PDA

View Full Version : Effect of Olympic success



gbm
-24th April 2004, 21:04
I almost posted a poll on whether anybody thinks anybody is going to win, but then I realised that would be a bad idea. PS I think we're going to win both!

So my question is, what effect would significant Olympic success have on the status of fencing in the UK? Would it bring fencing more in the public eye? Does it have the potential to double or even treble the national fencing budget? Perhaps significantly increase the overall membership of British Fencing? Could it even reinvigorate the whole of British Fencing? If a tiny country like Romania can do well with 800 fencers, then we certainly could if we had the same support.

Neo
-24th April 2004, 21:07
I just went poopy

gbm
-24th April 2004, 21:24
Yes, you've mentioned it. Are you planning to hijack every thread?

Neo
-24th April 2004, 21:39
sure as hell beats the bitching match with my (newly) ex gf :P

gbm
-24th April 2004, 21:44
Never had one, so I don't know what to say...

gbm
-25th April 2004, 11:57
But back on topic, what effect do you think Olympic success would (will? let's be hopeful) have?

nirvana
-25th April 2004, 12:07
say they win gold, I dont think there would that much publicityy towards if as there was wen we won rowing, so im geussin it wouldnt have much affect. would it make national news? or would there be a tiny article in the times.

gbm
-25th April 2004, 12:19
How many golds does Britain win a year? I seem to remember some sport (honestly can't remember which) doing well unexpectedly in the Olympics and the whole of the media attention focussing on them. Just because it's a minority sport at the moment, doesn't mean it can't change to a majority sport in a few days of mass media attention...

Australian
-25th April 2004, 13:13
as an aussie, and being used to us being near the top of the medal table, i'd say that olympic success does lead to greater interest in the given sport, and more funding going towards it.

gbm
-25th April 2004, 13:21
And since the UK fencing budget is so small anyway, I think it could have a huge impact.

uk_45
-25th April 2004, 14:47
Originally posted by goodbadandme
And since the UK fencing budget is so small anyway, I think it could have a huge impact.
We have funding, don't think many people have seem it!

gbm
-25th April 2004, 15:03
I think it's on the order of 100K a year, which is nothing really when you compare it to most sports.

uk_45
-25th April 2004, 15:07
That pays for us to send people to WCs etc not much more.

gbm
-25th April 2004, 15:19
Exactly. But what an investment if it one day produced Olympic success and all the relavent sponsorship! I don't think 1 million would be an unreasonable figure for the money it would bring in over all of British fencing...

uk_45
-25th April 2004, 15:21
Well with the boast in fencing at the moment. And success on the international front we must merit more money. Come on guys Kruse and Lou this is a reason to win!

gbm
-25th April 2004, 15:31
Normally I wouldn't be optimistic, but Kruse got first in the European Zonal Qualifiers, and Bond-Williams got second. I mean, how much more difficult can you get? Lot's of the fencers at the Olympics will come from similar zonals where the countries involved are not as good, so I think we're in with a real chance. Even if only one of them got a medal, I still think it would have fantastic implications. Suddenly British Fencing could be taken really seriously (to the eyes of sponsors you see).
Hell, somebody might even sponsor me! Although that's less likely than a double gold...

uk_45
-25th April 2004, 15:33
I mean yes one medel would be great really it would add so much more money into the sport, and i agree i think we do have a good chance.

gbm
-25th April 2004, 15:41
Go British Fencing! Spend whatever it takes...

Australian
-25th April 2004, 21:03
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Normally I wouldn't be optimistic, but Kruse got first in the European Zonal Qualifiers, and Bond-Williams got second. I mean, how much more difficult can you get? Lot's of the fencers at the Olympics will come from similar zonals where the countries involved are not as good, so I think we're in with a real chance. Even if only one of them got a medal, I still think it would have fantastic implications. Suddenly British Fencing could be taken really seriously (to the eyes of sponsors you see).
Hell, somebody might even sponsor me! Although that's less likely than a double gold...

you fail to understand the concepts behind the Olympic qualification method. A country that already has a fencer going to the games (either through team or individual selection, see the lists at http://www.fie.ch) is unable to send a fencer to worlds at that weapon. That means that the might of France, Germany, Italy etc was not at the zonal qualifiers.

