Supporting Elite Fencers

[Army Fencer]

"counterattack." Great name for a fencing forum.

Originally posted by counterattack
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.

Could be, but I doubt it. The rules of the game allow for more reliance on technique in the other two weapons, and I believe that it a big reason for the disparity.

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

Every year in the military there is something called the Combined Federal Contributions, allowing service members to ear-mark a certain amount of their paycheck to their favorite charities. I add the USFA to my charity list when I remember to.

[veeco]

I think one of the problems here is that it is hard for the USFA, or any national sports organisation to satisfy everyone.

If you look in terms of membership, you often see it divided in 2 groups:

1- The "Rank and File" (mainly people who fence for fun)
2- The "Elites", those that compete internationally.

The problem is that there is a significant portion of the fencing population in the US who is somewhere in between. They don't compete internationally, but have been fencing for a while and can compete in national tournaments, placing near the top, or above the average, I would say.

It's hard to satisfy these people, because some of them may be up and coming elite fencers, while others mainly enjoy the competition atmosphere, but don't have hopes of making the Olympic team.

Then among this group there are also some people who believe they are Olympic hopefuls, but really shouldn't.

I am not categorizing anyone in particular here, since I don't know why most of you fence for or what you expect to get from a tournament. But I think that it is important to recognize that these people exist and that everyone is trying to get something a little different from the others from their membership.

For instance, it seems that Inq really enjoys the competition, enjoys fencing and bettering his fencing, but doesn't really have any Olympic ideals (I could be wrong of course). So what he expects from his membership is more opportunities to compete, against better opponents, so he can become a better fencer.

The problem being that he is in Arizona and there are close to no sabre fencers there, therefore close no competitions, so the only tournaments he can go to are National ones or larger ones in neighboring sections.

I think I am a little like Inq in terms of what I want to get from my membership. However, when I was fencing in the US, I had more luck in that I was in division where my weapon was well represented, and I had more opportunities to compete. I also think that I've come to realize that the USFA is at a point where they basically have plans for expansion and growth, and that at this point it is difficult to support everyone, while still pursuing those plans.

So they focus on the 2 most important things for growth, which are elites and youth. Of course, this leaves a lot feeling like they are not being supported. That is simply not the case.

I think the USFA is doing also a lot for the "grey area" fencer. However they are not doing as much as they could, in regards to the numbers, simply because they feel that fencing in US will benefit in the long term from their strategy.

By building the elite, they can give some ideals to the young fencers and hope for a medal which will increase exposure for the sport. By build youth programs, they make sure that a lot of kids are being introduced to the sport, hoping that the future US champions and olympians have had a head start in fencing and can compete with the other, stronger fencing nations.

They also hope those kids will stay with fencing, therefore building the membership base and increasing the number of fencers. This will also lead to more money being poured into fencing, which will ultimately benefit the "grey area" fencers.

[MyraTrue]

Inq-

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."

Its called "tuition" Inquartata. Runs in the range of $16,000 a year for most out of state students. And if a student doesn't pay, they can't attend. Their scholarships provide them with help to attend, but in the end, the university still gets its $16,000 a year.

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...

Wee-e-e-ell... being that I generally abhor organized sports... I know that Rugby did. It was $100 a year (I think) to be a member of the USFA equivalent, and we DIDN'T get anything but the "right to compete" on our own dollar. But I am told that the upper end, the "elites" might be seeing some of that. But are you then saying that other sports do not have a yearly membership or registration fee?

Its not taking from someone else- being that they're taking the same amount from the "Elite" as everyone else. If the elite payed nothing... but they're paying the same thing you are.

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...

So yes, it does offend me, as I see it as disparaging the dedication these fencers have. But thats not the issue here. I guess my reply would have to be, "then don't pay it." If anything, you pay your $40 a year for the pretty glossy magazine, insurance if the neighboring epeeist falls off the strip and impales you with a broken epee (ok, well, you are insured, which is the idea), and the right to fence in just about any competition if you've got the ranking. Period. Is asking $40 too much for that? What do you pay for health insurance by the year alone?

And while I think its been said... you pay your taxes too.

