PDA

View Full Version : BBC website, 606 Your Say on Fencing



Slashing Lurker
-14th May 2008, 07:38
Very interesting message posted yesterday, something British Fencing and all you guys should read and think about.

doobarz
-14th May 2008, 07:59
I guess this is the post you are talking about http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A35900048

Jon Willis
-14th May 2008, 08:15
Is it just me or do other people think write things like that article on the BBC website and not putting your name to it is cowardly?

It would also help if they got all there facts right.

Saxon
-14th May 2008, 08:30
It's nothing new.

People with an axe to grind and minimal knowledge (or deliberate ignorance) will often make the most of the combination of anonymity and publicity afforded by the internet to stir things as much as they possibly can. It's the same on here - yet another bandwidth thief (or very possibly the same one) creates a single-post forum handle in order to stir things even further.

Saxon
-14th May 2008, 08:33
...deliberately not commenting on the BBC thread as I don't know enough to do so :P

Meg_SF
-14th May 2008, 08:44
I presume this was posted by the 'Slashing Lurker'?

It's a point of view I suppose and we're all entitled to free speech in this country.

Shame we can't be more positive about the fact that we have got Alex going to Beijing! I think he did a fantastic job and congratulations!

Comiserations to the others, who are all great ambassadors for our sport and very talented fencers who just missed out on the day. Isn't it the case that the European zone is one of the hardest - if not THE hardest - zone to qualify in?

rory
-14th May 2008, 10:46
It seems fairly obvious that this is a case of sour grapes on the part of whoever posted originally on 606 (who may very well be 'Slashing Lurker').

Jon's right: it's cowardly to post, naming names of particular fencers, when you're not willing to put your own name to the comments.

UglyBug
-14th May 2008, 15:05
Is it just me or do other people think write things like that article on the BBC website and not putting your name to it is cowardly?

It would also help if they got all there facts right.

I completely agree - if you are going to criticise someone, put your name. Generally whingey cowards never have all the facts anyway.

Now Jonny, take your scrabble go!! Longest game ever this one!

hokers
-14th May 2008, 15:28
Would it really make a difference if we knew who it was? It's someone's dad.

For all that the suspicion and criticism is distasteful, it stems from being misinformed and that's all. There are lots of misinformed and ignorant people out there in the world and it should be no surprise when we sometimes come across them. Nor when they turn out to be some of those who shout the loudest.

Reply with a rebuttal if you want, he's clearly short on facts.

TomA
-14th May 2008, 16:59
Reply with a rebuttal if you want, he's clearly short on facts. Two words and a proverbial hand gesture would probably be just as good a rebuttal as any reasoned argument in this instance. Its hard to reason with the unreasonable. :p

Slashing Lurker
-14th May 2008, 17:14
Well, well.

I'm not sure which I'm most disappointed/shocked by: the inability by supposedly intelligent people in the fencing community to discuss the issues raised in the article, or the barrage of insults directed at me for daring to suggest the issues should be thought about at all.

No, sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there, but I'm not the writer of the BBC message. I'm somebody who read it, thought there were some valid points in there and considering we're only sending one fencer to represent GB at this year's Olympics (clearly a disappointment in terms of numbers representation overall), thought it a good piece to commence a discussion.

pinkelephant
-14th May 2008, 17:50
Are you actually aware how difficult it is to qualify for the Olympics? The 5th best Men's Foilist in the WORLD hasn't "qualified".

pigeonmeister
-14th May 2008, 20:18
They are only hard to qualify for if you are European :)

It is quite a disasterous result- but what's achieved by us queuing up on a BBC website that nobody reads to hammer fencers who have slogged out their guts and probably feel really low to have just missed out (by one hit in RK's case)?

What suggestions are raised that we can respond to? Other than- put these fencers in the stocks and throw rotten turnips at them? What would you have us do Mr Lurker?

Is it not equally valid, and probably more useful, to look at BF's positive progress at a broader international level?

That said, I do fear for BF when they have to go cap in hand to the various funding bodies- having only qualified one fencer and after a huge increase in funding.

My only suggestion would be to put huge amounts of effort into getting our MFs qualified for the team event in 2012.

Saxon
-14th May 2008, 20:40
Well, well.
There has been much discussion already on this forum on the merits and otherwise of Pathway, funded fencers, non-funded fencers, even whether special effort should be made at all.

Frankly I found the tone of your first post in the true tradition of the Anonymous Single-post Troll. I will take you at your word that you are unconnected with the BBC poster.


As has been stated above, several times, it seems the BBC poster is relatively uninformed on the matters on which he or she (he, for the purposes of this rant :)) is holding forth. To compound this ignorance, he then goes on directly to criticise individuals by name, while lauding others.

You can hardly, therefore, expect anything but a negative reaction to his post from a community who are, practically without exception, standing right behind anyone with the balls and the commitment to attempt qualification, by whatever route they feel they are able.


Now we come to you.

You don't identify yourself, exactly like the BBC poster. You may or may not already have an account on the Forum (I'm certain there are one or two trolls on here who post under the cover of anonymity). And you tell us we "should read and think about" Mr BBC.

We read it.
We thought about it.
We (practically as one) came to the conclusion it wasn't worth reading again, let alone commenting directly.

There were comments aplenty on the nature of Mr BBC, and accordingly, on your anonymous post. Personally, in Mr BBC I think I heard the sound of an axe grinding in the background, possibly from someone whose son missed out on funding the father thought he deserved, or maybe a middle-manager of some kind who believed he could have made better selections.

Neither was worthy of direct comment.


Rant over.
All friends now :).

Foilling Around
-14th May 2008, 20:42
Well, well.

I'm not sure which I'm most disappointed/shocked by: the inability by supposedly intelligent people in the fencing community to discuss the issues raised in the article, or the barrage of insults directed at me for daring to suggest the issues should be thought about at all.

No, sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there, but I'm not the writer of the BBC message. I'm somebody who read it, thought there were some valid points in there and considering we're only sending one fencer to represent GB at this year's Olympics (clearly a disappointment in terms of numbers representation overall), thought it a good piece to commence a discussion.

Slashing Lurker, part of the problem is that many of these issues have been raised and discussed on a number of other threads by people with much more knowledge about the subject than "grandbuckmaster", and most of us haven't got the heart to drag them all up again in response to ill-informed innuendo.

