Problems with the FIE?

[danp]

What's the scoop on the FIE?

In the short time I've been fencing, I've heard and read a great many negative comments regarding the decision makers at the FIE.

I'm curious if anyone out there has arguments to support the FIE as an organization? Is this just a group of people who arbitrarily dictate rules that best suit a truly off target agenda, or does anyone agree with (or even understand) what the FIE is doing as a whole?

...is there no democratic voice in the organization to hear clear and obvious opposition to seeingly arbitrary changes (i.e. foil bib target area, debounce times, etc..)?

...or is this a situation where there are a group of highly motivated individuals doing the best they can for an ungreatful membership who only voice their opinions in opposition after the fact?

I'm not a fan of politics, as I find that most people who strive to lead do so for reasons other than altruism or advancing the voice of their consituents.. but as an optimist, I like to think there's hope.

Regards,
-Dan

[The0ne]

FIE sucks, all they do is ban flicking and make us buy expensive equipment to fencing in World Cups
(a closeminded approach, but all too true)

[R. Exnicios]

Okay.

We all have problems with the direction the FIE is going. How do we change it?

[The0ne]

Turn it over to the Germans. Since they invented flicking, they'll let us do it all we want!!!!!!

But really, I think the FIE is operating under the premise that making the sport more TV friendly will improve popularity. I don't think this is true, what we need to do is have the member countries (I'll take the USA because that's where i live) get the sport on TV, the way it is. The US, should get it on ESPN 2 or something, with a good "pre-game" show which explains the rules of whatever weapon, show American highlights, interviews with American fencers etc. I think that would improve popularity more than taking out off target lights or something like that. . .

I know that this post only refers to a small part of the FIE, but since I don't know much about how it's governed and stuff, I'll jsut post on what I think I know.

[labouche]

Originally posted by The0ne
Turn it over to the Germans. Since they invented flicking, they'll let us do it all we want!!!!!!

Ingenious!!! Why haven't I thought of that?!
-la bouche

[danp]

Maybe drafting a letter or petition of dissent could be a good start? In the US for example, the only rep I see on the FIE web site is:

CHERIS (MH) Samuel David
President of the Legal Commission SVP, CFO and General Counsel Blackhawk Geoservices 301 Commercial Road Golden, CO 80401
scheris@blackhawkgeo.com

...or should this kind of thing should percolate up via the USFA...

Regards,
-Dan

Originally posted by R. Exnicios
Okay.

We all have problems with the direction the FIE is going. How do we change it?

[veeco]

You can't really start a putsch, but you can tell your reps not to vote for the current leadership. I believe the elections will happen after the OG, and that Rene Roch has said that he will not be a candidate for the next election.

[DHCJr]

There are a few more from the U.S. on the FIE. In fact, the U.S. is the only country with members in all 7 permanent committees. The one who was first on a FIE committee is of course Dan DeChaine of the SEMI commisssion. He has been there for 18 years. There is also Peter Harmer, who was the trainer for many US teams. There is Gerry Baumgart on the Disciplinary Committee. Dan Kellner is our Athlete Representative. The Infamous Carl Borack, U.S. Team Captain is on the Promotion Committee. George Kolombatovich, who has been quoted many times on this board is on the Referee Committee, so what he says about the rules, is straight from the horses mouth. There is als Jeff Bukantz who is on the Rules committee. So we have 8 representative, the Athlete Representative is not a permanent committee.

We are very well represented.

[DHCJr]

Originally posted by veeco
You can't really start a putsch, but you can tell your reps not to vote for the current leadership. I believe the elections will happen after the OG, and that Rene Roch has said that he will not be a candidate for the next election.

If that is true, that will solve many of our problems. Many of what is put in by fiat by Rene Roch. For example, both the Medical and SEMI commissions were against the visor masks. The visor masks are in.

[veeco]

Yes, but who knows what the next guy would do? It could be better, or it could be worse...

Somethings that I think Rene Roch did well is that he definitely made fencing a global sport. There are fencing federations all over the world now, and a lot of new countries are competing, some are even hosting world cups.

I don't know if the way things were done is good or bad, but there are definitely some good results.

He did focus a lot of on the TV, sports exposure side of things, with some things that might be good or bad, depends on what people you ask. But on the other hand a lot of this was under the pressure of the IOC, and the next guy would be under the same pressure. How would this work out, I don't know, only time will tell.

There is one thing for sure, it's that I don't want fencing to be out of the Olympics, and I would whatever it takes to keep it in if I were the FIE's president. If that means adding visor masks or whatever, then I'd do it.

[edew]

Skip the visors and have the women fencers wear thongs only. That'll keep it in the olympics. Look at how well beach volleyball is received. Thongs, I tell you.

Probably not on the guys, though.

[westcoastsabre]

There is beach vollyball with thongs?? When's it on? And I think EDEW may be the newest employee of the Mike Eskins string between your cheeks corporation.

[oiuyt]

Voting in the FIE is done VERY democratically. Each member country that is in attendance a the various congress meetings gets a vote. Doesn't mean the votes come out the way most fencers would choose.

Incidently, getting fencing popular in the US would obviate the need for doing so in the rest of the world. Whether or not Pakistan puts fencing on TV has no effect (or relatively no effect) on the TV revenue that the IOC obtains for the Olympics. The US market is something like 90% of the Olympics TV rights revenue (our networks are just willing to pay more). If fencing were popular enough that NBC wanted to show Olympic fencing, the IOC would make very sure that fencing stayed on the Olympic program. If fencing doesn't work for a US TV audience then it is at risk for being dropped from the program. How to make it work well for a general US TV-watching audience is a matter of some debate. R. Roch seems to think that ROW calls are confusing, that off-target lights are confusing, and any type of clsoe call by a referee is confusing. Eliminating as many of these as possible would, therefore, make fencing more TV-viewable. Whether or not he's right.... this is the dominating force behind the rules change push.

The US audience likes to watch sports that it understands and that Americans excell at. Hence NBC shows lots of track and field, lots of swimming, and lots of gymnastics. There is no risk that the IOC will drop any of these sports. Baseball is at risk (despite fitting the above description of being understood by Americans and the US being good at it). US audiences DON'T really care about Olympic baseball. MLB doesn't allow any of the good players to participate and they (MLB and the Olympics) compete head-to-head. Which would you rather watch, the best athletes in the world, or the best athletes in the world that aren't on the MLB 40-man rosters or have a chance of possibly being called up to them so they're being held out by the MLB team just in case? Doesn't help that for Athens the US doesn't even have a team. Good luck seeing baseball still on the program for Beijing. Somehow I think that baseball can more easily afford losing Olympic status than fencing can.

-B :)

[Rolls]

I would even go as far to say that the MLB wants baseball out of the Olympics. They probably see it as competition for their revenues. Maybe not in it's current state, but that's probably the reason that they didn't let MLB players play. MLB wants to be the sole resource for televised baseball.

As for popularity of fencing in the US, I think that will only happen when the US wins gold (and only as long as the US is winning gold). And that's only going to happen if there's an investmet in training athletes. Not that there isn't now, just that more programs need to be made availible for fencers of ALL skill level in the US. This alone would boost the popularity in the US because more programs means more exposure means more membership means more potential chances to win gold.

Even if the US were to win gold, it wouldn't matter unless we could continue to at least have a chance at winning. That's why more training programs and more competitions in the US is so necessary. Audiences are fickle and will leave if you let them down. Think Hockey's Miracle on Ice, think women's soccer, etc.

Rolls.