Supporting Elite Fencers

[oiuyt]

I'd have to dig up the numbers from my files (ie the bunches of stacks of papers that I have scattered on my desk and other places in my office) in order to reintroduce budget numbers again. The general gist for those that don't want to go through the fencing.net archives to find the ones posted previously are that the money from the "rank and file" is close to the money spent on the "rank and file" although the former is slightly higher than the latter. Virtually all money from other sources (which is completely dominated by USOC grants) goes therefore to the "elites". The USOC grants are almost all earmarked for specific purposes to which they go, the remaining USOC money is largely (almost wholly) determined by international (aka elite) results. So money form elites (indirectly from them) goes to elite programs. Money from RnF's go to RnF programs. The numbers don't work out perfectly (slightly disproportianately in favor of the elites) but it's not that far off from doing so.

I think my personal opinion is somewhere in between Inq's and the rest of the posters on the thread. This has very much turned into Inq vs. about 5-6 other people, but he's in most ways at least as right as the majority of the posters here even if he is defending his position solo. Elites DO get more than they contribute (even indirectly). Do they work hard for it? Yes, of course. Does that justify them receiving more than the RnF? Yeah, probably, at least in proportion to the extra that they bring to the USFA. I liked Inq's pro-beach tour analogy. Go back and read it again. Think about it. Just because sacrifices are chosen does not mean that other people have to assist you to make those sacrifices hurt less.

And no one went on asking you, by name, to support "elite" fencers. They're not lining up to beg a dollar bill from your wallet, and I do not think they would choose to either.

No, you're right. Without asking the USFA required Inq to give several dollars a year to them. All a part of his $40 membership fee. You've gone a good ways towards showing exactly why what Inq is complaining about deserves complaint. Perhaps if he WERE asked he wouldn't complain (he may or may not give, but if he did he likely wouldn't complain about doing so).

-B :)
(who likewise will likely never be one of those fencers although is probably higher on the senior point standings than all but a few other posters on the board (PicoJeff and ArmyFencer certainly have me beat, anyone else?))

[MyraTrue]

oiuyt- my post was not to say where funds should be distributed (in reference to RnF and "elite"). There ARE many, many fencers who will never be reimbursed or payed and who work exceptionally hard as well, though never reach "Elite". I DO happen to believe support isn't unreasonable, if there is a need. What bothered me was the indication that the effort and time devoted by fencers meant (practically) nothing, the way I read the post.

I suppose we might question why we give money to anything. I'd like to think we at least support fencing, as it seems to be a major role in most of our lives. And I also would like to know where my dues go, though more for curiosity. To me, its a membership fee, and thats where it ends. I pay my $40 a year to be able to fence USFA, and to know I'm insured. It seems intuitive that if one needed money and had the skills and ability, one might find help from the United States Fencing Association.

[J.Harris]

The difference between sitting on a beach and going to the olympics is that if you go to the olympics you are a source or pride for your nation (or at least should be).

Maybe I'm missing the point of this little debate but I think the comment on taxes earlier was very telling. In day-to-day life I think the rich should subsidise the poor beacause it is the right thing to do.

In fencing I think the average fencer should be giving a (small) amount to support elites, as the elites are bringing pride to the average fencer's country, as well as new recruits. If you don't believe in competitions and competing then why even participate in modern fencing?

[corinna2u]

Originally posted by mtarascio
As a former member of the United States World Championship Team and now a coach and C classified fencer I not only would not consider fencing in a Division 1 NAC, Division 1 National Championships or a WC but would not subject the top fencers to have to fence with me in one of these events. It would serve no useful purpose for me and a complete waste of time for the elite fencer. In my opinion one should earn the right to compete at this level.

I do agree with having a cut-off for Div I NAC...and I can understand your point of view that it would be a waste of YOUR time.

But...how many times have I heard on this board...being able to fence higher fencers is one of the best things to do to advance. And how many times have I heard...top fencers should fence lesser fencers to give back to there sport? To me that is what earning a C and going to Div I NAC is about. For the fencer that is working very hard to advance up the ladder to greatness, Div I NAC is very important for the experience gained by being able to fence the elite. And due to the way the NAC is designed the elite fencers have to fence those mere C's.

[Peach]

To chime in, I belong to a number of organizations to whom I pay about what I pay the USFA, and from whom I get far less in the way of services.