"grandbuckmaster" obviously does not know about the BOA approved points system by which Jo Hutch went instead of LBW, obviously did not know about RK's injury. Obviously does not know how long the fencers have been fully funded and how long it takes for this to achieve results in a sport such as fencing.

Alex is phenomenal and as a full time fencer could very well be a world beatable. We don't have many like that.

I suppose we cannot expect people to know the insides of fencing, but a little knowledge is a dnagerous thing if you think you know everything.

That point being made, of course we have said elsewhere that we are all disappointed that there will only be one fencer in Beijing. We all wanted more and there is a lot of planning to do to improve for 2012.

Baldric
-14th May 2008, 21:47
Well, well.

I'm not sure which I'm most disappointed/shocked by: the inability by supposedly intelligent people in the fencing community to discuss the issues raised in the article, or the barrage of insults directed at me for daring to suggest the issues should be thought about at all.

No, sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there, but I'm not the writer of the BBC message. I'm somebody who read it, thought there were some valid points in there and considering we're only sending one fencer to represent GB at this year's Olympics (clearly a disappointment in terms of numbers representation overall), thought it a good piece to commence a discussion.

Well well.

I am neither disappointed nor shocked. I don't see why intelligent people (supposedly or otherwise) in the fencing community should be inclined to discuss such an ill-informed piece of writing. I don't feel inclined to comment on creationism, alien abduction or spontaneous combustion either.

If you have read the piece, and feel there are valid points, then perhaps you would like to expand upon them? Maybe you will even have the faintest clue what you are talking about, or how the system works unlike the 606 contribution?

As others have said, this forum has pulled the whole subject apart, and there has been much informed and constructive criticism from people who know what they are talking about. The BBC 606 post is not in this class. Thus far, you have added still less to the debate.

Either you are a troll, and ignoramus, or as yet have hidden your deep insights from the rest of us.

Expand your position, and lets see which.

Ray Stafford.

PS - remaining anonymous while quoting posts that names names starts you off on minus several million points.

Red
-14th May 2008, 22:21
Well, well.

Here's an attempt at a reasoned reply to it.

Let's go through the 606 post then...

Yes, JH and four others failed to achieve a short term goal of qualifying for Beijing (if that was even a short term goal). Alex is an exceptional young man - he'd probably succeed at anything from playing tiddlywinks to selling sand to the Arabs or snow to the Eskimos.

The qualifying scheme approved by the BOA was VERY clear - achieve the standard, top the qualifying ranking and you can go. LBW failed to do the latter - it doesn't really matter whether she's the number one now or has been for the past ten years.

Graham and Keith did a very good job of persuading the BOA to let Alex (and others who failed to reach the qualifying standard) to go. The BOA might look more kindly on the BFA in future as a result of his success in Istanbul.
In selecting Alex, the selectors' judgement was quite right.
He failed to satisfy the criteria laid out for the Pathway, so of course he has to do it of his own back.

The BOA wants medals in London. It's their event, they want to show off - they also want to justify the cost of the Games to the taxpayer by taking enough gold to keep a chain of jewellers supplied for decades.

JH is 22. She's young. In 2012 she'll be 26.
World #1 Tan Xue is 24, #3 Sada Jacobson is 25. Reigning World Champion Elena Netchaeva will be 29 when she fences in Beijing. In the world top 20, there are TWO people younger than JH - she'll probably be at just the right age in London.
If people were really coming through the ranks in WS, LBW would not have been GB #1 almost consistently since the dawn of the sport.

pinkelephant
-15th May 2008, 06:28
I'm highly delighted that we HAVE got one qualifier. The whole qualification system is so crazy that we could easily have had none. Roll on the next World Championships.

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 11:31
I think that at some point we have to accept that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

That said some on the thread have stated how he is misinformed. Do we not fund 26 atheletes and did any of these actually qualify. I am not saying that it is as desperate as suggested on 606 but surely we must as a sport be asking some questions as to where we went wrong (infact i am sure we are).

I am not holding indiviual atheletes who failed to qualify accountable but the maybe the system itself. All the individuales who shot down the comments on 606 were right to do so as they were not helpful, however please lets accept that we must move forward from here before 2012.

My name David Sach (incase you didn't know)

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 12:17
There are LOTS of issues with British Fencing (and how it is run), but blaming individual athletes for not qualifying in what is a very difficult and fairly random qualification competition is not on.

I am completely positive that JoJo gave more than 100% to the challenge of Olympic qualification (not just the qualifying competition, but trying to qualify by ranking this past year and the years of competition, training and dedication that have led up to it). She is still young and I have no doubt that her hard work, talent and determination will push her onto even bigger and better things in the run up to 2012.

The same with our other fencers - give them your support. If you want to look for something to "improve", then look at the things in place to help them achieve their goals...

Boo

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 12:23
Boo Boo,

I am not critising individual athelets at all and knowing some of them very well would never suggest they gave less than 100%. However the article on the BBC website however badly written does raise some valid points.

These are the things i think we as a sport need to address. Not be critical of individual athelets. They should be given all the support needed to go forwards as already stated and achieve great things at 2012.

David

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 12:25
Boo Boo,

I am not critising individual athelets at all and knowing some of them very well would never suggest they gave less than 100%. However the article on the BBC website however badly written does raise some valid points.

These are the things i think we as a sport need to address. Not be critical of individual athelets. They should be given all the support needed to go forwards as already stated and achieve great things at 2012.

David

DSSabre - my reply was not aimed at you, but was regarding the original article (on the BBC website). I have a funny feeling that we are sayign exactly the same thing...

Boo

cesh_fencing
-15th May 2008, 12:27
That said some on the thread have stated how he is misinformed. Do we not fund 26 atheletes and did any of these actually qualify.

I am guessing that BF must be dissapointed that none of the funded fencers qualified (however at least we have representation at Beijing) , and I am sure a very detailed review must be occurring to decide whether funding should be more directed towards propelling particular individuals who have shown consistant improvement forward since funding started and away from those who have not.

I am sure it would be worthwhile re-identifying younger talant who by 2012 will be in their early 20s who could be the next Alex O'Cs rather than some of the established fencers who have not been able to benefit from the assistance.

I know that many of the top ranked world fencers are older (late 20s), however there is little point flogging an older British horse which has not succeeded yet internationally and lacks the potential to improve when we have younger talant who have a real chance of being able to improve over the next 4 years.