Not meaning to dampen anyones spirits, but Kruse's word ranking is between 40-60 and I would consider him to have done exceptionally well to get through the first de or two (due to his low seed, remember there are no poules).

gbm
-25th April 2004, 21:27
:(

Well, you're right. I have no clue how the olympics work as well. But we 'British' can still dream...

uk_45
-25th April 2004, 21:29
But no one thought we stood a big chance in rugby

gbm
-25th April 2004, 21:35
I thought you were Welsh? Or do you just fence in Welsh comps? I'm confused... :rolleyes:

That's the spirit, anyway! The more everyone thinks we'll come away empty-handed, the more we'll suprise them!

Australian
-25th April 2004, 21:36
Originally posted by uk_45
But no one thought we stood a big chance in rugby

pfft. you were favourites and world #1's going into the cup, with a team full of experianced veterans, underperformed in nearly every single crucial game and still could only win the thing with a 100th minute drop goal against a young and relatively inexperianced aussie team who only 3 months earlier got beat 50-12 by NZ (a game which i attended :( ) .

You should have won it far easier than you did, but you won't repeat the performance in France 2007

Threestain
-25th April 2004, 22:45
Maybe so but we still won the rugby and not when playing well. How many other nations say that? And more importantly beat the southern hemisphere teams comprehensively away the year before.

Sorry about the aussie baiting, :)

But to do well at the olympics is probably, sorry definitely a luck thing - frankly anyone who's there (on merit not on 'zonal equality') is good enough to win on their day - that's the whole idea of sport, sometimes the underdog wins. However the underdog has to be the one not expected to win to be an underdog!

pqg
-25th April 2004, 23:44
There's no doubt that an Olympic medal would bring much short term publicity and TV coverage. As a guide to how much to expect, think back to Sydney and the coverage of Stephanie Cook in Women's Pentathlon. However, this was further boosted by 3 things: the fact that it was gold, Kate Allenby getting a bronze in the same event, and (being cynical here) Steph's telegenic looks.

At the other end of the scale Britain also got a bronze in mixed doubles badminton at Sydney - that was shown and celebrated but so briefly I can't imagine it had a big impact.

But what's disappointing is that it would have to be a medal to achieve even that. If Richard or Louise got, say, a L8 result (or even the dreaded 4th) it would be an incredible achievement virtually ignored.

Oh and while we're on the rugby, did anyone else notice that all the commentators were very quick to bring up the 1966 analogies, but when Ireland beat the new world champions on home turf last month, none of them mentioned 1967 (when of course Scotland did the same at football)... :tongue:

Threestain
-26th April 2004, 07:29
oh and don't forget that modern pentathalon has llst a lot of its funding - despite getting a gold and a bronze - useful when you're trying to get more medals

myopic
-26th April 2004, 15:14
I believe the minority sport that got a lot of publicity after olympic success previously mentioned may, embarrisingly enough, be Curling from the last winter games.


I believe it had a short term injection of interest that wasn't sustained, but did get lots of people giving it a try.

And really pqg. . .
:rolleyes:

There is a reason the English are allowed to think of us celtic folk as embittered and petty and lets face it.

Its you.

uk_45
-26th April 2004, 16:25
Yeah spose but intrest in fencing is slowly gettin higher any way.

pqg
-26th April 2004, 16:26
Originally posted by myopic
I believe the minority sport that got a lot of publicity after olympic success previously mentioned may, embarrisingly enough, be Curling from the last winter games.


I believe it had a short term injection of interest that wasn't sustained, but did get lots of people giving it a try.



I realised that (and what's embarassing about it?), but I don't think fencing could expect a similar level of publicity even if Richard or Louise won, the reason being the much greater volume of other sports (and British successes) competing for air time at the summer games as opposed to winter ones. That's why I thought the pentathlon and badminton would be more realistic analogies.

gbm
-26th April 2004, 20:02
On the BBC schedule of events, the highlight on one day is the Women's Individual Epee. Is there any chance they will change this based on the recent qualifications?

nirvana
-26th April 2004, 20:07
wheres is this 100k goin??? i heard a roumour that kruse applied for founding from scotland and this guy got a last 8 in the wc, now if some1 got that in tennis for exmaple, they would have masses of funding and the whole population supporting them.

uk_45
-26th April 2004, 20:42
This much is true. But also you have to remeber we as a country favour sports we invented.

Threestain
-26th April 2004, 22:11
No we don't. We favour mass-market sports that offer a quick tv fix. Essentially if it hasn't got mass coverage then there isn't any money, which means there isn't mass coverage and so it goes on.

pqg
-16th August 2004, 13:09
Originally posted by pqg
There's no doubt that an Olympic medal would bring much short term publicity and TV coverage. As a guide to how much to expect, think back to Sydney and the coverage of Stephanie Cook in Women's Pentathlon. However, this was further boosted by 3 things: the fact that it was gold, Kate Allenby getting a bronze in the same event, and (being cynical here) Steph's telegenic looks.

