kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Nov 28, 2010 22:48:39 GMT -6
kb, you know wayyyy more about boxing than I. Anything you'd care to share? ;D Simple deduction my dear Watson: Augie had stipulated it was an Olympic sport and then ruled out the martial arts (TKD). So boxing just fit the above quote.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Dec 2, 2010 23:29:07 GMT -6
Boxing is not a bad guess, but it has not grown in the popularity as this sport in this area.
I went to another sanctioned competition last night. This sport keeps individual scores, and has rolling point composites similar to fencing. I was amazed at the similarity.
Here are a couple of more hints at what sport has totally kicked fencing's A** in growth the past 10 - 15 years in this area, and seems to have an over-indulgence in local competitions if you take the same position as the leadership with the protected weekends folly:
1. There are parrys and ripostes, but they are not called that in this sport. 2. Footwork is very important, with footwork being one of the keys to being successful, (but not the only key like I demonstrated at the Call to Arms on one leg). 3. There are three periods of one or two minutes per period depending upon the level of the competitor, unless the match ends sooner.
My personal position is that I can't devote energy introducing people to fencing in a market where my efforts are set up to limit the success. Oscar and I were division chairs at the same time, and worked on the same strategies to help the SW Section be the fastest growing section in the US. One year I chaired the SW Section and he chaired another year. Our real focus were as many different competitions for stratification as possible. The people in power did not like stratification, and C and under tournaments were determined illegal in the Gulf Coast Division. My first earning of a C in South Texas winning a 45 person tournament was considered illegal in GCD but valid in South Texas because of the local leadership. I did not fence epee then, only foil.
In any sport where an adult in power gets angry because youth are getting paid to officiate and not them, and they work at not sanctioning a tournament because of that and throw a fit then we will continue to have these issues. Regardless whether those youth were more qualified on a scale of about 10 to 1. I just know that we will see the same results, or lack of growth, with the same restrictions. Insanity would be to expect something different.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Dec 8, 2010 20:24:32 GMT -6
While I am not posting about the next sanctioned tounament that is tomorrow, 12/9/10, I think it is interesting we had such a large ROC turnout in the youth.
Where will they fence next week? The week after? How many students dropped out before they got to this point? Most if not all of these students were local.
It is not the responsibility of the clubs or coaches to create an enviroment where fencing grows in USFA participation. It is the USFA's responsibility. Every local officer should be held accountable as to why there are not more competitions to keep these people interested. It is not a lack of locations or groups to hold these competitions. We have a situation set up where local clubs can't hold them and do the officer's jobs. If you are a fencer, parent or friend of a local fencer you should find out why these competitions can't be held. I sent parents and adult fencers to a divisional meeting several years ago, and they were amazed and how these tournaments were set up to limit the competitions. The adults don't fence anymore, and have taken up hobbies they can participate in and not be kept out.
Everyone who wants local competitions should attend the August meeting where these weekends are blocked out. Then you will see how our leadership truly is looking out not for fencing's best interests but something else's.
|
|
|
Post by piste off on Dec 8, 2010 22:22:42 GMT -6
While I am not posting about the next sanctioned tounament that is tomorrow, 12/9/10, I think it is interesting we had such a large ROC turnout in the youth. There's a sanctioned tournament on a Thursday? What sort of turnout do they expect?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Manny on Dec 10, 2010 9:17:43 GMT -6
I am sorry to hear that Katty Blades is going through some difficult times. Three years ago when I started my club Augie was one of a few that extended his hand in friendship and cooperation. Heard recently that he is reorganizing and when he does, we from Fort Bend Academy will be there to support him.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Dec 24, 2010 8:41:35 GMT -6
Thanks Manny. Actually, it is a mis-perception that Katy Blades is going through difficult times. I have just made a decision that I needed to change mission statements based upon the environment locally. My mission statement was to introduce the greatest number of people to the sport and do what I could to get them involved in a sport I loved. My new mission statement is to focus on the fencers I have and to be much more singularly focused.