This is probably the last opportunity for the whole situation to be reviewed to give sufficient time for a successful conclusion in 2012. Success in 2012 would propel the sport to a new level and ensure continued funding & development for the future.

Certainly what was posted on the BBC does not help the image of the sport, but as per DSSabre everyone is allowed an opinion.

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 12:29
Understand Boo,

But do feel that there are issued raised that should be discussed. Looking around the forum. There are now queries about the calendar, selection schemes and running and organisation of trips. Hopefully all of this should be being discussed higher up than us but is it? Lack of communitcation from on high especially from Weapon committees (which is another bain of contention) is the real problem.

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 12:33
Why did I think that Alex O'C was in the Pathway/Podium (or something similar)? :confused:

I knew that he was at University, but we also know that the Pathway can make allowances where it wants to...

That is neither here nor there really - great achievement (to qualify) from a fantastic fencer <full-stop>

Boo

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 12:35
Lack of communitcation from on high especially from Weapon committees (which is another bain of contention) is the real problem.

Again we completely agree... 100%

Boo

hokers
-15th May 2008, 13:06
Have posted on 606 with some corrections, but I doubt it will make much difference.

Will see if he responds anyway. FA mentions the forum in his response, so perhaps grandbuckmaster will turn up on this very thread at some point...

Gangsta G
-15th May 2008, 13:56
I thought Alex had some sort of funding as well... maybe just his Allstar sponsorship.

To be honest it is neither here nor there. Everyone knew the criteria for the pathway. Alex decided instead to try to combine a degree at Cambridge with his fencing, and is clearly doing very well at both. Well done him.

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 14:36
Before this thread makes some completely wrong assumptions Alex does recieve some funding from British fencing the main point here is that the system did simply put, just not work.

If it did we would have more than one athelete qualified and that would hopefully have included teams. Especially as i was told recently that teams were the way forwards for 2012.

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 14:41
I thought Alex had some sort of funding as well... maybe just his Allstar sponsorship.

Hhhhmmm, maybe we are both right - http://www.olympics.org.uk/beijing2008/News.aspx?id=2321 (read the bit from Simon Clegg). I thought that Alex was on the Podium Level Programme...


To be honest it is neither here nor there. Everyone knew the criteria for the pathway. Alex decided instead to try to combine a degree at Cambridge with his fencing, and is clearly doing very well at both. Well done him.

Completely agree - Alex qualified because he is an exceptional fencer who showed great maturity and focus at the zonal qualifiers. Even more amazing when considering it is combined with full time study at Cambridge... :)

Boo

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 14:43
hookers,

having read your thread on the 606 website. We do have atheletes that are fully funded and train full time in the Uk that is the whole purpose of pathway. These fencers are on what is effectively a full time salary, however some recently lost their level of funding and so also now do part time work.

Perhaps personal attacks on the person who wrote the original artical saying he was misinformed is just wrong.

Lets look at the big picture. Alex qualified for the olympics which was an amazing result. However as a whole we did not do as well as we would have liked and this needs to be addressed.

David

hokers
-15th May 2008, 16:02
hokers,

having read your thread on the 606 website. We do have atheletes that are fully funded and train full time in the Uk that is the whole purpose of pathway. These fencers are on what is effectively a full time salary, however some recently lost their level of funding and so also now do part time work.


Perhaps I don't understand the full detail of the Pathway scheme, though it seems to be a rather closed book as we've found before so this is not a great surprise. I thought the intention was that the Pathway fencers would be able to work/study part time? Are any of them actually doing nothing aside from training? No part time work, no study?



Perhaps personal attacks on the person who wrote the original artical saying he was misinformed is just wrong.

Lets look at the big picture. Alex qualified for the olympics which was an amazing result. However as a whole we did not do as well as we would have liked and this needs to be addressed.

David

Ah now that's not fair. A personal attack would be calling him an *expletive* idiot. He IS misinformed.

I just corrected some of the misinformation he posted. Perhaps it was a bit cheeky to conclude with "Come back when you know what you're talking about?" but he clearly doesn't!

I think on another day we might have had 3 or 4 fencers qualify, which would be a fantastic result, sometimes it just happens like that.

DSSabre
-15th May 2008, 16:28
Hookers,

That is all true but we have to look at the fact that in Women's Eppe the fencer we sent was sent purely for experience because it was decided that we did not have anyone good enough (i am not saying this is the case before people start having a go at me), women;s foil we sent a fencer who i do not believe is on pathway (i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong) when we had been fully funding other fencers all seasons. Men's Sabre worked although i am sure there could have been arguements for other fencers. Women's sabre perhaps the most contentious is a little less clear, by the rules and selection criteria Jo should have gone end of discussion but now with hindsight everyone is saying well Louise should have gone as the higher ranked world fencer. I think this is unfair, we have as a sport always used seleciton rules U20 Worlds spring to mind where a fencer could be higher in the rankings but still not have made the required 2 * L32 at nominated competitions.

The problem is that in some weapons some fencers have been fully funded for 3 seasons brought down to london to train and yet they still did not make the grade required. This i do not believe is down to them. The system clearly failed them. The current idea in sabre of only sending 4 fencers to Grand prixs when other fencers are willing to pay with the justification that outside the top 12 means you are not good enough is simply not right. We should as with cadets be sending as many fencers everywhere we can to gain experience not putting up obstacles and road blocks along their way. The more fencer who compete internationally the more will realise the required level. There fencing inturn will improve. We believe this at Cadet level are we really so arrogant to assume it wouldn't work at senior level?

By all means british fencing can fund the fencers it believes should go but it should also accept that any fencer who wishes to go to an a'grade should be allowed to if there is space and no one higher wishes to fill it. This would at least give evidence to whether or not the system is working. If the fully funded fencers were always getting higher results then it would at least give an indication that pathway is a step in the right direction even if we are not yet all the way there.

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 16:47
Makes perfect sense... as does what you eluded to earlier about moving to a more "team oriented" approach (which I have been saying for years... :whistle: ).

Sending teams and as many people as possible only makes things more competitive, BUT takes some of the stress/pressure off of the top individuals at the same time. It means that every single result counts, BUT there isn't a "we are counting on you, all of our eggs are in one basket with you!" mentality. Healthy competition. Not sure that I have communicated that right, but...