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

Hmm... well, I agree, it would be nice if it were more readily available. But how many thousands of people belong to the USFA? If it asked everyone, the chances that everyone would agree? Slim to none. Look at this thread. Someone eventually has to draw the line and say, "we're doing THIS with the money."

And the figure posted that are directly associated with the "elite" fencers: these are part and parcel of RUNNING competition at the "elite" level, are they not? It TAKES money to run DIV I, and so on. It takes directors, scoring equipment, so on. These aren't PERKS... well, maybe a good director is.

The point is, eventually, a decision has to be made. Its BEEN made. This IS a small group of people who voluntarily run this association and do, all things considered, a good job.
------------


I DO know fencers who are good, who are DAMNABLY good, who are highly ranked, and who are sinking under the weight of all the expenditures. I figure at this rate, it might be said they should pop out in China in another year or so. But the thing is, the USFA seems to expect these fencers will always be there. They just put together the tournaments. But when talk goes from, "why isn't fencer B here? Oh, she's sick, huh?" to "why isn't fencer B here? Oh, she has no more money and while she's the best fencer of us all, she can't represent the US anymore." well... um...

Like I said, some support for them... not such a bad thing to me.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by MyraTrue
And the figure posted that are directly associated with the "elite" fencers: these are part and parcel of RUNNING competition at the "elite" level, are they not? It TAKES money to run DIV I, and so on. It takes directors, scoring equipment, so on. These aren't PERKS... well, maybe a good director is.

None of what you cite is included in the figures I gave for the perks. All of the money I listed is in addition to the above. Tournament fees more than cover tournament expenses (this is actually where the excess money to cover the elite perks comes from in large part). As long as you're digging into it, you're right, the div I tournaments are further subsidized by the non-elite tournaments such as summer nationals. Unfortunately this fact doesn't help further your argument, rather the other way around.

-B :)

[Mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata
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.

I want to know what the "extraordinary perks not available to the masses" are?? WHAT DO THEY GET???
Inquarta you are like the guy in the Princess Bride who says "inconceivable". You keep mentioning the perks without saying what they are or backing it up with any information at all.
WELL???
Keep in mind there are three weapons, the top three in each weapon go to World Championships. That is a total of 9 men and 9 women. There will be 18 men and 18 women going to the Cadet and Junior World Cups.
Seems like not that many perks...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Army Fencer
Somebody's been a busy bee.

And somebody's not done yet, either, it seems!

I have a feeling that after we metal this year, the sport will be less obscure.

Counting our chickens before they've hatched, eh? Tsk, you optimists...

But seriously: how much less obscure did fencing get after Westbrook medaled?

I try to go to NYC as often as I can to fence "elites" up there to improve my own skill level. And yes, they do fence at local tournaments (albeit only at their own clubs).

Well, how many of us live in NYC? Or Atlanta? Or Portland? And in those places, there's probably a bevy of them, and they are really fencing each other. How many times does just one or two show up?

I submit to you again that they do fence outside Div-I tournaments, although not in the droves you (or I) would like.

You cited Nationals and NACs. Apart from Div I, the elites fence in none of these, because they cannot: they're not allowed in Div II or III, they don't do Vets, they have their own Nationals. They DO fence in youth events, assuming they're young enough.

Students at universities are "taxed" in the form of tuition to pay for the scholarships of their elites.

Students at the same university, not at all universities...and by and large these do not subsidize "elites", as in honors students, but rather poor students, and of course athletes, who bring in enormous revenue streams to the universities...

I would also estimate that the majority of scholarship funds come from foundations, associations, and other sources ( including governmental, ie Pell grants ) than from the tuition of paying students...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
So they focus on the 2 most important things for growth, which are elites and youth. Of course, this leaves a lot feeling like they are not being supported. That is simply not the case.

I think the USFA is doing also a lot for the "grey area" fencer. However they are not doing as much as they could, in regards to the numbers, simply because they feel that fencing in US will benefit in the long term from their strategy.

By building the elite, they can give some ideals to the young fencers and hope for a medal which will increase exposure for the sport. By build youth programs, they make sure that a lot of kids are being introduced to the sport, hoping that the future US champions and olympians have had a head start in fencing and can compete with the other, stronger fencing nations.

