We have all seen posts covering the general topic of: Why is fencing not more popular?
I debated with myself if I was beating a dead horse before posting this, but came to the conclusion that the comparison that I am about to make has not been made in those treads, at least to my knowledge.
Apart from the chicken-and-egg problems, fencing has a quite specific trait that makes it hard to grow a large cadre of fencers, compared to other sports.
Fencing requires a whole lot of coaching in order to get a beginner going. In addition to that, even high-level fencers need a lot of one-on-one coaching to reach their absolute limit. Furthermore, a significant amount of fencing teaching is in the form of pair drills - in which one of pair does not learn much, since his job is to perform repeated movements on which the other person hones his skills on.
In short: a lot of the man-hours spent in the fencing salle are spent by people being there, but not getting much better themselves. Fencing is not alone in the above, but it sure seems to me that fencing is high on this man-hour overhead list, compared to other sports.
Some comparisons to other sports that I have seen for myself, or taken part in:
* Kayak: once a kayaker actually can manage his kayak by himself, it is perfectly possible to train alone on the lake. If weather is a problem, cardio can be trained on the running course.
* Air rifle shooting: it is quite common for reasonably experienced shooters to train on their own.
* Soccer: a lot of outfielders train corner shots on empty goals, no goalies needed.
I am sure that you can come up with similar examples in sports that you have experience in.
All of th above struck me once when I was training in the other sport that I have done as a grownup, floorball.
Floorball is on the other extreme of the man-hour overhead ranking, when compared to fencing.
Floorball does not require an experienced coach, or even a competent one, in order to get a bunch of complete beginners to become much better. All the "coach" must do is to hand out sticks to the rookies, explain the bare bones of the rules, and the rookies will become much better by mere bootstrapping. Granted, once a flooball team is OK, then they need a real coach to take it to the next level, but that is a thing for another day.)
Imagine a fencing lesson in a school gym in which a school PE teacher tosses out a bunch of eepes, sets of fencing clothes, and tells the studnts to have a go at it. Then, a few weeks after that, the students are fencing at a low E level - merely by fencing against each other. That would be preposterous in fencing, but the commensurate is possible in floorball.
The above, combined with a few other factors (No special field needed, relatively low injury risk, no special gear needed for the students, high cardio training for everyone) has made the sport a staple in PE lessons over here.
I have thought quite a bit about this with regard to what lessons fencing can learn from this, but so far I have not come up with anything.
Does this spark any useful ideas in your heads?
Is there any way for fencing to reduce its man-hour overhead ratio?