|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 7, 2012 10:30:43 GMT -6
A thread on local ROCs started drifting, as threads do. One topic touched on was declining attendance at tournaments. I wanted to try to compare like versus like over a period of time. For my first test I picked the Clear Lake Spring Open. I belong to CLFC and we hold it pretty much always as an open and over the last few years consistently during the spring. FREDs records track it back to 2004. Here are the results. I hope to look at other tournaments. As stated, this is just some raw data, YMMV.
2004 Mixed Epee: 30 B2 Mixed Foil: 28 C2 Mixed Sabre: 9 E1 Women's Epee: 3 Women's Foil: 7 E1 Women's Sabre: 3
2005 Mixed Epee: 30 C1 Mixed Foil: 19 C1 Mixed Sabre: 8 E1 Women's Epee: 8 E1 Women's Foil: 13 E1 Women's Sabre: ----
2006 Mixed Epee: 21 A1 Mixed Foil: 24 C1 Mixed Sabre: 20 B1 Women's Epee: 8 E1 Women's Foil: ---- Women's Sabre: ----
2007 Mixed Epee: 17 B1 Mixed Foil: 46 C2 Mixed Sabre: 12 E1 Women's Epee: ----- Women's Foil: ---- Women's Sabre: ----
2008: Clear Lake Open not held. CLFC hosted divisional qualifiers instead.
2009 Mixed Epee: 22 A1 Mixed Foil: 31 C2 Mixed Sabre: 5 Women's Epee: 7 E1 Women's Foil: 7 E1 Women's Sabre: 2
2010 Mens Epee: 21 B1 Mens Foil: 20 C1 Mens Sabre: 7 E1 Women's Epee: 8 E1 Women's Foil: 6 E1 Women's Sabre: ----
2011 Mixed Epee: 28 A2 Mixed Foil: 18 C1 Mixed Sabre: 6 E1 Women's Epee: 4 Women's Foil: 4 Women's Sabre: 3
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Feb 7, 2012 12:16:42 GMT -6
It's hard to infer too much from a single sample. It actually looks like there has been little meaningful variation.
Your mixed epee shows a decline around 2006, but as of last year looks about the same as the 2004-2005 period. Interestingly, women's epee shows little difference until dropping last year.
Your mixed foil is all over the map, varying wildly from year to year. Women's foil, as with women's epee, shows little serious variation (in years you held it) until a drop last year.
Your mixed sabre attendance is nearly the same at the beginning and end of the test period (6-9 fencers), but strangely peaks with 20 & 12 fencers, respectively, in 2006 and 2007... the same years the mixed epee numbers dropped. Were there some epeeistes who defected from epee to sabre those years?
It looks like women's sabre rarely and/or barely is fenced, but from what I can see of Gulf Coast numbers at NACs I have presumed there were few female sabre fencers in the division.
It think it might be interesting to: 1.) look at numbers for other tournaments, especially larger ones; and, 2.) try to determine if anything was done differently from year to year (what are the known variables?) and what else was happening in fencing and the community.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Feb 7, 2012 23:27:48 GMT -6
I was intrigued by the idea of looking at noted tournaments over time. I tried accessing FRED for results of the Van Buskirk. The earliest record was for 2004.
2004 Mixed Epee: 43 B2 Mixed Foil: 28 B2 Mixed Sabre: 8 E1 Women's Epee: 10 E1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Sabre: ----
2005: No Records
2006: No Records
2007: FRED shows a tournament occurred but no results were posted
2008: No Records
2009 Mixed Epee: 41 A2 Mixed Foil: 29 B2 Mixed Sabre: 25 B2 Women's Epee: 11 E1 Women's Foil: 19 C1 Women's Sabre: 8 E1
2010 Men's Epee: 30 A2 Men's Foil: 26 A2 Men's Sabre: 12 E1 Women's Epee: 15 D1 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Sabre: 1
2011 Mixed Epee: 16 A1 [All other events were youth or D & Under and did not lend themselves to comparisons]
As you can see, my attempt to use the once-legendary Van Buskirk as a yardstick was stymied by a lack of records and, perhaps, a hiatus in actually holding the tournament. While there are no details for 2005-2008, it does look as though the attendance for the mixed epee event in 2011 was significantly lower than similar events in both 2004 and 2009. That said, there was just too little information here to generate any conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Feb 7, 2012 23:46:03 GMT -6
I will try to duplicate schlager7's organization of data in the interest of comparison. I wanted to research the Pouj.