Look at the USA - they take a (in my opinion) very good team/"inclusive" approach. They have clear selection procedures that are open to all (you make the top whatever in your ranking, you go - end of...). Very competitive and they get some great results our of it (both team and individual). All a lot more positive than the UK approach.

Obviously selection (or non-selection) is only one part of a much bigger picture, but motivation is a huge part of top level sport (especially when transitioning from cadets to juniors and juniors to seniors).

Boo


The problem is that in some weapons some fencers have been fully funded for 3 seasons brought down to london to train and yet they still did not make the grade required. This i do not believe is down to them. The system clearly failed them. The current idea in sabre of only sending 4 fencers to Grand prixs when other fencers are willing to pay with the justification that outside the top 12 means you are not good enough is simply not right. We should as with cadets be sending as many fencers everywhere we can to gain experience not putting up obstacles and road blocks along their way. The more fencer who compete internationally the more will realise the required level. There fencing inturn will improve. We believe this at Cadet level are we really so arrogant to assume it wouldn't work at senior level?

By all means british fencing can fund the fencers it believes should go but it should also accept that any fencer who wishes to go to an a'grade should be allowed to if there is space and no one higher wishes to fill it. This would at least give evidence to whether or not the system is working. If the fully funded fencers were always getting higher results then it would at least give an indication that pathway is a step in the right direction even if we are not yet all the way there.

Slashing Lurker
-15th May 2008, 18:06
Interestingly, I've made no claims, represented no information here, asserted no opinion other than I think there are some valid points raised in an article on a BBC website. Yet I've been labelled everything from a 'bandwidth thief' to an 'ignoramus' and a troll and told I don't know what I'm talking about.

Nice.

All but a few of you have loaded your preconceptions and paranoid fears behind your responses which have been wholly inappropriate, and downright rude.

Saxon, for someone who says they're not going to comment because they don't know anything about it, the hilarity of your later "We read it, we thought about, it's not worth reading" rant stands out like a pointy hat with the letter D on it.

Several - not all - of you have here represented the fencing community very badly, as a inward-looking, reactionary and rather bullying grouping who can't bring yourselves to admit that something has gone seriously wrong in British fencing and certainly can't cope with anyone daring to question the status quo. With the kinds of foul attitudes I've seen here in this thread, hell it's no wonder.

As long as you take the attitude that any attempt to commence a discussion about the poor situation that British fencing finds itself in by having just one amateur/non fully funded/non Pathway fencer going to Beijing (from three weapons, two sexes) is "stirring things up" by me, or "an axe to grind" by whoever wrote the 606 article, you (as fencing individuals, the fencing community, and the decision makers among you) will never find out what went wrong or how to make sure this failure doesn't happen again.

Ranting about whether Jo and Louise followed the selection criteria is just a red herring that stops you all from facing up to the basic question of did the right person go?

Yes or no?

If the process meant ending up with the wrong person going just because 'the system' says so means the system is wrong. Whether the person who went fenced for her life is just a silly way of pandering to failure and possibly a flawed system.

Lots of posts here say that the 606 article doesn't have the facts right. What facts exactly are these? Other than writing "Alex... who doesn't get any of the funding... like Jo". Well, he didn't, did he, not like Jo? Yes he got partial funding, so go ahead and correct that then. But what facts that were stated are untrue then? State them, don't just whinge and insult but offer no correction.

Foilling around lists things misinformed in the article, that the article doesn't even refer to. So what if they do or don't know about the BOA approved points system? The article didn't refer to it or anything about it at all. Who cares if they didn't know about RK's injury, it didn't even mention Richard. Who cares if they don't know how long fencers have been fully funded or how long it takes to achieve results? It didn't mention any of this, and it doesn't have anything to do with the points being made. Why, does it take longer to achieve results in the UK than it does in Panama then?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.

I agree with the article that there seems to be a fixation with 2012, and a snobbish disregard for 2008 as if it's second-class Olympics. It's also surprising that the National Coach didn't get anyone through qualification.

I don't agree with the 606 article writer that Jo Hutchison may not be good enough in 2012 to compete. She may be and age-wise she may come into her own as many fencers do in their mid-late 20's. I do think some of her comments on that site have shown a weak sportsmanship and attitude (possibly developed in this excuse-ridden community) that doesn't bode well if it continues.

I'd urge you to stop the insults and paranoia and the silly defensiveness, ask some uncomfortable questions and answer them honestly. If you arrive back at where we are now, fine, good luck British Fencing.

But ostriches don't win Olympic medals. Or build the sport and get funding and investment.

TBennett
-15th May 2008, 20:57
This article reminds me of posts by someone I think called "Flashingblade" a while back and is getting irritating to read. I know 'Slashing Lurker' you are feeling a little insulted for merely putting your opinion on this forum which you have every right to (supportive of the 606 article or otherwise - you have not said its a wonderful article but you have said it raises valid points. Fine)

I would ask that we do not start calling people "paranoid", "stupid", "single-post troll", "dunce" and "delusional" as it degrades the whole point of a debate to silly insults which 'Salshing Lurker' rightly points out (I am am just skimming to get some of the comments, not meaning to demean anyone here)

I am not saying I agree with all the comments from either side its not my place to although I will say one thing to everyone.

If YOU were in the pole position to be selected (by the rankings scheme set out many months beforehand) for an Olympic zonal event and you felt you had as good chance to qualify as any, would you feel the system was made a mockery of if you were NOT sent?

Boo Boo
-15th May 2008, 21:27
If YOU were in the pole position to be selected (by the rankings scheme set out many months beforehand) for an Olympic zonal event and you felt you had as good chance to qualify as any, would you feel the system was made a mockery of if you were NOT sent?

Completely agreed.

The Performance Director created a ranking scheme to select which fencer would be most suitable to represent GB at the qualifier and the Olympics. It would have been unforgivable to move the goal posts and to select any other fencer to be the GB representative (and would make a complete mockery of the selection criteria).

It is just such a shame that we could only send one fencer per weapon to the Olympic Qualifiers.

Personally I hope that the BF are pushing for a "wild card" entry for JoJo. I wonder when we will hear the outcome of the various wild card applications that the BF have made.

Boo

Gangsta G
-15th May 2008, 21:37
Several - not all - of you can't bring yourselves to admit that something has gone seriously wrong in British fencing and certainly can't cope with anyone daring to question the status quo.