From the USFA, I get the right to participate in competitions all over the country, I get newsletters and magazines, and I get quick information about all kinds of things from the web site. I pay for the maintenance of classifications so I have a rough idea of my level of fencing and am seeded properly in tournaments, I get answers to my questions from the main office, and I have the possibility of participating in things like Coaches College, which I've done a couple of times, and which charges its students far less than a market price for its tuition. Through the website, I have fielded many inquiries about clubs in the area and have helped people start fencing.

The fact that I have been permitted to participate in national and international competitions in my chosen sport is a continuing source of astonishment to me, considering that I'm 52 and didn't start until I was 42. I'm willing to pay for entry fees, tickets, and hotel rooms because I know they're doing me a favor by letting me add to the unmanageability of the tournaments. I was disappointed when they started requiring points to compete in domestic world cups, but I knew I couldn't get away with it forever after I stopped routinely making points. What the heck.

[Army Fencer]

Mo, thanks for the great thread! Inq, as always, thanks for the alternative view and for keeping things interesting!

Reading through the thread, I got the distinct impression that many of the arguments are based on assumption rather than fact (especially after reading the WC eligibility confusion!). Oiuyt, thank you for providing a more authorative view on the USFA budget.

I don't like to base my arguments on assumptions, so I will base mine on the only thing I really know: me.

Re: C's at Div 1 NACs-- Anyone less than a C is wasting my time. If you aren't a C, you need to work to get the necessary results. To gain access to anything, you've to work for it.

Re: Supporting elite athletes--

Supporting elites benefits the fencing community as a whole. The better the best fencers are, the better everybody else is, too. This does not contridict my statement about C's at NACs. If you don't get to fence the elites, most of the fencing community gets to fence those who fence elites. Personally, I like fencing elite fencers who get funds because it makes me better. I like fencing at my club and at local tournaments because it helps other fencers get better.

As an aspiring elite, I would appreciate it if the USFA could help me financially, but I in no way expect it. Until that day, I will continue to dig myself deeper and deeper into debt because I absolutely love this sport. I hope that in my love for the sport, I am able, in some small way to help the fencers around me (particularly my high school team, my college team, and my current club).

Fencing well is a choice that I gladly make. It may hurt my wallet, my social life, and my professional life, but I want to be good and I will make the sacrifices for it, with or without USFA support.

[edew]

I'd say claiming that anyone less than a C is a time-waster is a bit broad and somewhat cruel. There are indeed many C's who are just plain cannon fodder. But there are numerous D's and even E's who can give a good bout.

We don't have a precise way to decide who should be able to compete and who shouldn't. The letter classification method is a fairly good, objective method. Sure, some people make the cut who shouldn't, and some don't who should.

I personally think that the USFA should institute a four-year plan in regards to the Division I NACs:

the year after the Olympics, it should be an open. Let as many people come and fence. It's a grab bag because many top fencers retire immediately after trying for the Olympics, failing or succeeding. So there's a void. Format will be one round of pools, 80% up, DE no repechage.

The second year, E's and higher, top-16 get byes to the round of 48, the rest fence one round of pools, 80% to DEs to 32. The 32 + 16 make the 48 for another round of pools. Top 32 go up to DE with repechage to final of 8.

Third year, current format with two pools, C's and higher.

Fourth year (Olympic qualifying year), B's and A's, one round of pools, DE no repechage.

Of course, any fencer with national points in that weapon/category should be allowed to compete.

I remember when Dmitri Kirk Gordon was a D-level fencer. Sure, he was rough and sloppy. But his attendance at NACs help bolster his confidence and desire so that he could, and did, become a better fencer. There's lots of D's and E's who can benefit from fencing at the Div I level to become "roused up" and energized to earn his or her C or higher at local or regional events, and then become the next big factor at national events.

Constantly cutting the D's and E's from ever meeting the top fencers doesn't necessarily make for long-term benefits to fencing.

Inq, on the other hand, should be banished from any possibility of attending a Div I NAC. :-)

[Army Fencer]

Interesting NAC idea, EDew. It could work. Have you tried sending it up your USFA chain of command?

There are good D's and E's. There are even good U's that simply don't have a rating because they're foreigners. But if they are good enough to contribute at a NAC, they will get their C eventually. Until then, they don't belong at a national level tournament and are a waste of my time there. I have no qualms with either being cruel or broad about my statement.

This should really be another thread, though.

[edew]

All foreign fencers, fencing under the international FIE license are allowed to compete in USFA Div I events. That's my understanding. They don't need to have a classification (as there's no way to equate our classification system with whatever classification system other countries use).