2003 FRED's records show the tournament was organized but no results were posted.
2004 FRED's records show the tournament was organized but no results were posted.
2005 Mixed Epee: 77 A4 Mixed Foil: 65 A2/C3 Mixed Sabre: 34 B2 Women's Epee: 27 A2 Women's Foil: 19 C1 Women's Sabre: 14 E1
2006 Mixed Epee: 69 A4 Mixed Foil: 64 B3 Mixed Sabre: 41 B2 Women's Epee: 27 A2 Women's Foil: 20 C1 Women's Sabre: 13 E1
2007 Mixed Epee: 47 A1 Mixed Foil: 47 B1 Mixed Sabre: 34 B1 Women's Epee: 15 B1 Women's Foil: 9 E1 Women's Sabre: 8 E1
2008 Mixed Epee: 71 A4 Mixed Foil: 45 A2 Mixed Sabre: 27 B2 Women's Epee: 24 B1 Women's Foil: 9 E1 Women's Sabre: 14 E1
2009 Mixed Epee: 66 A4 Mixed Foil: 36 A2 Mixed Sabre: 40 B2 Women's Epee: 37 B2 Women's Foil: 24 C1 Women's Sabre: 25 B2
2010 Mixed Epee: 43 A2 Mixed Foil: 16 C1 Mixed Sabre: 27 B2 Women's Epee: 19 B1 Women's Foil: 3 Women's Sabre: 3
2011 Mixed Epee: 65 A4 Mixed Foil: 33 B2 Mixed Sabre: 22 B1 Women's Epee: (no event) Women's Foil: (no event) Women's Sabre: (no event)
2012 Mixed Epee: 58 A2 Mixed Foil: 37 B2 Mixed Sabre: 19 B1 Women's Epee: 16 B1 Women's Foil: 5 Women's Sabre: 6 E1
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 7, 2012 23:59:21 GMT -6
The Pouj was an extremely good choice! For years it has been the premier tournament in Texas.
Seguin's data shows an irregular but palpable erosion in attendance. FRED may ultimately prove to be a valuable resource in seeing results as a part of a bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 8, 2012 8:19:25 GMT -6
What intrigued me with respect to the Pouj was the fairly recent (and steep) drop off in women's events. As someone who tries to maintain a women's tournament each year, it was grim reading.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Feb 8, 2012 15:06:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by WoodlandsFencing on Feb 9, 2012 6:57:01 GMT -6
I too have had a sense of a decline in attendance at local competitions. I had to send an email to our club members reminding them about the Van Buskirk and telling them to pay (they had preregistered without paying). Not sure what is causing the malaise. It would be helpful if all club owners and coaches encouraged fencers to attend as many local tournaments as possible. This is good for a fencer's development as well as for the sport generally. We have told our fencers to be there so we will see you at the event.
Maybe our division needs to get email blasts out before events--across Texas. This would remind folks to check askfred in advance of the event. Any other ideas on how to increase attendance?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 9, 2012 9:37:34 GMT -6
Replying both to Dan Gorman and WoodlandsFencing:
I have begun using both CLFC's and GFC's Facebook pages to remind members of upcoming tournaments. The Van Buskirk is a case in point.
As to email blasts, where I work we use a company called Constant Contact to announce to our regular customers of special events or new merchandise arrivals. I know this because I am the person assigned to create and schedule the blasts.
As a tool it is quite useful. They do require, however, that all email addresses you send out to via Constant Contact were acquired with the recipient's permission. They also have an instant opt-out for anyone receiving such an email blast who no longer wishes to receive them. They reserve the right to terminate the account of an organization that receives numerous complaints of spamming by those who did not voluntarily opt-in.
IIRC, the charge is something just under $17.00 per month. I am not saying it is the (or even, an) answer to the tournament attendance problem, but its cost does put it into the affordability range for either individual clubs or the division, itself.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 9, 2012 9:49:28 GMT -6
I thought I'd also look at one more tournament over time, the Cougar Call to Arms. Results have been posted to FRED since 2004.
