-
Title
-
IV. Judging Foil Touches - Part 3
-
Date
-
April 23, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
9
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
4
-
content
-
en
IV. JUDGING FOIL TOUCHES
Part III
As I promised to do in my last article, I wish to point out, from the judge's viewpoint, some of the unqualified advantages of conventionally good fencing form on the part of the contestants. These may be summarized under three general heads: (1) making it easier for the judge to decide on the materiality of hits — whether there is a touch or not; (2) winning for the contestant the award of a touch on the conventions of the "right of way," as provided in Rule III-E-5, when both fencers are touched; and (3) avoiding the penalties for improper actions, as described in Rules III-D-2, E-3, and E-4.
The second group of cases really does not present any questions for the decision of the judges, because Rule I-C-7 gives the director the exclusive right to determine the validity of the touch — that is, which of the two contestants shall win the touch in case both are hit. But I mention this point now by way of explanation of part of my last article. I said that you, as a judge, must call a touch when you see one, no matter how it is made. This still goes. But it does not follow that the touch will always be awarded by the director. If both fencers are hit simultaneously, it is probable that the correct fencer, rather than the unorthodox one, will be entitled to the touch on the principles of right of way.
Let us, then, take the first point. Good form is an asset to the competitor because it helps him make touches in such a way that you, as judge, will see them more readily and clearly. A good fencer makes his touches so that the point arrives squarely against the target — that is, practically at right angles. Therefore, you are likely to have little doubt as to whether the point is good.
On the other hand, when the tip of the weapon reaches the target at a pronounced slant, you may have serious difficulty in determining whether the point was good, or flat, or a slap, or a pass.
For example, in the women's tournaments, you will find a surprising number of hits which are difficult to judge. This is partly due to the irregular conformation of the female target, so that it is hard to touch at right angles. But this is also partly due to the fact that women fencers, because of the competitive nervous tension, tend to "throttle their blades" in attacking and riposting instead of "leading with the point" of their weapon. Of course, the same fault is often found in the men, particularly in case of touches attempted by a counter or a cut-over in the high lines. Unless the fencer correctly calculates his distance, flat touches are likely to result.
There is another advantage to good form. When a fencer correctly executes the various movements, you as a judge can readily follow the play. You will follow the direction of the blade, and you will easily see the touches because your eye will be watching the spot where the point lands.
When, however, the point comes from unexpected angles, you will find it difficult to have your eyes promptly on the proper spot. Until you become familiar with the fencer's style, your job as a judge is more arduous, and your chances of error are therefore greater.
The award of touches as penalties for improper actions is a problem which calls for the judgment of both judges and director. Rules III-E-3 and 4 are exclusively within the purview of the director. Rules III-D-2 and 4, which permit the award of a good touch even though the point has reached a foul target, are largely within the discretion of the judges. It is here that good form is of great value to the competitor.
The rules are broad. If invalid target is substituted (or interposed) for valid target so that a foul results from an action which otherwise would have ended in a fair touch, the hit is good. It does not matter, according to the letter of the law, that the movement was perfectly regular, or that the covering or removal of the fair target was unintentional.
Yet, as a matter of practice, the rule is not so enforced. The foil is highly conventionalized, and good form is the best insurance a fencer has against these penalties. When a fencer attacks from guard position without losing his balance, lunging with the trunk of the body fairly erect, I know no judge who will call a touch on the mask good, even if there is a displacement of the regular target. Likewise, when a fencer attempts an orthodox parry of quarte, and somehow he gets hit on the arm which is held in front of the valid target, you can rest assured that the touch will be called foul and not fair.
In practice, therefore, these rules work against the unorthodox fencer, as orthodoxy may be conceived by the judge. I am not saying this is good judging. I am stating a fact.
To a certain extent, the rules have had an effect on fencing style. Certain actions, like the flanconnade, are discouraged by Rule III-D-4-a, which specifically mentions hits while a crouching movement is executed. But there is a parallel situation in which the rule is not enforced — when a tall fencer, particularly if he is accustomed to the epee, suddenly stands erect as his opponent attacks. I do it often, and so does Kirk Alexander of Princeton in executing a high stop thrust. The result is that the opponent's point, instead of reaching good target, arrives on the leg. Theoretically, this should be a good hit, as we have substituted an invalid part of the target for a valid one. Yet to my knowledge, neither Kirk nor I have ever had a touch called against us under this rule.
Frankly, I do not know which is the better judging attitude toward these situations — the letter of the rule or the standard practice. But this is one of the points on which, if I get to the Olympic Games, I hope to bring expert opinion.
M. A. de C.
