Supporting Elite Fencers

[MikeHarm]

There are two angles for supporting elite athletes, one of them is what they give the elite fencer's. The other one is what the elite coach's are getting. What kind of money do they get for being an elite coach for olympic fencers?

[R. Exnicios]

I don't think the problem is that the elites get to much, they shoulde get more. We should all get more! The "everybody elses" out there want to see USFA paying attention to them too.

one of those "everybody elses"

Cheers

[Inquartata]

Well, I'd love to answer some of the posts since last I was here. There are some good arguments on either side. Alas, I cannot, as it seems that I have in effect been told to shut up on this issue by Craig, who has that right if he chooses to exercise it.

Thanks to oiuyt for standing in for me and for digging out the numbers again. ( This is not an important enough issue in my life to motivate me to conduct an investigation to find 'em myself. )

[Tireur]

That smacks of an entitlement culture to. (I'm entitled to go and fence at a Div I even though I can't hold a candle to an 'A' fencer.)

And, of course, the unspoken part of this, no one wants to see the "elites" eliminated by an unknown. That just wouldn't do.

My third or fourth tournament, I was fencing epee just because I had to spend the weekend there and my friends talked me into it. I was fencing the guy who was, currently, third in the nation in epee and beat him, also eliminating him.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, I'd love to answer some of the posts since last I was here. There are some good arguments on either side. Alas, I cannot, as it seems that I have in effect been told to shut up on this issue by Craig, who has that right if he chooses to exercise it.

Thanks to oiuyt for standing in for me and for digging out the numbers again. ( This is not an important enough issue in my life to motivate me to conduct an investigation to find 'em myself. )

Didn't tell you to shut up so much as to provide data to back up the claims. Since oiuyt provided the numbers I'm satisfied that there is data to make the argument, so carry on.

I'm mulling about my thoughts on a post/response also, but it will take some time to put something together and not totally shoot from the hip.

Craig

[Inquartata]

OK, thanks, Craig. I misunderstood...and I take moderator injunctions seriously.

Alas, it's too late to carry on tonite so...manana.

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by Mo
There has to be some cute,attractive and athletic fencers with some excitement and whoopass.

Hmmm... I wonder who you're talking about...

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by Tireur
And, of course, the unspoken part of this, no one wants to see the "elites" eliminated by an unknown. That just wouldn't do.

My third or fourth tournament, I was fencing epee just because I had to spend the weekend there and my friends talked me into it. I was fencing the guy who was, currently, third in the nation in epee and beat him, also eliminating him.

Welcome to the wonderful world of epee, where anything can happen. Epee is notorious for its odd upsets.

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by oiuyt
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.

Some benefits of supporting elite fencers are largely intangible without monetary links at all:

*Recognition of the sport
*Improving skill level of American fencers in general

Other benefits of supporting elite fencers have monetary ties, but are unquantifible:

*Additional membership due to American fencers in the Olympics/ recognition of the sport
*Increased participation at NACs, National Championships due to certain fencers' participation
*Increased participation at local, regional tournament due to certain fencers' participation

I do think that these reasons justify a USFA budget directed for subsidizing the elite fencers' costs.

[counterattack]

Originally posted by Army Fencer
Welcome to the wonderful world of epee, where anything can happen. Epee is notorious for its odd upsets.

I have often wondered if this isn't due as much to the reduced human factor of the judge who 'knows' who 'should' win in foil and sabre.


On the main topic, of course the USFA can do whatever it sees fit as far as subsidizing the elites, and I think the various arguments in favor of some support have to carry the day. By reducing the burden on the top fencers, and increasing their ceiling, they give incentive to all the fencers to step up their game. By knowing our best can compete in the world, I think it adds seriousness to our competition. I know everytime one of our local elite fencers shows up to our local tourneys it adds a lot of fire. I see their results in WCs, and then get my own chance against them. It is very motivating and I am willing to subsidize it to the tune of $5 or $10 a year without a gripe.
This isn't a moral issue, it is an issue of what the members prefer, and I think most of us prefer to put a carrot on the end of the elite stick.

Also, I wonder how much the USFA gets from the "contribution" line on the application form...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Army Fencer
Some benefits of supporting elite fencers are largely intangible without monetary links at all:

*Recognition of the sport

Yeah, that an a dollar will get you a cup of coffee...

Seriously: where, exactly, IS all of this "recognition"? I sure haven't encountered much of it. Fencing still labors in obscurity as far as I've been able to tell.

*Improving skill level of American fencers in general

Except that as Eric notes on the West Coast Fencing thread, there's another phenomenon at work: fencers get to be elite fencers and they pretty much seem to quit fencing with the hoi polloi. They start going away to big events with other elite fencers, overseas at the upper level, and leave local fencing in the lurch. How this works to improve fencing generally I cannot tell: there appear to be two classes of fencers, elite and everyone else, and seldom the twain shll meet...

*Additional membership due to American fencers in the Olympics/ recognition of the sport

Great....new members...whose dues and fees too can now go to contribute to supporting the elites. Who is benefitting whom here?

*Increased participation at NACs, National Championships due to certain fencers' participation

Except that the elite fencers don't FENCE at these, except for Div Is, which are preparing to be closed to any but As and Bs...

And---the USFA seems determined to REDUCE participation at these events, as they are deemed "too big to run efficiently". They don't appear to regard this one as a benefit so much as a dreary obligation...

*Increased participation at local, regional tournament due to certain fencers' participation

See above---the elite fencers generally eschew such lowly events, as they will not find competitors of sufficient quality to do their training any good. Once they reach the elite, all too many compete only against other members of the elite.