2004 Mixed Epee: 49 A2 Mixed Foil: 43 C2 Mixed Sabre: 20 D1 Women's Epee: ---- Women's Foil: ---- Women's Sabre: ----
2005 Mixed Epee: 29 B2 Mixed Foil: 18 D1 Mixed Sabre: 14 E1 Women's Epee: ---- Women's Foil: ---- Women's Sabre: ----
2006 Mixed Epee: 32 B2 Mixed Foil: 28 C2 Mixed Sabre: 18 C1 Women's Epee: 3 Women's Foil: 7 E1 Women's Sabre: ----
2007 Mixed Epee: 77 A4 Mixed Foil: 38 B2 Mixed Sabre: 18 B1 Women's Epee: 17 B1 Women's Foil: 7 E1 Women's Sabre: 8 E1
2008 Mixed Epee: 70 A2/B3 Mixed Foil: 34 B2 Mixed Sabre: 27 B2 Women's Epee: 11 E1 Women's Foil: 13 E1 Women's Sabre: 4
2009 Mixed Epee: 43 A2 Mixed Foil: 39 B2 Mixed Sabre: 16 B1 Women's Epee: 19 D1 Women's Foil: 10 E1 Women's Sabre: ----
2010 Mixed Epee: 28 Mixed Foil: 22 Mixed Sabre: ---- Women's Epee: 14 Women's Foil: ---- Women's Sabre: ----
2011 Mixed Epee: 82 A4 Mixed Foil: 48 A2 Mixed Sabre: 18 B1 Women's Epee: 27 B2 Women's Foil: 11 E1 Women's Sabre: 7 E1
[NOTE: The 2009 Call to Arms was an anomaly, being held NOT at UH but at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center. Also, most years the tournament is held in early September, often on the Labor Day weekend. In 2009 it was held October 24-25.]
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 9, 2012 9:59:01 GMT -6
Certainly the numbers for the Cougar Call to Arms for last year look healthy! For the years you listed, it shows the highest attendance for Mixed Foil and Mixed Epee and the third highest turnout for Mixed Saber (tying 2006 & 2007). It looks like it was also the best year for Women's Epee and the Second best year for both Women's Foil and Women's Sabre.
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Feb 9, 2012 12:35:45 GMT -6
The Call to Arms attendance figures bear some resemblance, at least superficially, to the Clear Lake Open data. We start around 2004. There is a trough around 2005-2007, a general rising of attendance after that, then dropping again around 2009-2010 and picking up.
The data for the Pouj also seems to follow this track, but with variations.
So is attendance naturally cyclical or do these figures point to some cycles in the fencing world or economy that, in turn, causes the ups and downs that we are seeing?
I also noticed that some years are better for some weapons than others. Any ideas?
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Feb 9, 2012 12:37:56 GMT -6
I wouldn't grab at any stray theories quite so soon. You will need a lot more raw data before you can be sure you have a true picture.
|
|
Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Feb 9, 2012 16:07:10 GMT -6
It's not every day that a thread is able to stop me from studying in order to throw in my 2 cents, but this one did it.
There are a couple factors I've seen over the years that's contributed to decline in tournament attendance.
(Note: No single factor listed below single-handedly accounts for the decrease in tournament attendance, but the more factors that apply to a tournament, the lower the numbers will be.)
1) Cost When I started fencing tournament prices were significantly lower than they are today. I personally find it difficult to bring myself to fence one event for $40+, when I started as a college student, that definitely was not happening.
2) Frequency The Gulf Coast has designed it's tournament system to imply to the fencers that it's "not a big deal to miss a tournament this weekend." Just about every weekend has a scheduled tournament and more often than not, hosted by the same club. If a fencer has an option of fencing a tournament or attending some other event, the fact that there will be another tournament next weekend hosted at the same place does not sway the fencer to compete.
3) Elitist I can't count how many fencers I've heard say that they don't compete in local tournaments. The following are direct quotes from fencers in Houston's Big Three: -"I only compete at NACs" -"People give me nuts at local tournaments because I'm good." -"This is only a practice tournament, I don't even know why I'm here." -"I'm only here because my coach made me come. I really don't care."
If the top fencers in our division are too good to compete in local tournaments, why should any out of town fencers drive in to compete.
4) Marketing 2010 Call to Arms was run by UH with no marketing. The final numbers were ~64 2011 Call to Arms did 4 months of marketing. The final numbers were ~190
5) Type of Tournament
Practice: -Attracts only local fencers -Held frequently -Advertised locally -More than likely will contain mostly fencers of that club -Average Pricing
Competitive -Advertised state wide -Held Annually -Diversity of Fencers -Average Pricing
So, lets put together a practice tournament, charge $40 to fence one event, have none of the top fencers attend, and hold it once a month. The numbers will continue to decrease.
|
|
|
Post by grace on Feb 9, 2012 17:16:55 GMT -6
I can't explain why tournament attendance is in overall decline, especially in regards to females. I can explain why I haven't fenced any tournaments in over 7 years. Most of it had to do with finances. Some of it had to do with distance. And then there is that thing about getting older and slower... and oh, those lovely injuries. Given just one of those factors, and I probably would not have stopped fencing. Combine them, and there was not much of a choice. Personally, I suspect that the economy is affecting a lot of people. Not sure that it is adversely affecting women more than men. It would be interesting to compare tournaments from all over the country to what is happening here.
