|
|
Post by katyblades on Mar 11, 2012 6:47:08 GMT -6
This is a reply to joevisconti's post and does represent a small bit of threadrift. I don't see fencing cracking into a major TV market (say, Houston) just anytime soon. Likely there is a better chance of a national cable channel picking it up, such as the many ESPN channels on my satellite system. Some colleges, however, do have their own campus channels. If the same college has a fencing club and hosts a tournament on campus, that might spur recruitment from within the student body. Fox, Obviously you don't know that it was set up to happen, and local policies and the National Office killed them, (it was set up separately twice). You don't think it can happen, so what? There are people in the right places that will make it happen with the right conditions. The people that put this on will need to have guarantees that they can have a repeat of the first event if they are going to spend their time promoting it. That is why the Olympic Festival was held in Houston in 1986, to give Houston a shot for the Olympics, (Houston lost the bid several times). The reason why the fencing NCAAs were held in Houston was to give it a shot for the final fours in basketball. You have to stop being so naive and stupid. I have been told multiple times that things I was doing would not happen, and I can guarantee you that I have accomplished some of these things that touched your life. Maybe you used a credit card at a fast food location between North Dakota and Texas, (McDonalds would kick out franchises that accepted credit cards in 1989). Maybe you have used a credit card to pay the IRS, a Texas property tax, or a speeding ticket/fine. I was involved in all of that. It would be easier to put fencing on TV with the right conditions in fencing than it would be to accomplish those things. Fox, what you believe drives your actions. You don't think it will happen and you will then support policies that keep it from happening. Accept responsibility then for it not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Mar 11, 2012 16:20:46 GMT -6
You have to stop being so naive and stupid. Well, that was constructive... ...and civil Beyond that, you are saying the national office nixed TV coverage of a NAC because the next NAC might not/would not have a chance at the same coverage? (I don't disbelieve you, I just want to make certain I got the thesis correct). |
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Mar 11, 2012 22:24:03 GMT -6
To pull back to the topic at hand, and this is purely my own observation, it seems like tournaments slip into "waves" of a certain type only for a time. For a month or two most of the tournaments will be all about Youth events, then we will see a month of open tournaments often scheduled almost on top of each other, next it seems like everyone is doing E & Unders and/or novice events.
I know the clubs can be very independent (often to the point of their own detriment), but a little co-operation and organization would be useful. If each month there was one open, one youth and/or novice, and one open but lesser ranked tournament, everyone would have at least one tournament a month that fit their needs, without having so many they cheapen the experience and cease to be special.
I mention one of each of three types because it seems like most months there is also a NAC somewhere out in the world (during which we rarely have local tournaments).
Again, this would require clubs talk to each other and work toward common goals. Then, again, maybe no one is interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by fox on Mar 12, 2012 7:24:09 GMT -6
I think Aldo has a point. One open event per month for higher level competitors within a division would be about right. There is often a NAC (2nd weekend) and a major tournament in the other two main divisions in Texas. (I am looking primarily at North Texas, South Texas & Gulf Coast).
A very active competitor could attend a major tournament each weekend and face a variety of competitors. They could also take a weekend off. For those fencing locally, this would keep the local open events "special" and not dilute their value by becoming too common.
Or I may just be "stupid."
|
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 13, 2012 8:21:10 GMT -6
One problem with answering the problem of tournament attendance is that there can be no one answer. Different types of tournaments appeal to different types of fencers.
Each type appeals to a different market.
For truly serious, dedicated and ambitious competitors, elite or nearly so, anything short of a NAC is probably not that enticing. There are exceptions, of course. Most years the Pouj is really good competition. The Van Buskirk used to be. The same could be said for the old Duel in Dallas.
A good, basic local open tournament is a good "product" for local and regional fencers who are working up to being a serious national threat (or better fencers without a strong national tournament that weekend).
Obviously beginning fencers and/or recreational fencers may be looking for an event that is not so hard (novice, youth, all-U, E & Under, D & Under, etc.).
If they are recreational fencers, as interested in the social dimension of fencing as much as the competitive side, those who fence for fun, you need to be able to offer them more than just a bunch of difficult A-fencers to knock them out early. There should be an element of fun added to the mix or something that makes it "different."
Veteran fencers, youth fencers, novices all have different needs and desires going in. These all represent different sub-markets, if you will. What draws a large number of competitors to an elite level event is not the same as what will draw a large number of elementary school-aged novices to a tournament.
These are, of course, stereotypes and any given fencer will fit multiple types. I'm just saying that you should determine your target market when you decide to hold a tournament.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Mar 13, 2012 9:07:44 GMT -6
I feel a tournament's rep plays a big part in how many fencers you draw (and what type).
The Pouj, for example, sets up one expectation. The Heavy Metal sets up a different kind of expectation. The Van Buskirk sets up a different type of expectation from either of the other two (and, frankly, than even from the old Van Buskirk tournament of the late 1990s).
Also tournament reputations change over time. This changes who they draw and how many. The quality and type of competitor may be something some fencers look for. The level of the referee cadre may play a part. Venue can get factored in. In any re-occurring tournament, how it ran the last time (and what the chatter was about it afterwards) can be a VERY big part.