If the USFA was marketing driven, they would have taken advantage of my old location and locations like it where there are thousands, and in the case of the last few weeks, tens of thousands, that pass by locations observing fencing. In my other business, I pay money for that exposure, and that business has grown exponentially. Competitions there on weekends where people could observe fencing or even do the competition for a day scenario where people could fence in a USFA sanctioned tournament for one day since I had all the equipment. You know that with the foot traffic I had it would have been successful.
I just have more important things to do than wait for that environment. I am also a parent in the other Olympic sport, and it is incredible the differences. Dec. 17th a sanctioned dual meet in Katy, and then Dec. 18th a tournament that was larger than Junior Olympics. It is my understanding that this meet is less that 15 years old, but there were four gyms with 400+ competitors per gym. There was a competing match Dec. 17th, and actually many competing matches in what would be called the Gulf Coast Division area. Officials from one club or a group of clubs don't force their will on other clubs as to the schedule, except to influence them and say that they will attend.
The sport is wrestling. You would be amazed to know that there are more girls that wrestle than we have boys fencing in the GCD. You don't want to compare the boy numbers. In Katy, this sport has grown from almost nothing 15 years ago to a vibrant sport. There are all kinds of sanctioned competitions, and the kids stay interested because of it. The parents are bored at competitions and told me to bring a book. There was repecharge at the tournament, and there are so many similarities to fencing it is amazing. The differences are the opportunities. Fencing's opportunities are limited.
My new location is cool Manny, and we are in a facility that is similar to the one where you and I were, but these guys are real trainers. They are ex-NFL players and serious trainers.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Dec 28, 2010 8:19:31 GMT -6
Nothing wrong with a paradigm shift, If a different model works better for you and the Katy Blades, go fo it. If the USFA was marketing driven, they would have taken advantage of my old location and locations like it where there are thousands, and in the case of the last few weeks, tens of thousands, that pass by locations observing fencing. In my other business, I pay money for that exposure, and that business has grown exponentially. Competitions there on weekends where people could observe fencing or even do the competition for a day scenario where people could fence in a USFA sanctioned tournament for one day since I had all the equipment. You know that with the foot traffic I had it would have been successful. Unless by USFA you mean the Gulf Coast Division, I don't see how the USFA as a national organization could "take advantage" of your location.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Jan 4, 2011 11:47:34 GMT -6
Nothing wrong with a paradigm shift, If a different model works better for you and the Katy Blades, go fo it. If the USFA was marketing driven, they would have taken advantage of my old location and locations like it where there are thousands, and in the case of the last few weeks, tens of thousands, that pass by locations observing fencing. In my other business, I pay money for that exposure, and that business has grown exponentially. Competitions there on weekends where people could observe fencing or even do the competition for a day scenario where people could fence in a USFA sanctioned tournament for one day since I had all the equipment. You know that with the foot traffic I had it would have been successful. Unless by USFA you mean the Gulf Coast Division, I don't see how the USFA as a national organization could "take advantage" of your location. The GCD could have policies that encourage clubs to be in high traffic locations, and encourage innovation like Augie's beginners' fencing league, modeled after Little League. The division could have rules that encourage competitions, instead of forbidding them. The division could have a much more active equipment loan program to help new clubs get started, could encourage a training program for new club owners, could take a much more active role in publicizing fencing in the area. The USFA could spell out much more explicitly what the role of the division is in these things, and could outright forbid the kind of draconian rules we have now on who can have a USFA event when. The USFA's club packet is virtually useless, they could offer actual advice from real club owners and training opportunities, that would be nice. As Augie pointed out, there are empty mall slots all over. But the GCD and the USFA together have made a set of policies here that make a working business model in these places impossible. To run a club in a mall you have to have a tournament almost every weekend, that seems clear to me. You have to generate a lot of fencers and draw a lot of fencers in. It's a growth business model. But the rules in place here don't let you do that. Very bad policy making, very bad. It's not clear to me who made the actual rule about reserving weekends, if it was a USFA rep or someone from the GCD back when we had all the fuss going on, but it's a terrible rule. It values lack of conflict and a sort of tidy neat order over growth and competition, it's just about a textbook example of bad public policy. K O'N
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jan 4, 2011 12:13:43 GMT -6
It's not clear to me who made the actual rule about reserving weekends, if it was a USFA rep or someone from the GCD back when we had all the fuss going on, but it's a terrible rule. It values lack of conflict and a sort of tidy neat order over growth and competition, it's just about a textbook example of bad public policy. K O'N IIRC, that was endorsed by several of the smaller clubs in the division and some from outside the Houston core... something about not having a chance if they scheduled opposite a powerhouse club.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jan 4, 2011 18:59:42 GMT -6
The GCD could have policies that encourage clubs to be in high traffic locations... I confess I am at a loss here. Do not most clubs already wish to be in high-traffic locations? Do they require further encouragement beyond the obvious merits? More to the point, what exactly could a division do to encourage them to move to a high-traffic location?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 4, 2011 19:32:09 GMT -6
kon makes some good points. I'd like to address one that I have some knowledge of.