They also hope those kids will stay with fencing, therefore building the membership base and increasing the number of fencers. This will also lead to more money being poured into fencing, which will ultimately benefit the "grey area" fencers.

That's the best statement of the opposing view I've seen yet. I still don't think it's the best or fairest strategy, but it's a defensible viewpoint and well summarized...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by MyraTrue

Its called "tuition" Inquartata. Runs in the range of $16,000 a year for most out of state students. And if a student doesn't pay, they can't attend. Their scholarships provide them with help to attend, but in the end, the university still gets its $16,000 a year.

And coaches and tournaments get THEIR money, whether or not someone helps the elites to pay it.

The tuition is the cost of going to school, just like dues are the cost of fencing. What I'm asking is, would you think it right that you were asked to pay OTHER students' tuition, in addition to your own, on the justification that "they work harder and are better students than you are"?

I am told that the upper end, the "elites" might be seeing some of that. But are you then saying that other sports do not have a yearly membership or registration fee?

No... only that if they are taking from the many to aid the few, it is as wrong as for the USFA to do it. In my view. ( WE are arguing opinions here. )

As a sidebar, I find it interesting that much of our national debate from the left involves the proposition that the few---the most successful few---taxpayers are somehow being unjustly rewarded by the taxes of the many. This is widely accorded as scurrilous, and "the rich" are called upon to receive less ( in tax cuts ) while "the poor and middle class" should receive more. In this case doing what the USFA does is often called immoral. I suspect that the same people who think that the most successful few in life should NOT be subsidized by the less-successful many are the same who think the successful few in fencing SHOULD be subsidized by the less-successful many...

Its not taking from someone else- being that they're taking the same amount from the "Elite" as everyone else. If the elite payed nothing... but they're paying the same thing you are.

And receiving disproportionately more in return...

If anything, you pay your $40 a year for the pretty glossy magazine, insurance if the neighboring epeeist falls off the strip and impales you with a broken epee (ok, well, you are insured, which is the idea),

These cost a fraction of the membership cost dues.

and the right to fence in just about any competition if you've got the ranking.

A right that you have to (a) pay for and (b) qualify for is not a right. As well say that we're going back to only male property-owners being allowed to vote, and calling voting a "right"...

Moreover, it's really entry fees which you pay in order to be allowed to fence.

But how many thousands of people belong to the USFA? If it asked everyone, the chances that everyone would agree? Slim to none. Look at this thread. Someone eventually has to draw the line and say, "we're doing THIS with the money."

So when that mugger sticks a gun in your face and says "I'm doing THIS with your money", it's different---how?

But seriously, this is merely substituting the needs of a few for the needs of the many, at the whim of another few. This is "just"?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
I want to know what the "extraordinary perks not available to the masses" are?? WHAT DO THEY GET???

Have you been reading the whole thread? We've mentioned quite a few. Athlete Awards. Access to top trainers, coaches, sports psychologists, cadre, training facilities.

I am not "in the loop" of the USFA, or in the confidences of its leadership. They aren't going to go out of their ways to share exactly how they assist the elites---not only because I don't matter in the scheme of things but ecause there'd likely be more discontent if the extent of it were laid out for all to see. And as I said, the issue is not important enough to me to make me expend resources trying to dig them up...

[swordsen]

Instead of a box asking for a contribution for unknown purposes they ought to have one saying "Check here and donate $5 for support of the US National Team." I am always more likely to donate if I know where the money is going. I suspect many others would be the same.

[Mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Have you been reading the whole thread? We've mentioned quite a few. Athlete Awards. Access to top trainers, coaches, sports psychologists, cadre, training facilities.
And as I said, the issue is not important enough to me to make me expend resources trying to dig them up...

Trying to reason with someone who is bent on having a persecution complex is also not worth it. I have more valuable things to do with my time. I think you are so not getting it,it has to be deliberate.
Any sports federation is there to promote the sport. The USFA cannot promote a sport full of people that cannot fence. For a sport to be taken seriously its participants have to be taken seriously.

Iceskaters get more benefits than fencers. Gymnasts do, swimmers, runners, track, all of the athletes in the upper levels in the sport have monetary support from their federations/associations. The federations are supported by the people working their way up. There is power in numbers.