As long as you take the attitude that any attempt to commence a discussion about the poor situation that British fencing finds itself in by having just one amateur/non fully funded/non Pathway fencer going to Beijing (from three weapons, two sexes) is "stirring things up" by me, or "an axe to grind" by whoever wrote the 606 article, you (as fencing individuals, the fencing community, and the decision makers among you) will never find out what went wrong or how to make sure this failure doesn't happen again.

Ranting about whether Jo and Louise followed the selection criteria is just a red herring that stops you all from facing up to the basic question of did the right person go?

Yes or no?

If the process meant ending up with the wrong person going just because 'the system' says so means the system is wrong. Whether the person who went fenced for her life is just a silly way of pandering to failure and possibly a flawed system.

I agree with the article that there seems to be a fixation with 2012, and a snobbish disregard for 2008 as if it's second-class Olympics. It's also surprising that the National Coach didn't get anyone through qualification.

I'd urge you to stop the insults and paranoia and the silly defensiveness, ask some uncomfortable questions and answer them honestly. If you arrive back at where we are now, fine, good luck British Fencing.Slashing Lurker, firstly, I have whittled your post down, not as an attempt to discredit your comments, but because it was very long and there are only certain things I want to reply to.

I think that you make some good points, however it seems to me that you are possibly misinformed. Obviously I have no idea how much you know about fencing (judging by your posts you seem to know a bit at the least) so please accept my apologies if my post seems insulting or condescending.

I would argue that the things that you are suggesting are not happening (admitting that something has gone wrong, questioning the status quo, trying to find out what went wrong so that it doesn't happen again, questioning whether the right fencers were sent to the qualifying competitions, suggesting that the system is flawed, asking some uncomfortable questions) ARE happening, however you are unlikely to find them happening on this forum (although I have certainly read various posts stating that the system has failed). This is because fencing is a very small sport. This means that British Fencing is more of a family than an organization. This does not mean that it is a closed group - one of the things all people involved in British Fencing (and something everyone is pleased to see happening) is the family getting bigger. Because fencing is such a small sport, all regular posters on the Fencing Forum, whether they post under a pseudonym or not, are known to each other. This is not a criticism of the forum, it is inevitable and there is nothing that can be done about it. It also has its advantages. This means that posters might not want to post the entireity of their thoughts because they don't want to upset or offend their 'family,' maybe they are also fearful of what will happen to them if they do speak their minds. It would take a very brave person to, for example, come onto the forum and say, 'Louise Bond-Williams should have been sent to the Olympic Qualifiers instead of Joanna Hutchison, the national coach is a failure and all of the BFA Board Directors should resign' (please note, I am not suggesting this, merely using it as an example!) This does not mean that behind the scenes, and away from the forum, there are not serious discussions taking place, and people do not have very firm opinions on the issues you have raised.

With regards to the prioritizing of 2012 over 2008, I would agree that this is taking place, however I would suggest that it is down to the BOA, not the BFA. It is arguably fairly natural that the BOA want 'their' Olympics to be the most successful Britain has ever seen. In the same way, if a British fencer wins a medal at the World Championships in a non-Olympic year, will many people outside of fencing notice? Sadly, I doubt it.

cesh_fencing
-15th May 2008, 22:04
If YOU were in the pole position to be selected (by the rankings scheme set out many months beforehand) for an Olympic zonal event and you felt you had as good chance to qualify as any, would you feel the system was made a mockery of if you were NOT sent?

The scheme was set out and all those that were involved knew how it was being selected. I do not think that anyone who did not go can complain too loudly. I would have loved to have seen how Gordon would have got on if JW had not pipped him at the post.

As with all selection after the fact it is easy to say X or Y should have gone as someone else did not get the required result, however if Jo-Jo had qualified everyone would be singing the systems merits.

Still this is the time for review and identifying the best way forward to get the best people in the best position to succeed in 2012. I guess this will probably be more targetted, however the fact some fencers have not been on the pathway to date should not exclude them getting funding going forward. Four years is easily enough time to raise from top junior/cadet to top senior with the right regime.

This may mean sending fencers abroad to train to give them the best chance to succeed, but I think this may be better use of funds than sending full teams to all the WC events when many of the fencers concerned have difficulty getting L64s let alone L32s or 16s..

One thing BF has got to watch out for is complacency if results seem to improve next season, post Olympic years are always far easier than Olympic years.

Foilling Around
-15th May 2008, 23:06
After all my rantings when the Pathway was set up in such a shambles I cannot believe that I am about to go about defending it at all!! I too believe that the whole original set up of the Pathway was flawed and resulted in many talented fencers deciding not to apply. However, that does not mean that we can make a judgment about it at this stage.

If I plant a flower to be in full bloom in 5 years' time then I do not dig it up because it fails to flower after 12 months.



Foilling around lists things misinformed in the article, that the article doesn't even refer to. So what if they do or don't know about the BOA approved points system? The article didn't refer to it or anything about it at all.

But it does make reference to picking JH over LBW who it calls the real number one. Recent World Cup results for the two have been very similar. It does matter if they know about the reasons why one was selected over the other if they are giving criticism.


Who cares if they didn't know about RK's injury, it didn't even mention Richard.

Agreed, the whole article is very much sabre based, but the article is about why only one fencer qualified for the Olympics


Who cares if they don't know how long fencers have been fully funded or how long it takes to achieve results? It didn't mention any of this, and it doesn't have anything to do with the points being made.

See my flower analogy above. If JH had been funded full time for 5 years then I would agree that she had no hope. Of course it matters if the writer knows that funding has only been in place for a year, if they don't then they are making ill informed comments. They have written off a fencer who has just started a 5 year programme and who will be at prime age by the time 2012 comes around


Why, does it take longer to achieve results in the UK than it does in Panama then?

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but getting to the Olympics is one thing, doing well there is another. Surely I don't have to tell you that the competition form within Europe is much greater than that from within South America. Another example, a 17 year old girl has qualified from the African Zone for women's foil who has no better international results than my daughter (who is herself 17 by the way). Ask Panamanians to qualify as Europeans and they would probably not make it.



Excuses, excuses, excuses.


You are confusing "excuses" with "reasons"

I hope no-one is treating Beijing as a second class Olympics, certainly Alex isn't!! The problem is that it has come very early in the increased funding cycle.