No one factor is an answer by itself, take venue for example. BCFA has a great facility. Salle Mauro's is... different. Both have experienced a lower level of attendance than they enjoyed 4-5 years ago (I've been reading FRED results, too). Obviously there are other factors.
The Pouj already has a rep as a major tournament. It has been around a very long time. The trophies are fairly cool. There is generally a high quality of competitors and referees. It is almost always held in the same venue (love it, hate it, you already know what to expect). It is practically a tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Mar 13, 2012 16:00:16 GMT -6
You have to stop being so naive and stupid. Well, that was constructive... ...and civil Beyond that, you are saying the national office nixed TV coverage of a NAC because the next NAC might not/would not have a chance at the same coverage? (I don't disbelieve you, I just want to make certain I got the thesis correct). YES. The national office did not want to set the standards too high. I think that John is on the correct point that each tournament should be marketed to a specific target group. This is where we get into issues, where the division or some upper hand is trying to guide the clubs into hosting tournaments that really they should not host. Salle Mauro should host the foil tournaments in this area because they have the vested interest in building foil fencers. They also have a saber group, and since BCFA lost Olexie then they may have the best group. Alliance has the vested interest in hosting epee fencing, and now The Woodlands is coming up. You can't expect a division to choose for the clubs what to host and when. That is why we are in the mess we are in now. The clubs must take advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves. To address Fox's point, this would run contrary to what the elite coaches are trying to achieve with their fencers. If you study top level coaching, then you want many competitions against top-level competitors in a variety of situations. As a coach you can control the moves executed by your fencer, and even work on moves in a competitive environment. One competition a month is not enough unless you are sending your fencers elsewhere on the other months. Just study some of the elite coaching strategies. They would suggest a tournament every weekend until a certain elite level is reached. Again, why manage this from a macro level when not all of us are working from the same strategy or expertise. |
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 15, 2012 9:11:06 GMT -6
katyblades makes a fair point. Elite level athletes train and compete constantly.
The Gulf Coast Division (which seems to be what most of your remarks address) would still run into attendance problems even with an open tournament every weekend. For one thing, you would lose a fair number of fencers, and their coaches, to whatever NAC was running that month. That gives us one of about four opens per month that will suffer.
Another problem would be the odd major tournament outside the Gulf Coast. Now certainly, not every open in adjacent divisions is another Poujardieu Memorial, but fencers do have to train against a variety of strong competitors. They will inevitably seek out strong tournaments outside the Gulf Coast Division, particularly if they are within a reasonable commute (San Antonio, Austin, Ft. Worth, Dallas, Shreveport, etc.)
Allowing about one strong nearby, but non-Gulf Coast, tournament per month as an average seems prudent. Now we are looking at possibly two weekends per month where you are fighting strong outside competition for the serious local competitors' attention. All things being equal it seems to me that 1-2 really good, strong opens per month would be feasible.
There are two other problems with trying to maintain strong, near elite-level opens every weekend within our division. First is it sends us back to the notion that with so many tournaments, one per week, there is no impetus for many fencers to go to any one particular tournament. If I miss this one, I can always go next week. By no longer being "special" and being just "this week's open" the tournament's value (to fencers, coaches, etc) is lessened.
The other issue is that even in a populous division like the Gulf Coast, you have limited personnel resources for good, well-run tournaments on a constant basis. People who run the computers keeping a large open running smoothly are finite. The number of available referees is larger, but also finite. There is also the truth that, while dedicated, most of these people do not wish to work a tournament every weekend.
Granted, you can always bring in new people, but then training takes up ever more amounts of the time needed to ensure a good tournament.
Interspersing lower ranked tournaments in a month (novice, E & Under, D & Under, C & Under) allows a break for higher ranked tournament staff, allows use of more developmental staff (who might be overwhelmed by the demands of a large, strong open tournament). Also, averaging one good, strong local open per month would almost naturally lend itself to the organization of a Gulf Coast Division "circuit," something I do not oppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Mar 19, 2012 19:47:25 GMT -6
We are still trying to manage the fencing for coaches and others. By doing this, we hurt fencing. If the tournaments are not run properly, then they develop a reputation. It operates on a free market principle, and the tournaments decline because people find something else to do.
No one can develop the fencers as well as the individual coaches. Each circumstance is unique. We assume we know what the best is for someone else's fencing development.
How do we know that the people running the events on a particular weekend would suffer? If the organizer chooses the event well, then they can have a good event. I got into tremendous trouble and was hated by the fencing establishment when I hosted a D and under event the Friday night of the Rose Condon when it was a SWSC. I chose carefully what event, and none of these competitors would have gone to the Rose. I had 21 competitors or so, and we had a fun event. This event was banned locally and sectionally by policies that were designed to prohibit this type of behavior. Those policies are still able to be instituted if the USFA national office does not prohibit this.
I saw on this thread where people thought that fencing would not be on TV locally. I would never have thought that we would have $2MM public money would be provided with private money for a fencing facility. Obtaining TV coverage would be easy compared to that. Congrats South Texas.
|
|