[Inquartata]

Now, to play some "catch up"...

Originally posted by The0ne

Elite athletes deserve money, there is no doubt about this in my mind. To compare it to your situation Inq, do you fence 5 days a week? Pay for lessons with top coaches, which the going rate is about a dollar a minute? Do you have to go to every single Div. 1 NAC to keep your spot in the points list? Judging from your posts so far I don't think you do, and that cost adds up! Not to mention World Cups, WOrld CHampionships etc. If I was at that level I would want all the financial aid that I could get.

This is all true, but wide of the mark, IMO.

If I do all of those things you mention training-wise and dedication-wise and still do not manage to make it into the ranks of the exalted, should I still get money? "Help" with my enormous expenses, which I have chosen to expend? If not, then these are all red herrings and "assistance" is not "earned" by effort or expenditures of resources or sweat. Only being in the elite matters, and if you could get there without much effort or outlay of cash you'd STILL get support from the USFA....

All of this hard work, all of these sacrifices, are made of the fencer's own free will, just as mine are. Ought there be a sliding scale? If I practice 5 days a week and you choose to practice only 4, am I more "deserving" than you? I think not. Then why apply such a standard only to the best of the best?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
I think that a lot of the assumptions being made here might have already been discussed before actually.

Yep, this is a perennial debate. I'm sure we've combed all this ground before...but sometimes the debate is its own reward! ( For some of us, anyway. )

Inq, would you stop complaining and get back to trying and become a better fencer?

Let me put it this way:

No.

"I have not yet begun to fight!!!"

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by hscoach
To become an "elite fencers" coast thousands and thousands of dollars.

And this demonstrates a causal effect, ie effort expended=deserving of support....how?

Look to see what the cost of a flight to Bulgaria costs and some of the other locations. How many of these overseas flights must they make in an Olympic year.

I have to keep saying it: the people who choose to undergo this expense and hardship do so of their own free wills. They do so prsumably because they derive some utility from it, humans being utility-maximizing creatures. If it were not already worth it for the intangibles they get for it, they simply would not do it. Why then ought they to be granted ADDITIONAL benefits paid for by others, who have not had the luxury of a choice in the matter?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by MyraTrue


So, Inquartata, are you saying, "sorry, but since your parents don't have the money, I don't CARE how hard you've worked or what you've given up, no money for you."

Let me ask you in turn: given that same student, if the University comes to you and says that "Because of his relative penury and his diligent effort, we are going to require that you, Myra, as a fellow student who isn't working quite as hard or devoting as much effort to your studies, fork over a fee which we will give to him. Give us the money, or we'll no longer let you go to school here, or anywhere."

There's an aphorism by H.L. Mencken which is very condign to this situation: "Whenever A takes something from B on the pretence of giving it to C, A is a scoundrel."

Yet you don't seem to batt an eye at the idea of OTHER sports funding their athletes.

Which other amateur sports subsidize top players from the pockets of lesser ones? Do neighborhood basketball leagues wring fees out of 40 kids in order to give little honorariums to the 2 best players? Where is this standard practice? Let me know, and I will decry it there, too. I am most fervent about fencing because it is my sport and the one about which I know most...

And there's a helluva lot of difference between you lounging on a beach and someone's fencing career. And you KNOW that.

I do not. And in my view there IS not. These are simply two disparate ways of maximizing the utility of the individual. Which is chosen depends on nothing more than individual preference.

But don't go about self-righteously proclaim that its your money and that no one "deserves" anything.

Sorry, but I will most certainly continue to do so, with or without your leave. I beg your pardon if this offends you. But, call me crazy, I believe that the money I earn, from MY work, with MY skills and labor, is not YOURS to dispose of as YOU choose. Nor is it the USFAs to dispose of as THEY choose...

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.

The crux of the matter: there is no asking, only taking...and no very great interest in accounting for the practice, either.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by J.Harris

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.

This is the attitude with which I have a problem condensed to its most basic form...the notion that some have a moral claim on the property of others...that the interests of the few ought to be paid for by the many ( or in this case, that the many should be supported by the few ).

And BTW...who gets to decide what is "the right thing to do" ( insofar as "right" is not an immutable in all circumstances to all people ), and who gets the pleasant task of taking from some and deciding who is "worthy" of getting, and how much? Who gets to play god, in other words?

[Inquartata]

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

Heh, after the, er, embarassing experience of Palm Springs I have all but decided it would be best to ban myself....

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
You need "elite" fencers Inquar. Sorry but you do.

Oh, absolutely. I am just not convinced that we need to be giving them extraordinary perks not available to the masses....

And none of my screeds ought to be construed as hostile toward the elite fencers themselves. None of them, I daresay, took up fencing because of the prospect of Athlete Awards; none of them took it up for reasons not shared by the rest of us; and if help is offered, I would not expect them to turn it down---they are simply maximizing their own utility. I merely do not think it equitable to be offering things to a few which are withheld from the many who pay for them in the first place.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by fencer-person
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.

See my reply to Mo, above. My ire is not aimed at the elite athletes but rather at those who have decided, from Olympus, that they should take from the many and give to the few---and at the system which not only countenances it but calls it a wonderful thing...

No fencer aims for the top because he or she expects to get perks by being there. That is not why they fence, any more than it is why I fence. My point is not to blame but to question why they are more deserving of the expenditure of scarce resources than anyone else, given that their motivations and choices are the same...