Generally, if some fencer from another country is willing to spend the money and time to come to the US to fence, they know what they're in for.

On the other hand, I have been asked by USFA to validate a number of foreign fencers who have competed locally and earned their A's or B's.

[Army Fencer]

That makes sense. I was thinking more along the lines of non-elite foreign fencers who jumped the pond.

[edew]

They get their 4$$ handed back to them on and off the strip

[Mo]

Originally posted by edew
I personally think that the USFA should institute a four-year plan in regards to the Division I NACs:

the year after the Olympics, it should be an open. Let as many people come and fence. It's a grab bag because many top fencers retire immediately after trying for the Olympics, failing or succeeding. So there's a void. Format will be one round of pools, 80% up, DE no repechage.
Of course, any fencer with national points in that weapon/category should be allowed to compete.
Constantly cutting the D's and E's from ever meeting the top fencers doesn't necessarily make for long-term benefits to fencing.
Inq, on the other hand, should be banished from any possibility of attending a Div I NAC. :-)

LOL Edew but there is a flaw in your plan. The line has to be drawn somehow.
The Confirmed Entries for the JOs have been posted. Should anyone at all be able to fence Div 1. There could be over 500 people per event.
It would be a great fund raiser for the USFA though... hmmm.

As an example. In Junior Men's Foil 236 entries, Junior Men Epee 189, Junior Men Saber 147. This is the biggest JO I have ever seen, well in three years anyway.
This summer Nationals had huge problems due to the sheer size of the competitions. The more fencers the less practical having everyone fence everyone will be.
Nothing is perfect.
Be a volunteer and help instead of just whining yall!

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by Mo
Be a volunteer and help instead of just whining yall!

*gasps at JO's numbers*

Sounds like you're looking for "volunteers" yourself. Who should they make the check out to?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
If I chose to devote a largish amount of time and effort to travelling to exotic beaches around the world, would I "deserve" assistance from others merely because I was foregoing work or school opportunities? And should others, who like to spend the occasional weekend at the beach, be constrained to shell out that I might realize my "dream"?

I totally agree with this statement. I love to go to different beaches to surf and yet no one pays me to. I mean they pay other people to go and surf. Yet, I have to pay my own way to go to beautiful beaches and surf. Just because I'm not as good a surfer as Rob Machado, I don't get to be in crappy comercials or paid to go a beautiful beach on a weekend. It's wrong I tell you. Wrong.

[Mo]

What bothers me about this thread so far and why I started it is that no one has a clue about how much money is actually spent on "elite fencers" or even agrees on the definition of "elite fencer."
This is a lot like people paying taxes. There are a lot of things I don't want tax dollars used for but I have no choice. The income goes into a big kitty and it is allocated the way the officials see fit. (Grrrrr)
That is the same way the USFA works.
There has to be some cute,attractive and athletic fencers with some excitement and whoopass. No one is going to pay and sponsor middle aged guys with fair to middlin finishes in div II and III.
The top fencers winning medals and making a name for fencing,will make the sport better. You need "elite" fencers Inquar. Sorry but you do.

[fencer-person]

Inq-

I spend close to 20,000 dollars a year to fence and compete. I don't know what "perks" you think we get, but its insulting to me that you would trash our countries elite fencers when you don't know a thing about them or their struggles. Most of the money that an elite fencer would get and its a small amount is in large part from the funding the USFA recieves from the USOC and not from your membership. A lot of those elite fencers you trash for their "perks" also give back a tremendous amount to the sport and to helping the development of our counties younger fencers. One of the ways fencing gets publicity is by having top world fencers and by having Olympic medal hopefuls and winners. What is so threatening about the USFA trying to help some of their most dedicated athletes achieve success?

I pay membership dues and tournament entry fees just like you. If I do well, I get a cheap medal and a handshake, but you know what that handshake and people respecting how hard I have worked to get to where I am makes it worthwhile. I love fencing, I'm not looking for sympathy for doing what I love, but you thinking we are somehow coddled snobs is insulting. Instead of hating the USFA and its elite fencers you should appreciate that in this country you CAN fence with its best, and realize that the USFA consists of a handful of people struggling to manage a huge organization. Thank you to them and to anyone who loves fencing and gives back to the sport.

[oiuyt]

I can tell you what "perks" he thinks elites get. Numbers are from the 2003-2004 budget.