What the GCD could do to get clubs into shopping malls beyond paying their rent is beyond me. Having worked for shopping malls in my past let me make two point: 1.) they are wonderfully visible locations on weekends and many weekday evenings; 2.) during the days on weekdays they can be quite dead evenin good financial times, yet mall management generally requires the company leasing space from them to be open, with things or services to purchase available, from 10AM-9PM Mondays-Saturdays and at least noon-6PM on Sundays. That is a LOT of hours, many of which must be operated at a loss, even if you do great business on the weekends. Please note those same, many closed shopping mall storefronts kon alluded to.
In short, a shopping mall is particularly tough retail environment. Over 14 years I watched most "mom & pop" businesses wither in that environment. If you take in most successful malls today, the inline stores are national chains. The "mom & pop" operations are confined to "carts" and kiosks.
Let me add that around 2003, 2004 (among my last years associated with malls) the November & December rents on those carts in the middle of the common areas, were often on the order of $5,000.00 per month. The inline stores were naturally much higher. That is not inclusive of utilities, stock or payroll.
High traffic generally means high rent. You can get a better deal at a mall that is struggling, but if it is struggling you likely are not going to experience that high traffic you are hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 4, 2011 19:35:22 GMT -6
My above post notwithstanding, those who were around when the GCD had no restrictions on how many tournaments were held on any given weekend should recall that I was a convert to (and proponent of) this model.
That said, shopping malls are tough. A lot also depends upon the management of the particular mall. Beware of General Growth properties. They will milk you.
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Jan 4, 2011 19:50:44 GMT -6
I can only come up with two contributions to this little examination.
1.) That the USFA needs to create a different business model is the worst-kept secret in fencing.
2.) Everywhere I look I seem to pass another martial arts McDojo, yet compared to fencing they rarely have tournaments. Their secret to continued existence is... what?
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jan 4, 2011 22:40:00 GMT -6
I want to reply to several of the contributors individually:
Fox: The USFA has already recognized where their source of members are coming from and spent approx. $175 and up for a banner that they mailed to Clear Lake. What do they expect from this banner? More memberships or new fencers. The USFA is hoping that CLFC will hang the banner and advertise the USFA.
The PGA utilized my mall space to advertise The Shell Houston Open as a birdies for charity event, because it was a Not-For-Profit and could raise funds.
I am in a position where my company's operating budget far exceeds the USFA's currently, and I spend money, hard cash for marketing opportunities. That is why my company's growth is approximately 100% per year over the past several years. There are many more locations where marketing is available besides my old location in the U.S.
My club previously ran approximately 60 - 100 fencers that were not USFA members at any time. That is a marketing opportunity for the USFA of approximately $3,600 per year. This was not a static annual number though. Many people moved in and out of fencing waiting for competitions. Let's multiply this number by 10% of the USFA clubs in the country and that is a $150,000+ annual operating number that could be accomplished with no cost to the USFA but some adoption of reasonable policies.
