[xADMlNx]

Some interesting facts:-

Sydney 2000

Last 32 - Beevers MF
Last 32 - Smith WF


Athens 2004

Last 8 - Kruse MF
Last 16 - Bond Williams WS


Beijing 2008

Last 16 - Kruse MF
Last 32 - Emanuel WF
Last 32 - O'Connell MS


London 2012

10 Athletes and not one past the 32


So with less athletes and money we had better results. Something has to change. We have to look at other countries and I'm prove our systems.

Cycling and Rowing have proved that with the right team of people that are all pulling in the same direction. It's possible to achive great things.

The time has come for a total clear out from the top down and to re-build something that will work. Japan proved that having an ex-Italian coach made a big difference to there performance. Korea have stepped out of the dark and had a fantastic games.

Perhaps with Peter King coming in from a sport that has a proven track record and if the fencing membership get together and work together to bring the right people in. We might be able to turn our sport around.

WE HAVE SOME GREAT FENCING TALENT IN THIS COUNTRY BUT UNTIL EVERYONE PULLS TOGETHER IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND EVERY ATHLETE IS GIVEN THE SAME OPPITUNITITES. WE WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL.


ENOUGH SAID!!!!!

[Kvkcgktl]

"There will be announcements next week on elections, the General Meeting date/venue and other BF news."

I'm assuming that means there will be a mass-resignation statement made later this week?

B. Transitional:
The Board propose that in order to achieve the above, transitional arrangements are approved to ensure the current Board can stand down as proposed and a new Board can be elected and appointed. The proposed transitional arrangements allow for the continuance of annual elections.

(My emphasis)

From the minutes of the BF board meeting 18th April 2012. 4 months ago.

[purchasviagra]

I think Aramis as well as most others are not just wanting the board to resign. As you say, it was announced that the board would be resigning months ago.

[Vipvlad]

Some interesting facts:-

Sydney 2000

Last 32 - Beevers MF
Last 32 - Smith WF


Athens 2004

Last 8 - Kruse MF
Last 16 - Bond Williams WS


Beijing 2008

Last 16 - Kruse MF
Last 32 - Emanuel WF
Last 32 - O'Connell MS


London 2012

10 Athletes and not one past the 32


[/B]

Also in Sydney 2000 James Williams L16

[UrUROFlS]

Why didn't we enter a men's sabre team ?

Because men's sabre in this country is rubbish.

[finasteridonline]

Ouch!

[onlyfun_biziness]

Because men's sabre in this country is rubbish.

Is it any worse than any of the other weapons?

Anyway, my thoughts are that MF aside, we did pretty much what everyone expected.

MFI, I was slightly disappointed with, but one of the results could be put down to a slight injury, one to a seriously tough draw and the other to a bad day at the office.

MFT, I was far more encouraged by. Especially the way Aspromonte was made to look average by the guys, and we seemed to genuinely rattle the Italians. JD especially looks like he was born to be on that sort of stage. HR looked like he was growing into the occasion by the end, which is also encouraging. LH looked comfortable when he came in as well, and RK generally seemed to have been in a better place mentally, until the second part of the Russia match, where I think his timing had been well and truly figured out.

[tefraxKedWere]

Is it any worse than any of the other weapons?

This really isn't an argument that suggests in favour of MS over anything else...

[Savviioor]

It will be interesting to see how the management-speak spin will turn this into a great triumph. The CEO has told anyone who will listen for four years that he is in charge. So he has decided to go now that he has achieved what he set out to do. We must assume he set out to create the current atmosphere of animosity and mistrust amongst the fencing community. Those that know about sport, e.g. foreign fencing delegations, cannot understand how we could consider let alone actually appoint someone who knows nothing about the sport as performance manager. As has been previously said those responsible should go. It cannot have been just the CEO who made the appointment.

I think BF will find this difficult. At a guess they will start by trying to get a hold of a bit of moral high ground by praising the great efforts of the athletes, about which nobody could disagree. Then they will point to medal zones for foil teams. Then they'll go on to waffle about preparing for Rio. End up with early days on a structured development programme, Rome not built in a day, good indicators for the success of driving step change through strategic leverage of internal human assets and capabilities in full harness with the tactical deployment of knowledge capital.

Probably say it was a success, but if there is a valid criticism, it reflects on the need to grow talent nationally. Perhaps also, and not unrelated to that, we shall see a "someone else's problem" field brought into place. Oh, and no doubt valuable lessons will have been learned, results will have informed future deliberations and we will be going forward.

There isn't an emoticon for extreme scorn, is there?

[nermise]

Lots of food for thought.

1. MF - great performance from Davis. Rosowsky struggled to respond to an early deficit and the hamstring issue may not have helped. Kruse wasn't there in spirit which was mystifying.

1. MFT were great until fading a bit against Russia. I have to say that Kruse did seem to switch off against Italy at times and was often caught in prep. I thought he would throw a lot more at Baldini but seemed to slow down. However, the same thing happened to Ota in the final so maybe that's the Baldini effect.

3. I notice that the results are already being used for selective spin from the anti BF board brigade with MS and WS results being used as a stick to beat people with but the result of our best fencer, who was the only one to lose against a lower seed, being described as a bad day at the office. Spin comes in many forms and whilst a lot of nonsense has undoubtedly come from BF, there is more being used to clean out the board and PD and position people for their ambitions at running things.

4. On balance I think change is needed at BF but throwing out people without a clear long term plan to implement sustainable improvements will lead to more problems. Part of that is to be dispassionate about who or what is good for fencing in Britain. Some of the vitriol quoted on FF for people in the current system doesn't fill me with confidence that a new regime will be clear eyed and even handed.