Juniors Programs: $130,200
Seniors Programs: $277,700
Weapons Programs: $141,000
International Programs: $140,000
Referees to World Cups: $84,000
A disproportionate share of other line items such as "National Training Director", "Sports Science, Safety & Tech. Comm.", and "General Administration".

Even disregarding the last which is subject to dispute and hard to quantify (and a fairly minor contributor even after that) the listed programs include $772,900 of funding that is all or nearly all aimed at elite fencers (total budgeted expenses of the USFA for the year are $2,279,485). Where does funding come for to pay for these programs?

USOC Grants $480,000
Miscellaneous Revenue $55,000 (this is almost entirely comprised of FIE license fees which are a part of International Programs)
International Registration Fees $40,000
Carryover of Ray Miller Grant money: $90,000 (this was earmarked money that pays for the Ray Miller Athlete Programs included in Seniros Programs)

That leaves about $110,000 paid for from sources that can't be directly attributed to the elite fencers (primarily profits from running the NACs, JO's, and Summer Nationals). This is slightly higher than in most years I believe (although I would have to find previous budgets to confirm that), likely due to this being an Olympic year.

Those are "perks". Is it a lot? Depends on your definitions. Is it more than what the average fencer gets? Yes. Is this money being paid directly to the athletes? Most of it, no. The various grants appear to total $198,000 (about half of which, as previously mentioned comes from the Ray Miller bequest). Even after you balance out what the elite programs generate in added revenue for the USFA, that $110,000 means that each fencer in the country is contributing about $5.50 towards elite programs. Is this a worthwhile thing to contribute towards? I believe so. Is it a noticible amount? Compared to what even more non-elite-but-regular-competitors pay in a year, not really. Viewed as a percentage of what said NEBRC pays in membership dues, yes, it certainly is (then again the membership dues pretty much cover the membership benefits, it's really the extra paid in tournament entry fees that covers the excess in the elites programs, so the amount that this is a portion of should include national entry fees and registration fees as well as membership dues, which drastically reduces the percentage "elite tax").

Inq. is right that "elite" fencers get more than they contribute. Whether or not this should be true is a separate issue. Continuing to argue that "elites" DON'T get extra "perks" and services is stupid. Orient the argument on whether or not the perks and services are justified, whether or not the quantity of them is justified, etc., just don't claim that they don't exist.

-B :)

[edew]

oiuyt,

The elite fencers get back more than what they pay to USFA: they put in $40/year (or the equivalent). They get back some number, possibly more than $40, from USFA.

However, that's not the proper calculation to investigate. The proper calculation is how much money a fencer puts into fencing altogether, versus how much money they get back from all possible fencing-related revenue sources. (What are the sources? Here are some: grants, cash prizes, sponsorship, endorsement deals, seminars and camps work, teaching fencing, officiating at tournaments, armoring, bout committee work, etc.)

So, an elite fencer might take 5 trips to Europe, buy more equipment, buy more training times, travel to more competitions, etc. A non-elite fencer, like Inq, isn't going to Europe or Asia for five competition. He's going to keep using that same saber blade for the next two years. He might train once a week, if that much, given the lack of available training in his area.

When one does the numbers, then: total revenue minus total expenditures, it'll be quite apparent that the elite fencers' net is more negative than most non-elite fencers.

[Craig]

Thanks for providing the numbers. That's what I was looking for.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by edew
oiuyt,

The elite fencers get back more than what they pay to USFA: they put in $40/year (or the equivalent). They get back some number, possibly more than $40, from USFA.

However, that's not the proper calculation to investigate. The proper calculation is how much money a fencer puts into fencing altogether, versus how much money they get back from all possible fencing-related revenue sources. (What are the sources? Here are some: grants, cash prizes, sponsorship, endorsement deals, seminars and camps work, teaching fencing, officiating at tournaments, armoring, bout committee work, etc.)

So, an elite fencer might take 5 trips to Europe, buy more equipment, buy more training times, travel to more competitions, etc. A non-elite fencer, like Inq, isn't going to Europe or Asia for five competition. He's going to keep using that same saber blade for the next two years. He might train once a week, if that much, given the lack of available training in his area.

When one does the numbers, then: total revenue minus total expenditures, it'll be quite apparent that the elite fencers' net is more negative than most non-elite fencers.

The $40/year that they put in is considerably below what I was crediting the elites with providing. How many fencers in the US would you consid