John is probably correct in his rent figures for the carts. I can say that some companies look at anchor or marketing tenants more pragmatically. If you bring in traffic, substantial traffic, then the rent is not $5,000 per month. My rent never was close to that because of the traffic and number of people that came to the mall for fencing. One tournament a month would have covered my rent, so the overhead was not the issue.
If a USFA club wants to change the balance of fencing competitions, sign up 6 or 8 clubs for the USFA. Then 8 weekends will be excluded from any USFA competitions and we could have more D and Under only competitions like this coming weekend. Why don't we have a Div. I the same day, (C and above only)?
When the current GCD rules were set up, my club would not have been called a powerhouse club. I just ran tournaments that finished quickly and efficiently and began on time, that was different than the tournaments ran we I came back to fencing. A 40 person tournament would be an 8 hour day, with 2 hours taken for lunch in the middle. Fencers and parents wanted to fence, and then leave when finished at a reasonable time. Suddenly, my club was more popular than the established CLFC, Galveston Fencers and others for tournament day.
Aldo: My current position is that I am tired of attracting people to fencing and not being allowed to incorporate them in fencing through the competitive process. I can bring my beginners to competitions, providing blades and holding their hands on my own dime. That has gotten old. All the USFA had to do was allow for competitive growth in tournaments. By allowing the "Draconian" rules to limit competitions, it limits the growth of the sport.
Joe Visconti: The martial arts model is a belt model where people are compared by belt levels, probably similar to the rating system in the USFA. They do compete, but how quickly they get their belts. Before we say they don't compete very often we need to be certain of our facts. I am aware of a number of competitions in the centers within several miles of my house. There are more competitions in just the one within one mile of my house than we have in our division in one year. I never would have thought wrestling dwarfed fencing, even women's wrestling dwarfed all fencing in this area until I saw it. They used the same model we used in the GCD and Southwest Section in the mid 80s when I was chair to achieve this growth.
I am also a competitive fencer, and have developed other businesses that are successful. I am not looking to make a business model from fencing to be successful when it is clear and has been replicated in this section and division before and resulted in explosive growth. The model is tried and true, it just is rejected by local leadership.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Jan 5, 2011 11:13:19 GMT -6
The GCD could have policies that encourage clubs to be in high traffic locations... I confess I am at a loss here. Do not most clubs already wish to be in high-traffic locations? Do they? Roughly speaking there are two models to pay the rent at a fencing club. One is to generate a lot of fencers. The other is to have a few fencers who pay a lot of money. Of the two, the first does more good for the division, I would argue, by making more fencers. The second generates elite fencers, or at least one would hope it does. Many clubs do both, but not all. If you want to train your six elite kids you just need a place to do it, you don't need foot traffic, you don't need publicity, no one in town even knows you're there until there's a newspaper article on you going to the Junior World Championships or something. What could the division do? A lot. Let's make a list: The division gets a kickback from USFA fees, they could construct a 'first two years' grant that sent that money back to the club for the first two years of the club's existence. The division could have an aggressive equipment loan program to mitigate the costs of setting up for a lot of fencers. The division could try to preserve some of the lessons learned by previous clubs. Several clubs have gone under in the last few years, which will happen. Did we do an exit interview with them? Are all these available on the division web site? And on and on. Do I think the volunteer officers of the division have the time to do all of these things? No, certainly not. But right now when someone innovates, a) it's lost when they get tired of being a voice in the wilderness, and b) the division's major interaction with them is to tell them they cannot run USFA events on the weekends they want to. Great, that's great. K O'N
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Jan 5, 2011 11:19:46 GMT -6
My above post notwithstanding, those who were around when the GCD had no restrictions on how many tournaments were held on any given weekend should recall that I was a convert to (and proponent of) this model. That said, shopping malls are tough. A lot also depends upon the management of the particular mall. Beware of General Growth properties. They will milk you. I defer to your expertise on this. My larger point was that the tournament restrictions are unneeded. If a "Big Club" runs an event every weekend and a "Small Club" runs an event once in six months, I think the Small Club would get a fine turnout. My even larger point is that the division should be very interested in Augie's ideas about growing fencing. The goal should not be to evenly divide up the pie, it should be a rising tide lifts all ships, right? Wait, that's not right. Ok, whatever. You can lead a gift horse to water, but you can't look in his mouth. K O'N
|
|
dead fly on the wall
Guest
|
Post by dead fly on the wall on Jan 5, 2011 11:25:03 GMT -6
Dear GCD Fencers Tired of the Status Quo:
1. Put together a slate of officers that will do what needs to be done. 2. Organize and get your proxies. A simple USFA membership search will tell you how many you need to get. 3. Join forces and get out the vote to take over the elected offices.