At the other end of the scale Britain also got a bronze in mixed doubles badminton at Sydney - that was shown and celebrated but so briefly I can't imagine it had a big impact.

But what's disappointing is that it would have to be a medal to achieve even that. If Richard or Louise got, say, a L8 result (or even the dreaded 4th) it would be an incredible achievement virtually ignored.


I hate to say I told you so but in preference to any report of Richard's success one of the BBC freeview channels has been showing (sans commentary) a tractor smoothing over an empty dressage arena...

AussieSabreur
-16th August 2004, 13:36
Going back to the original question... Since I've only been here a couple of months I'll talk about Aus instead ;)

Merely having fencers qualifying for the Olympics opened up funding opportunities in Aus. The better they do, the more funding is available as Fencing works its way up the tiers from 'No Hope' to 'Medal Possibility'.
Media coverage is still largely limited to human-interest type stories in the papers regardless of results. They have no clue.

Having 3 people qualify and get better results this time 'round should mean more money for Aus fencing. I know the folks charged with spending it aim to spend it in a way that not only meets the funding requirements and helps the elite fencers, but also helps develop the sport as a whole.

Since coming here I've kind of got the impression that Aus takes it's sport admin more seriously than the UK. But that's only a first impression. At the higher levels in Aus there is a huge organisational framework in place to get results, which Fencing is only starting to break into and gain benefits from. No idea if anything equivilent exists in the UK, but if it does then a top 8 finish should be getting some consideration.

Gav
-16th August 2004, 14:00
AussieSabreur is right about the human interest angle:



ritain's Richard Kruse will look to an unlikely source when he competes in the men's foil at the Helliniko Fencing Hall.

Handed a bye to the last 32, the 21-year-old Londoner is a massive snooker fan and lists seven-time world champion Ray Reardon as his biggest sporting influence.

Just what the Welsh legend knows about the balestra or the moulinet is open to speculation, but Kruse faces a tough task ending Britain's 40-year wait for an Olympic fencing medal.

While Kruse does battle, British team-mate Louise Bond-Williams, who goes in the women's sabre on Tuesday, could be getting in mental shape for her event by playing the didgeridoo, one of her listed hobbies.


admittedly this is quoted from here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/3567568.stm)

rpryer
-16th August 2004, 14:53
The LP site has a scan of an article from The Sun, with Richard saying that he will try to learn from Wayne Rooney's approach to Euro 2004. Trying to get more interest by associating fencing with football.

pqg
-16th August 2004, 18:34
"
Handed a bye to the last 32, the 21-year-old Londoner is a massive snooker fan and lists seven-time world champion Ray Reardon as his biggest sporting influence.

"

We're all used to inaccurate reports of fencing, but here the BBC
gets it wrong even when referring to a sport they cover in great detail. (Reardon only won 6 world titles)

Ethica
-8th July 2005, 23:55
I haven;'t read all the replies here but I'll just continue from what I read.

The outsider sport that got all the attention was curling and although we won gold, what do you hear about that now - nothing. I don't think international success governs the popularity of a sport, just look at football :)

Rdb811
-9th July 2005, 00:15
This is true from comments I heard on the radio from Keith's equivalent at ice dancing. Similarly there wasn't a sustained take up of hockey after Seoul.

Small, frequent amounts of publicty are good - although having said that theer was a paragraph in the Telegraph that in Croquet to the effect that the defending GB Champion (Fulford) had bogged up his pool but won the first round of the DE.

Still, I've had four enquires this week, whch is pretty good for teh time of year.

Foilling Around
-9th July 2005, 16:37
Originally posted by Ethica
I haven;'t read all the replies here but I'll just continue from what I read.

The outsider sport that got all the attention was curling and although we won gold, what do you hear about that now - nothing. I don't think international success governs the popularity of a sport, just look at football :)

But where can you actually take up curling? You would need to ask curling clubs if there has been an increase in membership. You cant exactly go to your nearest leisure centre and join the curling club!!

Fencing is thinly, but more evenly spread and those interested can find places to fence.

International success is only one part of the equation, the other is having the club, coaching and equipment infrastructure to absorb and progress those become interested as a result of that international success.

Rdb811
-11th July 2005, 19:05
I think there's only one rink in England where you can play curling.