Attracting and retaining females to fencing is a challenge. It's a fact that every place I have taught fencing, the sport overall seems to attract more guys than gals. And it has been much more difficult to retain the gals when they are stuck fencing the guys more often than not. How to fix that... I just don't know. Wished I did because I love the sport and keep working with kids here trying to keep it alive.
|
|
|
Post by grace on Feb 9, 2012 17:20:35 GMT -6
However, I applaud the Pouj organizers for bringing the women's event back this year, regardless of the small numbers. Hopefully, next year I will have some young ladies to send there.... We are working on that right now!
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 9, 2012 17:25:12 GMT -6
Jett had some good points:
1. Cost - the GCD policy of requiring directors, observers, etc and paying has to be paid for by someone. This is a directive in hosting a tournament, and one of the results of this policy. We could go back to self-directing, but you still have a pay an observer and that fee must be passed on. This is where policies create results.
2. Frequency - this has an impact if the base remains stagnant or declines. You have seen a decline in the base as a result of policies in place. Tournaments that are not set up to attract the base of the club or don't take advantage of opportunities are cancelled, and no one else can pick up the slack. The targeting the tournaments is crucial, and lacking to help the growth.
3. Elitist - this can't be helped. This has been since the AFLA became the USFA and will always be. Fencers that like to fence will attend, but sitting around for hours waiting is never on a fencer's good list. Last weekend we had facilities and directors and probably waited 30 - 45 minutes getting started for the DE's of an event. Elite fencers know better, and don't attend.
4. Marketing - This can always be better, but better marketing is getting people started in the USFA and recruited through their local clubs. This track is ruined by long-time GCD policies.
5. Type of Tournament - if we hold a Developmental tournament in a division that does not grow developmental marketing, then we see results like last weekend.
I won my "C" in San Marcos in 1982 in a 46 person foil tournament for what is now Div. III. I have competed locally and actually hosted in up economies and down economies larger tournaments in these levels. Look at the economy in 1982. It is a matter of setting policies to take advantage of our strengths.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 9, 2012 18:44:28 GMT -6
"Posted by joevisconti on Today at 12:35pm The Call to Arms attendance figures bear some resemblance, at least superficially, to the Clear Lake Open data. We start around 2004. There is a trough around 2005-2007, a general rising of attendance after that, then dropping again around 2009-2010 and picking up.
The data for the Pouj also seems to follow this track, but with variations.
So is attendance naturally cyclical or do these figures point to some cycles in the fencing world or economy that, in turn, causes the ups and downs that we are seeing?
I also noticed that some years are better for some weapons than others. Any ideas?"
You have to look at factors as to how many clubs were helping beginning fencers get started during this time-frame, and you will find a direct relationship. Brazosport, Katy Blades, Alliance, South Houston and BCFA were more involved in new fencer development then. New fencers would be able to fence other new fencers at the tournaments scorned or GCD ruled illegal at Katy Blades and Alliance, but these fencers turned out to grow into regular competitors. I stirred all kinds of M.I.A. controversy when I hosted a USFA competition the same weekend as the Rose Condon and none of the fencers would have traveled to Shreveport. It turned out we turned out many competitive fencers, a medalist at Junior Olympics and a mom that is a very regular poster on this board and runs USFA tournaments from that little event of 15 high school age kids fencing on a Friday night. This event was "hated" by the establishment and can be researched on this board in 2004 or 2005.
Kevin was pushing for tournaments to start his new fencers. He has realized that not having the follow up strategy is a little useless. You are looking at the wrong area looking at the economy, which is a factor but not the main factor.