We can all complain about it, but when NO ONE shows up to the annual meeting, then things go along as they have since 2004.
We have enough votes to change things, but the club owners will have to come together and organize and follow through.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Jan 5, 2011 11:28:30 GMT -6
I can only come up with two contributions to this little examination. 1.) That the USFA needs to create a different business model is the worst-kept secret in fencing. Someone on the fnet forum said we need two USFAs, one for elite team-picking duties, one for the rest of us to run Div II NACs and ref and coaching training and insurance and everything else. That idea seems to me to have a lot of merit. They're more like dance studios than sports training. They do internal recitals/belt tests, once a year they go to nationals, lots of trophies, lots of external non zero sum validation. We're a non-UIL sport played by all ages. Sort of like soccer before soccer was a varsity sport. And we seem to be hung between two models; the soccer model would have us spreading like wildfire by any means possible, maximum exposure, quantity over quality until we get to something like market saturation. But there are other models; the speed skating model, for example, is pretty elite. You really only train hard at speed skating if you think you can go to the Olympics. There are no speed skating Div II NACs or anything like them. Elite or nothing. I know which way I'd rather we go, personally. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 5, 2011 15:21:48 GMT -6
The division gets a kickback from USFA fees, they could construct a 'first two years' grant that sent that money back to the club for the first two years of the club's existence. I like that one. I like it a lot. I'm not sure how this works. Could you elaborate? I consider that an inaccurate representation of the situation. I, myself, belong to two different clubs. Neither had any serious difficulty getting tournament dates. We could have gotten more (but I know my limitations all too well). Granted we did have to plan ahead. We did have to attend the regularly scheduled meeting. We did have to represent clubs that were actually USFA member-clubs. I am not by any stretch an organizational genius (serious understatement), but I just don't see why this is presented as terribly difficult. Is it truly an unfair burden on a club that it must execute some long-range plans, including tournament scheduling (and join the USFA)?
|
|
|
Post by grace on Jan 5, 2011 22:03:16 GMT -6
The division gets a kickback from USFA fees, they could construct a 'first two years' grant that sent that money back to the club for the first two years of the club's existence. I agree with John on this one. The A&M @cc club has not joined as a USFA club because they are spending all their money on equipment that is desperately needed, which is the same problem CBFS had when we first started it up.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Jan 5, 2011 22:48:04 GMT -6
The division gets a kickback from USFA fees, they could construct a 'first two years' grant that sent that money back to the club for the first two years of the club's existence. I like that one. I like it a lot. You're too kind. When I was North Texas division chair, lo those many years ago, we had a lot of equipment. It did not stay in someone's garage or trunk, it was loaned out. From what I remember, and this is a pretty rusty memory, a new club could request to borrow the division equipment for two years, to mitigate the costs of starting a club. The new club was required to maintain the equipment, and they had to periodically produce it for divisionals or whatever event it was needed for. From memory, FIT, the new incarnation of DFC, Renaissance FC, whatever Ali's club was called up in Plano took advantage of this. The division tried to mitigate the difficulties in starting a new club, since we thought it was good for fencing to have as many clubs as possible. I should say that I didn't come up with this, it was in place when I was elected, and I didn't even have much to do with it. There was a policy in place and we applied it, that was all. No doubt it caused some wear and tear on equipment, but it helped a lot of clubs get started. And this was in a division where it was typical to have divisionals at St Marks or some other gym without built in boxes, so it was critical to have the division boxes several times a year. We still loaned them out to clubs. Contrast that to the Gulf Coast, where we typically have divisionals at Bayou City or some other dedicated fencing venue with boxes included, yet we do not loan out our boxes. It's hard to start a