X. Directing : Validity of Hits - "Time" (2)
Item
-
Title
-
X. Directing : Validity of Hits - "Time" (2)
-
Date
-
December 19, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
20
-
page start
-
3
-
page end
-
3
-
content
-
en
X. DIRECTING
Validity of Hits - “Time” (2)
In my previous article, I mentioned that the present rule on sufficient “time” in epee (as little as 1/20th of a second) is open to theoretical question. The argument against it is that the epee (or duelling sword) should reproduce the conditions of the duel.
In this theory, if A and B thrust toward each other, A’s hit must effectively stop B’s hit (assuming sharp weapons) in order for A’s alone to count. Otherwise, B’s hit would also land, both men would be wounded, and the result would be a “double touch” (a hit against each fencer).
On this analogy, 1/60th or even 1/10th of a second would in most cases be insufficient time advantage for A. Suppose B moves first, and attempts to “stop” him; A’s touch B on the hand, wrist, arm, etc., sufficiently ahead in time to force B to stop, or drop the weapon, otherwise fail to touch A. If A moves first, he has to guard himself against a nearly simultaneous movement by B. Therefore, if the duel were fenced according to the present style, double touches would result much more frequently than the machine registers.
Along with this argument comes the whole question as to whether the rules of epee fencing should reproduce the duel. Much of the criticism of certain epee styles arises out of the opinion (well-founded, I think) that it would be too dangerous to fight a duel in that manner, and the chief danger would be the frequency of double wounds.
There is much to be said for the “duel” theory of epee fencing, but this is an old argument, and the trend is entirely against it. The practical value of duelling skill has vanished in most countries. Fencing with the epee is seldom done as training for the duel. In the great majority of cases, epee fencing, like foil and sabre fencing, is simply sport.
The contestants always know that there is no actual physical danger of a fatal wound, and no amount of serious pretense makes them believe they are fighting a duel. Even a touch by a perfectly sufficient “duelling thrust” does not always stop the hit. The fencers fling themselves at each other with careless abandon, which would be deadly in a duel. Frankly, I would personally prefer a little more of the restraint and care of a duel. But this view is old fashioned. The modern epee game approaches the foil, except for the larger target and the lack of the conventions of the lighter weapon. It is said that these differences are quite sufficient to distinguish the two thrusting weapons.
Regardless of theoretical arguments, however, as a director you must take the rules as you find them, and all the rules are against the “duel” theory. For one thing, in a duel there are various degrees of vulnerability; certain touches would be amazingly effective to stop your opponent, while others would not. In epee fencing, all touches score alike; a hit which might have scratched the toe is as good as a thrust which might have pierced the heart. Besides, disarmament—an art by itself in the old duel—now is without meaning. Further, you fence for three hits. And as I said before, a fraction of a second is all the time advantage you need to nullify your opponent’s hit.
—
Foil and Sabre
As yet, the F.I.E. and the A.F.L.A. have not adopted electrical machines for the foil and sabre. But such machines have been constructed and tested in Europe with apparent success. By way of contrast with the epee machine, I may say that the timing devices run as slowly as 1/2 a second.
But the rules on sufficient “time” in foil and sabre are basically different from those in epee, and there is a good reason for a longer objective “time” in the machine. The question is intimately connected with the conventions of the game—what we in this country call “the right of way.”
Let us assume first that both hits arrive simultaneously to the split second. You will remember that in epee this would score as a “double touch.” IN FOIL AND SABRE THIS IS NEVER THE RESULT. Either A or B may get the touch, or neither may score, but never can both “A” and “B” be declared touched.
This decision hinges upon which fencer is “right” according to the conventions. If A is right, he gets the touch; if B is right, he gets the touch. If both are right, OR IF BOTH ARE WRONG (and this may easily happen), the director calls a double touch which is not scored at all.
The first rule for the director in foil and sabre, therefore, is to call “double touch” only when both fencers are right or both fencers are wrong. If one fencer is “right,” there is no double touch. From this we deduce our first principle on decisions of “time” in foil and sabre. The fencer who has the “right of way” does not need any time advantage; whenever the touches are simultaneous, he gets the touch and his opponent does not.
On the other hand, the fencer who is “wrong” according to fencing conventions must overcome the advantage of his opponent’s correctness by what is considered to be a technically sufficient time difference.
The Hungarian foil and sabre machine has set 1/2 a second as an objective standard to judge such “time.” Without the machine I think a flexible standard is theoretically sounder. Full discussion of this must be postponed until we analyze the theory of the “right of way.”
I shall take up more common situations in my next article. In the meantime refresh your memory as to the standard rules of “right of way” as printed in the RIPOSTE (No. 14), as well as the terms used.
