3 ms·

What looks stupid and cool is purely subjective. Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. > If someone wants to spend their time s

What looks stupid and cool is purely subjective. Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. > If someone wants to spend their time seeing how far they can throw a stick, cool, but they shouldn't be surprised they're waking up to an empty bank account every day. But if someone wants to see how well they can kick a ball its somehow worth paying them? The biggest factor here is that team sports are brandable and build brand loyalty in a way individual sports cannot.

sahila 2y ago
No, the biggest factor is that certain sports are more entertaining than others - even individual sports - and I'd pay to watch some but not others. I'd pay more to watch cyclists do the tour de france or tony hawk go on a half-pipe or Mike Tyson fight someone than someone do a long jump; it's just more fun!
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  I dunno, the atmosphere at certain track and field events can be pretty great. See the Night of 10k PB’s in London as an example of an event done right, even if it’s just watching people run 25 laps.
echoangle 2y ago
The criterium is "does it bring viewers" though, which is mostly objective. That a lot of people watch football games on TV and not a lot of people watch fencing is something that can be measured.
- shakna 2y ago
  Many sports have lost and struggled to get an audience again, before suddenly booming. Like cricket in Australia going downhill, and then Big Bash and women's leagues reigniting. What brings in viewers isn't a predictable measure of much. Like the weather forecast, you're not going to have much more than vague generalisations each season - and they can turn out very wrong.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    If you seriously think that there is even a tiny chance of fencing ever continuously bringing in even half as much viewers as football, I don't know what to tell you. The uncertainty there is not weather report level, more like "the sun will rise tomorrow".
    - aqme28 2y ago
      As a counterpoint, I bet if you had told people a thousand years ago that swordsmanship would be less interesting to people than kicking a ball, they would also think you were crazy.
      - jalapenos 2y ago
        Well if you extended it to "weaponsmanship" then that's still the case. People are fascinated by guns and bombs and other modern (or fantasy) weapons, which is why they show up copiously in movies.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        People would love to see gladiators hack each other to death in an arena, even today. But modern fencing is far from the same thing.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      Not a fencing example specifically, but in Poland skijumping effectively didn't exist until 2001. Then because of Adam Małysz, a record viewership has been established for national TV - during skijumping championships. That record has not been replaced until at least 2022 (I don't have more recent data, maybe it still stands). The largest football matches had millions fewer people watching. For more context the 10 most viewed events were: 4x skijump, pl-vs-rus football, 3x skijump, JP2 funeral, pl-vs-cze football. It could happen to fencing as well or any other random sport with enough luck.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Poland#Viewing_shares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Poland#Viewing_s... There are 6 football games with higher viewership than the 2002 Olympic ski jumping. Also, viewers per year would be a better metric, one single event with a lot of viewer probably gives you less ad revenue than an event every week with half the viewers.
ourmandave 2y ago
Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. For example, if you use your right hand, it's over to quickly.
swiftcoder 2y ago
> Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. Which, if anything, is great a case for instant replay and slo-mo. Football is often also quite hard to follow, but it brings in so much money that we've just solved that problem with technology.

sahila 2y ago

No, the biggest factor is that certain sports are more entertaining than others - even individual sports - and I'd pay to watch some but not others. I'd pay more to watch cyclists do the tour de france or tony hawk go on a half-pipe or Mike Tyson fight someone than someone do a long jump; it's just more fun!

iamacyborg 2y ago
I dunno, the atmosphere at certain track and field events can be pretty great. See the Night of 10k PB’s in London as an example of an event done right, even if it’s just watching people run 25 laps.

echoangle 2y ago

The criterium is "does it bring viewers" though, which is mostly objective. That a lot of people watch football games on TV and not a lot of people watch fencing is something that can be measured.

shakna 2y ago
Many sports have lost and struggled to get an audience again, before suddenly booming. Like cricket in Australia going downhill, and then Big Bash and women's leagues reigniting. What brings in viewers isn't a predictable measure of much. Like the weather forecast, you're not going to have much more than vague generalisations each season - and they can turn out very wrong.
- echoangle 2y ago
  If you seriously think that there is even a tiny chance of fencing ever continuously bringing in even half as much viewers as football, I don't know what to tell you. The uncertainty there is not weather report level, more like "the sun will rise tomorrow".
  - aqme28 2y ago
    As a counterpoint, I bet if you had told people a thousand years ago that swordsmanship would be less interesting to people than kicking a ball, they would also think you were crazy.
    - jalapenos 2y ago
      Well if you extended it to "weaponsmanship" then that's still the case. People are fascinated by guns and bombs and other modern (or fantasy) weapons, which is why they show up copiously in movies.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      People would love to see gladiators hack each other to death in an arena, even today. But modern fencing is far from the same thing.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Not a fencing example specifically, but in Poland skijumping effectively didn't exist until 2001. Then because of Adam Małysz, a record viewership has been established for national TV - during skijumping championships. That record has not been replaced until at least 2022 (I don't have more recent data, maybe it still stands). The largest football matches had millions fewer people watching. For more context the 10 most viewed events were: 4x skijump, pl-vs-rus football, 3x skijump, JP2 funeral, pl-vs-cze football. It could happen to fencing as well or any other random sport with enough luck.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Poland#Viewing_shares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Poland#Viewing_s... There are 6 football games with higher viewership than the 2002 Olympic ski jumping. Also, viewers per year would be a better metric, one single event with a lot of viewer probably gives you less ad revenue than an event every week with half the viewers.

ourmandave 2y ago

Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. For example, if you use your right hand, it's over to quickly.

swiftcoder 2y ago

> Fencing is hard to follow because its fast and movements are subtle. Which, if anything, is great a case for instant replay and slo-mo. Football is often also quite hard to follow, but it brings in so much money that we've just solved that problem with technology.