You can't suddenly throw a load of money at a sport which has been starved for so long and expect instant results. It took British Cycling 10 years to produce the goods and they have yet to replicate on the Olympic stage.

I am not certain that all of those on the Pathway programme have the talent and ability to go with their commitment. I am certain that the Pathway has not attracted all of the most talented fencers in the target age brackets.

I am not however prepared to write it off at this stage based on a highly flawed Olympic selection system.

It seems that I am seen as an insider, probably because I am on the Foil Committee. Believe me however when I say that as far as Pathway and
Olympic selection is concerned I am no more of an insider than the manager of my local butchers!!!

coachcarson
-16th May 2008, 09:18
We haven't had such a hot thread for ages!

I think the BBC posting reflects what many people have either said to me in passing or were probably thinking anyway. Rather than being defensive, perhaps British Fencing needs to be proactive in the way it manages expectations and perceptions.

What was success supposed to look like for Beijing? If the results fell short of our goals, identify the shortcomings and mitigate against them into the future. Look to the British Cycling Team for some clues about how to do it.

Funded/non-funded fencers. I initially liked the commitment-for-cash and bullish statements about the only thing that matters in 2012 was medals. Certainly we should have full time training athletes and isn't it terrific that we have that opportunity. But then I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that Alex O'Connell and James Honeybone, for example, sit within lower tiers of the pathway. Commitment is one thing, awesome talent another. There's no right answer I suspect. But that is where performance management comes in and where difficult decisions are made about how best to use the limited resources available to us. What we do need though is a return on our investment. Without a return, we stakeholders have every right to ask the questions.

I find the personal attacks on Jo distasteful but hope that she is motivated even more to show us all, including her critics, just exactly what she is made of.

DSSabre
-16th May 2008, 09:29
Foiling around i agree some of your post but pathway was not set up one year ago. It was set up almost three years ago. In that time besides from JW winning the epee world cup what sucess have we had from the pathway fencers.

I am not looking at the failure by the system to get more fencers to 2008 as a one off incident. If as you put it you had planted a flower and wanted it to bloom you would hope by now that the stalk was at least poking through the ground.

Where are the results that indicate we are getting it right, and are they a result of pathway or as i expect are they the fencers that we have been talking about for ever. If you take out Richard, Louise and Jon what are we left with. Where is the development and progression of our fencers?

I think we are shooting down slashing whatever his name is to eagerly in defence of a sport we love. I hate to say it but i think he asks some very sensible questions.

Gangsta G, it is not just down to BOA to sort this mess out as BFA are the NGB and must put in place a system supported by the BOA to produce elite atheletes. The question being asked is have they. The BOA do not select who is on pathway the BFA do and so if we fail to make goals they are the ones who must explain why. And in all honesty i dont think enough people know enough about what is going on to make sweeping statements on the forum but that should not stop the BFA membership haveing a discussion about it, after all aren't the board our representitives, isn't the President? Therefore surely we should know what is being done to rectify this if they decide indeed it does need sorting out. Maybe we have had some amazing results at senior level i donlt know about.

Boo Boo
-16th May 2008, 09:53
And in all honesty i dont think enough people know enough about what is going on to make sweeping statements on the forum but that should not stop the BFA membership haveing a discussion about it, after all aren't the board our representitives, isn't the President? Therefore surely we should know what is being done to rectify this if they decide indeed it does need sorting out. Maybe we have had some amazing results at senior level i donlt know about.

This sort of discussion has been had before (on here) - I have asked the same questions regarding representation and accountability...

... the Board is Directors are our representatives, but their power is extremely limited (through their own admissions).

Keith will also tell you that elite fencing (and how it is run) has nothing to do with the BFA Membership - it is a seperate entity. Elite fencing in this country is governed by the BF President (funnily enough elected by us, but not accountable to us) and the PD (not elected and not advertised).

The only way to change how elite fencing is run in this country is to stand for the position of BF President (http://www.britishfencing.com/British_Fencing.asp?PageID=991) or to apply for the position of PD (when/if it is advertised - apparently due for advertisement after Beijing).

Boo

hokers
-16th May 2008, 10:46
Gah he's replied - here we go again...

Boo Boo
-16th May 2008, 10:57
Gah he's replied - here we go again...

Pretty insane suggesting that Graham changed the selection criteria to favour someone who works for him... unless I am missing something, how (a year ago) did Graham know what setting the selection criteria the way that he did would favour one of his employees (Graham could not predict which competitions certain fencers would do better at in the future)??? That is just plain silly :rolleyes:

Boo

Saxon
-16th May 2008, 11:09
From an ethical and transparency angle, I reckon it's SO dodgy to have a fencer's boss as a chief selector, who then chooses to change the selection rules to give the fencer that works for him a better chance!!! That reeks of favoritism and if that were to happen in other sports or in politics or industry, they'd be an outcry!!!!

Any lawyers in the house?

Marcos
-16th May 2008, 11:14
This Olympics has come too soon to judge the Pathway and British fencing in general...you can't create an Olympian (or even a Senior top 30 fencer) in 3 years.

But 2012 is too far away and but far too critical to mess up

The 2010 European and World Championships should therefore be an important benchmark

What the BBC poster fails to contextualise is:

- the sport is more competitive than ever, with world class coaches spread around the continents as more countries can afford to bid for talent. You have Iranians, Kuwaitis, Koreans, Chinese getting WC L16's that you wouldn;t have seen 20 years ago.

- the current FIE policy of expanding the sport worldwide is making Europe unbelievably difficult to qualify from, despite the fall of communism making Eastern block countries increasingly uncompetitive..

What the original poster doesn't give is what he would have expected from the BFA....2 qualified? 4? whole teams?

This Forum can be bullying and internally focussed...I can say this coz I'm Irish ;) ...... but even from across the Irish Sea I can spot that the sport is far healthier than 10 years ago...to fail to acknowledge this is just ranting

ps David, thought you were going to spend less time on here! ;)

pinkelephant
-16th May 2008, 11:38
Looks like the latest posting has been pulled by a moderator - at least temporarily.

DSSabre
-16th May 2008, 13:01
I am trying i promise but the lure is so great.