club, it's hard to get enough stuff together to have people actually able to fence, it's expensive. The division could help with that. Ouch. Ok, fine, I on occasion forget to join the USFA. The college covers my insurance, so it's not otherwise critical to me. Ok. Yes, you're an organizational genius. And yes, it's a moderately high bar. And yes, it's an obstacle. Not for me, fine, I'm an idiot. But if Augie wants to run an every weekend epee series, he can't do so, or at least can't as a USFA event series. So those people never join the USFA, so they never go to other events. Alliance ran a big epee event a few months back as a non-USFA event, since they couldn't run it as a USFA event. This is bad. There's a whole chain in a new fencer's entry into the sport. You go to a first event, join the USFA, go to other beginner events, get a rating, get points, go to NACs, go to SN. These policies are breaking that chain at the beginning. No USFA membership? Oh. So the next event will cost how much? Oh. Well, the epee league was fun, but maybe we'll try something else this summer. This is not how to grow a sport. In my opinion, anyway. But who knows, I've been wrong before. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Jan 5, 2011 23:19:15 GMT -6
I am sad that Augie closed his club. It was a very nice location and I enjoyed every one of the tournaments that I attended there.
It seems that Kevin has considerable experience as a former division chair (of a large metropolitan area) and is still loaded with ideas. I am at a different division and do not want to get involved but the nice thing about democracy is that it constantly pushes leaders to get better ideas.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jan 6, 2011 9:47:59 GMT -6
Thanks to JEC for returning to topic. The threadrift has been terrific.
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Jan 6, 2011 12:35:07 GMT -6
Apologies in advance for the thread drift.
Count your blessings. It can be worse. I'm not a Gulf Coast fencer (I'm in North Texas) but I've also lived in other divisions.
In many divisions, it is the division itself that runs the tournaments. The clubs exist just to train fencers.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jan 8, 2011 0:31:43 GMT -6
John, It is absolutely not true that you can have a tournament without any issues. Even planning ahead, there were many weekends the last two years that the weekend was "reserved" and not used. You can look at historical discussions on this on this website. Often we would find out it was not being used too late to reserve it as a USFA tournament. Just having the ability to host one tournament a month around the other tournaments would allow beginners to be brought into the USFA and give them incentive to join because there would be more than one event for their money. I experienced a sanctioned competition on Wednesday, and today attended a competition in Cy-Fair that was bigger than any of our Junior Olympics. Did you know that more young ladies Greco Wrestle than we have fencing competitively in our state. There were 77 male teams averaging 20+ members each, and 55 female teams averaging at least 10+ each. I am probably underestimating it. Here is the website: More teams attended after the article was written. www.hcnonline.com/.../article_63d68c03-3902-59a3-8c41-d11951123b86. html Katy Taylor began their programs in 1997-98, and my old high school Lamar Cons. started one two years ago. All the coaches cited these tournaments as being essential to keeping their students and helping their development. It must be working, because their growth certainly has not been matched by fencing. 1n 1997 fencing was larger than wrestling in this area. What a difference policy makes. Joe, we used to be that way in this division. I was chair when we made a policy to allow clubs to run tournaments to help fund their equipment purchase. This was after we took this division from no working strips to 10 in about 2 years while I was chairman. I was hated then for not doing things like they were done before by the crowd that had been in power. In regards to the fencing guest and signing proxies, several years ago we did that at the divisional meeting. I had about 38 proxies not allowed. My wife was not going to be allowed to vote because they thought she was not 18, with two sons fencing in cadet/Y14 epee. I could not admit to these parents how many of their votes had been disregarded by the USFA after they only paid money to be able to support their children. I actually think KBs vote was disallowed at that South Houston event. I could not encourage any to pursue this policy when this will happen again. It is not worth our time and resources.
|
|