stand toe to toe with any other sport out there, we are athletes worthy of notice, and we will show you this much openly." How can you possibly advocate that we should say this and at the same time covet our obscurity?

[Indy4ever]

Whoa, take some pills, unless you are already taking them, in which case I advise you stop. I didn't actually mean what I said... surely the sheer ridiculousness of it all conveyed that fact? do i really have to signpost my jokes so no-one gets offended?

And absolutely nowhere did I say that I thought epee was best. I am actually considering taking up sabre, and I think foil is brilliant too.

[Wizardly]

Call it a reflex action -

-too many people wanting to get rid of fencing as if it were an embarassment to sports everywhere
-too many epee and saberists wanting to turn foil into epee or saber
-I live in the U.S...what would normally sound utterly laughable is actually posed in all seriousness to the degree that "this is too rediculous to be serious" is not the first reaction.

sorry abut the overkill.

[Indy4ever]

I am sorry I got you to write so much needlessly!