Gangsta G
-16th May 2008, 13:28
Gangsta G, it is not just down to BOA to sort this mess out as BFA are the NGB and must put in place a system supported by the BOA to produce elite atheletes. The question being asked is have they. The BOA do not select who is on pathway the BFA do and so if we fail to make goals they are the ones who must explain why. And in all honesty i dont think enough people know enough about what is going on to make sweeping statements on the forum but that should not stop the BFA membership haveing a discussion about it, after all aren't the board our representitives, isn't the President? Therefore surely we should know what is being done to rectify this if they decide indeed it does need sorting out. Maybe we have had some amazing results at senior level i donlt know about.David, I completely agree with all of this. What I was suggesting was that the apparent favouring of 2012 over 2008 appears to be down to the BOA, not the BFA. Maybe I am wrong.

PS have a look at the latest post on the BBC website:

'Incidentally, following Istanbul, the next competition results were:

Louise Bond Williams 33rd
Jo Hutchison 43rd'

Obviously removes further credibility.

Trojan
-16th May 2008, 13:41
I have been coaxed out of my seat, and into the fray. The logic seems to go:

1. We've got fully funded fencers, who fence full time.
2. They should be expected to qualify for the Olympics.
3. They haven't
4. The system is a - disaster, unfair, poorly administered etc., etc.

Well, what is the real world like? The norm is for fencers in other countries to fence full time. We have just caught up with where others have been. It's not just about time spent training, it's about quality. Quality of talent, quality of sparring partners, quality of coaches etc.

We've made progress in all areas both in terms of time committed by fencers and quality. The thing is that the gap to close is very large and it will take many years to do it. Expecting it now is just unrealistic.

ps Dave, I think you'll find that Richard won a European silver medal in the last 3 years, so maybe that was one that you missed?

Red
-16th May 2008, 13:42
David, I completely agree with all of this. What I was suggesting was that the apparent favouring of 2012 over 2008 appears to be down to the BOA, not the BFA. Maybe I am wrong.

PS have a look at the latest post on the BBC website:

'Incidentally, following Istanbul, the next competition results were:

Louise Bond Williams 33rd
Jo Hutchison 43rd'

Obviously removes further credibility.

So, they both got a L64 then? Neither of those results is good enough to score ranking points with (so I don't need to work out the NIF - thanks girls :rolleyes:), all it means is that LBW's higher world ranking probably gave her a slightly easier poule.

Gangsta G
-16th May 2008, 13:57
So, they both got a L64 then?Exactly. Yet Grandbuckmaster appears to be citing Louise finishing 10 places above Jo as evidence to support what he is saying. In reality they got the same result. (Although, in fairness, it looks like, according to the results, that Bujdoso had a bad poule and knocked Louise out.)

DSSabre
-16th May 2008, 15:05
Trojan,

In fairness i had forgotten about even though i was there that but i did say besides the three people named eg. Richard, Louise and Jon where was the improvement of results.

So that was an unfair dig. Looking across the board i am not sure who you can say quality has improved?

If you argue that Richard has made the grade as has Jon how can you say the gap is too wide to close. Also taking Junior World Rankings into account and how other fencing nations fencers have progressed would be a fair bench mark. Not wanting to get drawn in to criticising individuals but we have had some top fencers at a high level at U20 level and the arguement had been there was no system to support them once out of U20s this system is now supposedly in place the question which is being asked is has it worked. In my opinion. NO

DSSabre
-16th May 2008, 15:07
On a follow up to you Trojan why aren't fencers who acheive excellent one off results and therefore having bridged the gap so to speak, capable of achieving the level of consistancy of foreign fencers.

hokers
-16th May 2008, 15:35
What we need are some statistics!

I'm sure there are some statisticians out there that have some time to produce some useful stats for comparison purposes. How about:

Number of FIE licences held by nation, sorted by population
Number of fencers sent to Olympics in last 50 years for GBR
Disposition of nationalities in top 50 of annual FIE rankings for last 10 years

Any more?

I'd still argue that the system hasn't specifically failed. A couple of hits the other way at the OCQ and we'd be taking 3 or maybe 4 fencers, which would be the best qualification in a long time I think.

Baldric
-16th May 2008, 15:48
Keith will also tell you that elite fencing (and how it is run) has nothing to do with the BFA Membership - it is a seperate entity. Elite fencing in this country is governed by the BF President (funnily enough elected by us, but not accountable to us) and the PD (not elected and not advertised).
Boo

This may not be as odd as it sounds.

The lions share of elite funding comes from UK Sport, and I expect that they wish to call the tune. They have to hold someone in the sport responsible for how the money is spent, so the Pres and the PD are the logical people.

In this area they are accountable to the funder, not the membership. UK Sport can't maintain a relationship with 10,000 fencers, and 10,001 opinions on what should be done.

Boo Boo
-16th May 2008, 17:53
This may not be as odd as it sounds.

The lions share of elite funding comes from UK Sport, and I expect that they wish to call the tune. They have to hold someone in the sport responsible for how the money is spent, so the Pres and the PD are the logical people.

I don't think that it is unreasonable that UK Sport "calls the tune", BUT there are an awful lot of decisions that are made beyond what UK Sport directly controls or sees. These decisions affect fencers - mainly the elite and potential elite fencers of today and tomorrow, but fencers nontheless. UK Sport is only interested in medals at 2012, so there needs to be some downwards accountability (to ensure that fencers interests are looked after also).


In this area they are accountable to the funder, not the membership. UK Sport can't maintain a relationship with 10,000 fencers, and 10,001 opinions on what should be done.

Isn't that a bit like saying that the British government shouldn't be accountable to the British Public (via their MPs)?

Sport should maintain a relationship with its membership via the elected representatives (not necessarily every single member). We have some absolutely fantastic Directors on the Board (with a wealth of knowledge and experience between them) - shame that they don't have more power to exercise their abilities.

Boo

Ronald Velden
-17th May 2008, 08:12
I believe that the only external funding that British Fencing receives comes
from UK Sports Council and the Sports Trust.

In the case of the former it is ringfenced and used specifically for International Programme. The contract was I am sure designed specifically
to produce athletes who will compete in London 2012 Olympics and win medals.

There is little or no investment in the development of fencing in this country
apart from what may be done at local level. This is a serious problem for the
sport post 2012 since I suspect most of Britain's elite athletes will retire
after the London Olympics.