5. Any plan should have a 16 to 20 year time frame and include coherent links from local to national to international structures. Some good ideas have already been espoused elsewhere on FF but there is a long way to go before something Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time aware emerges. Apologies for the management speak but it is relevant here.

[Habalinnyf]

Despite all the funding - worst Olympic performance since Atlanta 1996. I'm looking forward to seeing the spin.

Clearly the PD has to go.

I'm skeptical that any attempt to centralise and "drag us kicking and screaming into the modern age" will have any real effect other than to line the pockets of management, consultants and specialists.

We have a great free market of coaches, clubs and competitions in this country. Pour the money into the clubs, coaches and athletes that are doing well and are actually involved in the sport on a daily basis and leave BF to select athletes off a ranking list, choose national coaches to accompany teams and run competitions. The USA has shown this is a very viable and successful model.

We don't have the infrastructure or career paths to do what France, Germany, China do with national squads and training, so why are we trying to build a second class copy. My comments equally apply to the academy.

[Soadiassy]

Lots of food for thought.

5. Any plan should have a 16 to 20 year time frame and include coherent links from local to national to international structures. Some good ideas have already been espoused elsewhere on FF but there is a long way to go before something Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time aware emerges. Apologies for the management speak but it is relevant here.

Question:

On a longitudinal base as the one you present (16-20 years), if it was undertaken by a new board brought into place say, tomorrow, how long would it take for results to begin to emerge, say, consistent L8 finishes at A-grades, World Cups, European Championships, etc?

[MasdMnPa]

Question:

On a longitudinal base as the one you present (16-20 years), if it was undertaken by a new board brought into place say, tomorrow, how long would it take for results to begin to emerge, say, consistent L8 finishes at A-grades, World Cups, European Championships, etc?

16-20 is to expect to win World champs and Olympics on the assumption we would not be able to mobilise significant state or private resources to accelerate it. No-one can guarantee results - obviously, but consistent L8's from several or many fencers should be being seen at 12 years, 8 at a stretch. There is also no reason why we should not aim or hope to get good results at any point much like we have seen for MFT in 2012, RK in 2004 and FM in 1992 (insert others here).

More aggressive time targets may attract more sponsors and possibly more media interest but are more likely to fail, much in the same way that builders who deliberately quote low get lots of work and rarely complete any of it to the required standard.

[Klavalala]

16-20 is to expect to win World champs and Olympics on the assumption we would not be able to mobilise significant state or private resources to accelerate it. No-one can guarantee results - obviously, but consistent L8's from several or many fencers should be being seen at 12 years, 8 at a stretch. There is also no reason why we should not aim or hope to get good results at any point much like we have seen for MFT in 2012, RK in 2004 and FM in 1992 (insert others here).

More aggressive time targets may attract more sponsors and possibly more media interest but are more likely to fail, much in the same way that builders who deliberately quote low get lots of work and rarely complete any of it to the required standard.

Cool. Thanks, Spider5.

Following that line of inquiry, how long has the current Board of BF been in place and how long have they had to implement their long term development plan? I've been out of active fencing in the UK for about 3-4 years, but I don't think most of them were involved when I was active.

[escolubtessen]

He wasn't much lower ranked, they aren't far off each other in the world rankings.

Sure, but it is a fact that he was the higher seed and in foil, close seeds would generally be expected to produce closer results. The loss was quite heavy. Don't get me wrong, RK is the best British fencer we have seen for a while but that is why more is expected of him. I'm quite happy for it to be described as a bad day at the office for closely seeded fencers. What is annoying is to see less heavy losses by British fencers against higher seeds being used to justify a negative opinion on the current BF regime, question fencers talent and pillory coaches. Either criticise all the poor/disappointing/below par performances or none of them.

[ssupermegatone]

Cool. Thanks, Spider5.

Following that line of inquiry, how long has the current Board of BF been in place and how long have they had to implement their long term development plan? I've been out of active fencing in the UK for about 3-4 years, but I don't think most of them were involved when I was active.

Um, don't know off hand. Someone else with more knowledge will enlighten you I hope.

[bertanu]

Cool. Thanks, Spider5.

Following that line of inquiry, how long has the current Board of BF been in place and how long have they had to implement their long term development plan? I've been out of active fencing in the UK for about 3-4 years, but I don't think most of them were involved when I was active.

The BF board is not normally replaced en masse, so its not a straightforward question to answer.

There are normally two board members retiring by rotation each year. Some get re-elected, some retire, some stand for re-election but lose.

It is complicated by mid-term resignations (for instance DSSabre resigned to take up a post with US Fencing).

Further complications are added by the fact that the funding position changes (for both better and for worse) periodically, resulting in plans being scaled up or down in proportion.

[Petwrenny]

The BF board is not normally replaced en masse, so its not a straightforward question to answer.

There are normally two board members retiring by rotation each year. Some get re-elected, some retire, some stand for re-election but lose.

It is complicated by mid-term resignations (for instance DSSabre resigned to take up a post with US Fencing).

Further complications are added by the fact that the funding position changes (for both better and for worse) periodically, resulting in plans being scaled up or down in proportion.

Thanks, Baldric (and again, spider5).

Since the board is rotational, is there a long-term, overarching development master plan along the 16-20 year one discussed (a blueprint, perhaps) in place that can be followed by the various incarnations of the BF board in order to provide continuity to the development of fencers/coaches/referees, etc.?

[juliannamed]

Thanks, Baldric (and again, spider5).

Since the board is rotational, is there a long-term, overarching development master plan along the 16-20 year one discussed (a blueprint, perhaps) in place that can be followed by the various incarnations of the BF board in order to provide continuity to the development of fencers/coaches/referees, etc.?

Not to my knowledge. Although I have to say that I don't know of any business which sustains planning over that timescale. Vision, yes, but not planning, and certainly nothing as detailed as a blueprint.