As a person that set strategy that built growth, I know that policies are the instrument that determines the success or failure.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 9, 2012 23:20:42 GMT -6
Jett had some good points: 1. Cost - the GCD policy of requiring directors, observers, etc and paying has to be paid for by someone. This is a directive in hosting a tournament, and one of the results of this policy. We could go back to self-directing, but you still have a pay an observer and that fee must be passed on. This is where policies create results. So what, exactly, are you saying? The syntax, frankly, baffles me. Are you saying the Gulf Coast Division required rated referees for all of its tournaments(?)... which drives up the cost of the tournament... and every tournament is required to have an FOC observer?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 9, 2012 23:33:23 GMT -6
Are you saying the Gulf Coast Division required rated referees for all of its tournaments(?)... which drives up the cost of the tournament... and every tournament is required to have an FOC observer? In a word, no. The Gulf Coast Division does not require FOC ranked referees for any tournaments. USA Fencing requires one level five (AFAIK in any weapon) referee at either/both qualifiers the division holds (for JOs and for Nationals). There are no rules requiring FOC "observers" at any tournaments. That said, if one is running an open tournament and seeking to entice competitors with higher rankings to compete, it certainly does not hurt to have higher ranked FOC referees in your cadre. I would also add, and this is purely my personal belief, that if you are hiring referees with FOC rankings who hope to improve those rankings, it certainly is to your advantage to have an FOC observer. It is not, however, a requirement. Take it for what it is worth, but that does come from the Vice Chair of the Gulf Coast Division.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Feb 9, 2012 23:54:26 GMT -6
As a person that set strategy that built growth, I know that policies are the instrument that determines the success or failure. I do not mean to sound dense. What, exactly, are the policies of the Gulf Coast Division that you feel are responsible for tournament attendance decline? Also, how do those policies relate to the Poujardieu Memorial Tournament's attendance, which is held in the South Texas Division?
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Feb 10, 2012 0:10:56 GMT -6
The focus, thus far, has been on the Gulf Coast Division. IT thought I would add another significant South Texas Division tournament, the Longhorn Open.
2004 Men's Epee: 75 A4 Men's Foil: 70 B2 Men's Sabre: 40 B2 Women's Epee: 27 A2 Women's Foil: 30 C2 Women's Sabre: 29 D1
2005 Men's Epee: 83 A4 Men's Foil: 56 B2 Men's Sabre: 61 C2 Women's Epee: 41 A2 Women's Foil: 26 B2 Women's Sabre: 29 D1
2006 Men's Epee: 44 A2 Men's Foil: 42 B2 Men's Sabre: 51 B2 Women's Epee: 29 C2 Women's Foil: 30 C2 Women's Sabre: 31 C2
2007 Men's Epee: 52 A2 Men's Foil: 33 A2 Men's Sabre: 48 B2 Women's Epee: 27 A2 Women's Foil: 20 C1 Women's Sabre: 25 D1
2008 Men's Epee: 53 A2 Men's Foil: 34 A2 Men's Sabre: 45 C2 Women's Epee: 22 C1 Women's Foil: 23 C1 Women's Sabre: 16 C1
2009 Men's Epee: 41 A2 Men's Foil: 41 A2 Men's Sabre: 35 B2 Women's Epee: 26 C2 Women's Foil: 34 B2 Women's Sabre: 13 E1
2010 Mixed Epee: 64 A2/B3 Mixed Foil: 26 A2 Mixed Sabre: 32 B2 Women's Epee: (not held) Women's Foil: (not held) Women's Sabre: (not held)
2011 Mixed Epee: 33 Mixed Foil: 18 Mixed Sabre: 8 Women's Epee: (not held) Women's Foil: (not held) Women's Sabre: (not held)
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Feb 10, 2012 0:17:04 GMT -6
The numbers from the Longhorn Open may be the grimmest of all! In 2005 Men's Epee had 83 competitors, Women's Epee had 41... last year Mixed Epee could barely field 33! Over the last two years there ceased to be men's and women's events, only mixed... and they only a pale shadow of themselves. At its recorded peak in 2006 Women's Sabre had 31 competitors and was a C2 event! And now?
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 10, 2012 8:28:06 GMT -6
3) Elitist I can't count how many fencers I've heard say that they don't compete in local tournaments. The following are direct quotes from fencers in Houston's Big Three: -"I only compete at NACs" -"People give me nuts at local tournaments because I'm good." -"This is only a practice tournament, I don't even know why I'm here." -"I'm only here because my coach made me come. I really don't care." "People give me nuts..." God I'm old. I have no idea what this slang term means. Other than that, great post, Jett.
|
|
Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Feb 10, 2012 9:49:51 GMT -6
Hahaha. Well apparently potty language is censored. "nuts" would be the replacement for a four letter word that starts with "s" and ends with "t"
|
|