One should not be critical of President and Performance Director for a number
of reasons:
1. Fencing was in essence an amateur sport until two years ago and switching
over to a professional system takes time with a number of teething
problems.
2. I am sure that UK Sport and the BFA are well aware that some mistakes
were made in the programme and that changes will now need to be made.
Some of the points raised on this website will I am sure be implemented.
3. Perhaps the main problem in the sport is there is too high an expectation
on one or two athletes . If they do not perform then the whole system
is criticised.
4. The reality both for administration and for the fencers themselves is that
Britain has at present fewer than half a dozen fencers who are genuinely
competitive at international level. They may pull off spasmodically a
moderately good result, but the true indicator of performance is FIE
World Rankings. Britain's best ranking is 25 from Richard Kruse in men's
foil.
5. Since the sport has no 'superstars' we need to move away from the idea
of investment in small numbers of individuals and focus more on building
squads/teams in the weapons. In this way there is more competition at
the top level and you have a better chance of qualification as of right
rather than the precarious process of going to European Zone Qualifier.

Boo Boo
-17th May 2008, 09:52
1. Fencing was in essence an amateur sport until two years ago and switching
over to a professional system takes time with a number of teething
problems.
2. I am sure that UK Sport and the BFA are well aware that some mistakes
were made in the programme and that changes will now need to be made.
Some of the points raised on this website will I am sure be implemented.


Agreed, everyone is human - everyone makes mistakes. But normally something should be done to rectify those mistakes (rather than to say "Ooops we made a mistake, nevermind, let's move on..."). I am not convinced that the Pathway thing was ever really rectified (and that was a pretty huge mistake).

Also quite serious mistakes are still being made - serious issues are being raised (from within the group that should matter) and nothing is being done. Perhaps if problems are acknowledged, taking corrective action would "loose face" with UK Sport? So it is better to ignore problems (and the people who report them)...

That is why I have a problem with lack of accountability. Nobody can be beyond accountability because - even with their best intentions - it is a dangerous situation.



5. Since the sport has no 'superstars' we need to move away from the idea
of investment in small numbers of individuals and focus more on building
squads/teams in the weapons. In this way there is more competition at
the top level and you have a better chance of qualification as of right
rather than the precarious process of going to European Zone Qualifier.

Completely agreed - I hope we move to that way of thinking. In addition to boosting chances of qualification, building teams/squads will provide a better environment for individuals to flourish too (less pressure on individuals) and also a more supportive/structured framework for young fencers moving into senior international competition.

However I would be surprised if we move to a more team based approach now :(. Beyond perhaps expanding squad/team MF and WS programmes (weren't the BF recently advertising more MF places, but only MF places, on the Pathway?). Possibly MS & ME too. But WE has, so far been, not had support as a squad/team and I would imagine that WF will probably loose that too (since there will probably not be a WF team even in 2012...) :(.

We will see - from a longer term perspective, concentrating on teams squads makes 100% sense. However, the PD has always said that elite fencing is ONLY about 2012 (and that is what they have been working to up until now). 2012 is an interesting situation: are the BF in any way concerned about who we "qualify" (individuals/teams) for 2012? OR are they going to be completely focussed on those quota places - maximising the medal potential from those 8 (?) spots? Presumably those athletes with real (consistent) medal potential will hopefully be qualifying of their own right (so, hopefully, we will get more than the quota anyway).

It will be interesting and I hope that you are right :)

Boo

coachcarson
-17th May 2008, 12:10
5. Since the sport has no 'superstars' we need to move away from the idea
of investment in small numbers of individuals and focus more on building
squads/teams in the weapons. In this way there is more competition at
the top level and you have a better chance of qualification as of right
rather than the precarious process of going to European Zone Qualifier.

Yes please.

Ronald Velden
-17th May 2008, 14:15
Ref: Boo

I think that you will find that there are changes taking place even if they
have not been finalised and discussed. The answer is that the plans
for Beijing have now been concluded and you should wait and see what
is materialising over the next few months.

One of your concerns earlier on this thread was that the Performance
Director is not an elected official. Frankly that is a non starter. This is a
management post and more importantly the appointment has to be approved
by UK Sport under the terms of their contract.

Talking to some of the fencers and coaches I think that many of those
directly involved in international programme do have a good opinion of
Graham.

If however there was to be a change in the future because UK Sport
insist on a full-time PD then I would offer the same advice that I gave
Keith in 2000 at the Commonwealth Millenium Games ie appoint someone
from outside British Fencing either from a Sport with World Class Succes
or a Fencing Programme abroad.

Boo Boo
-17th May 2008, 15:18
I think that you will find that there are changes taking place even if they
have not been finalised and discussed. The answer is that the plans
for Beijing have now been concluded and you should wait and see what
is materialising over the next few months.

Will look forward to them :)


One of your concerns earlier on this thread was that the Performance Director is not an elected official. Frankly that is a non starter. This is a management post and more importantly the appointment has to be approved by UK Sport under the terms of their contract.

Not really a problem, provided the PD is accountable to people who are elected officials... :whistle:


If however there was to be a change in the future because UK Sport insist on a full-time PD then I would offer the same advice that I gave Keith in 2000 at the Commonwealth Millenium Games ie appoint someone from outside British Fencing either from a Sport with World Class Succes or a Fencing Programme abroad.

At one point they did supposedly insist that sports with the level of funding that fencing is currently receiving DO have a full-time PD - somehow that was side-stepped.

Personally I believe that fencing would benefit from a full-time PD - since there is obviously too much work for a part-time volunteer to undertake. However that MAY have been improved a bit with the appointment of a full-time CEO (although don't forget that Gillian retired a few months ago - so the BFA are one person down as it is). There was further suggestion that the PD position WOULD become a salaried full-time position (from Keith), but there was no confirmation that the post would be advertised or opened to applications.

I agree that it would make sense to have someone from outside the sport (and preferably from successful sport/country) - like the recently appointed CEO. If they are going to do it, then now would be the time (recruiting over the next few months for commencement in October 2008 - i.e. immediately post Beijing).

Boo

DSSabre
-20th May 2008, 13:57
If we are looking at a PD from outside the sport wont it take him / her to long to understand the sport and make the necessary changes. Wouldn't that effectively right off 2012 and look towards 2016.

I suppose the big question is can the current PD if he goes full time sort out a lot of the problems fencers / coaches etc feel there is with the current system. Do the benefits of an external PD from outside the sport out weigh the benefits of the current one knowing the job and being already on the ball for 2012.