GUESS WHAT?? Results matter. It is not an egalitarian society. The USFA would be foolish not to support the top fencers. They do not however support them in lavish ways.

Another thought. You don't have kids do you? It makes a huge difference in the way parents vs non parents think.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by swordsen
Instead of a box asking for a contribution for unknown purposes they ought to have one saying "Check here and donate $5 for support of the US National Team." I am always more likely to donate if I know where the money is going. I suspect many others would be the same.

That's why I was in favor of the exta fee for referee support at NACs: it was fully disclosed up front ( albeit it wasn't any more our decision in the end than any other ever is ).

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
Any sports federation is there to promote the sport. The USFA cannot promote a sport full of people that cannot fence. For a sport to be taken seriously its participants have to be taken seriously.

The causal chain of logic there escapes me. A sport cannot be "promoted" without subsidizing its elite members?

Pyramids are usually best expanded by broadening the BASE, not the APEX...and hence by putting more work and mateial into the former than the latter.

But if one wants prestige---and I don't mean public prestige, I mean prestige for the USFA leaders among the FIE, IOC and USOC, the top of the fencing world, in other words, well, then, sure, you need glory for the few, as long as the many don't get so disaffected paying for it that they revolt...

Iceskaters get more benefits than fencers. Gymnasts do, swimmers, runners, track, all of the athletes in the upper levels in the sport have monetary support from their federations/associations. The federations are supported by the people working their way up. There is power in numbers.

For what is this an argument? It sounds like "But Ma, Billy has a new basketball, why can't I have one?"

Really, Mo---other sports are more flagant at this practice than fencing, so by comparison our version is OK?!

Another thought. You don't have kids do you? It makes a huge difference in the way parents vs non parents think.

Meaning that parents think "right" and nonparents think "wrong"?

This is a non sequitur, Mo. It has nothing to do with the issue or the argument. It's an attempt, somehow, to discredit a view based on personal situations...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Mo
GUESS WHAT?? Results matter.

And that's the crux of the issue. The USFA, as an organization, has made the determination that fencers advancing towards or currently on the national team may receive a microscopic amount of grants not offered to rank and file fencers.

But let's face it. Under the most generous level of funding, it's not even pennies on the dollar.

Every organization that has dues or entry fees has to decide what to do with the money, and how best to promote the sport and the practicioners judged most likely to excel to the benefit of the organization.

If you think your contribution to the Red Cross is being used in a manner contrary to your wishes, don't donate. If the Society for the Beatification of Antique Thongery (SBAT) is taking your dues and buying MESS(tm) lingerie only for Notre Dame supermodels over 6'4", and no one else, either get on the board, or drop your membership.

If you truly believe the USFA is committing an immoral act by throwing pennies of your money at fencers who sacrifice so much to compete at the national and international level, then don't renew your membership next year. Be sure to write the USFA and tell them why.

[sparkie]

Inq: Name one perk that an elite has access to and you do not.

[sparkie]

PS. I agree with the Captain. If you don't like the game, go play somewhere else.

[Mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Really, Mo---other sports are more flagant at this practice than fencing, so by comparison our version is OK?!




Meaning that parents think "right" and nonparents think "wrong"?

This is a non sequitur, Mo. It has nothing to do with the issue or the argument. It's an attempt, somehow, to discredit a view based on personal situations...

First point, not ok but reality. It is not even ok or not ok it is the way it works.
Second point. As a parent you learn that NOTHING is fair. You pay tons of tax money and your kid is in a class with 30 other kids. The choices are so limited.
You can afford things to be about you. Your POV is skewed mine is too. I think mine is more realistic though.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
And that's the crux of the issue. The USFA, as an organization, has made the determination that fencers advancing towards or currently on the national team may receive a microscopic amount of grants not offered to rank and file fencers.

But let's face it. Under the most generous level of funding, it's not even pennies on the dollar.

So that's it? We're no longer arguing whether or not there is a disproportionate amount of resources spent on the elites vis-a-vis the rank and file---only that "it's not that much, really"? This is a different argument entirely...

If you think your contribution to the Red Cross is bei