-
Title
-
XI. Directing : The Theory of Right of Way (1)
-
Date
-
January 4, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
1
-
page start
-
7
-
page end
-
8
-
content
-
en
XI. DIRECTING
The Theory of Right of Way (1)
Foil and sabre are conventionalized weapons—that is, there are standards of correctness which govern the award of touches. These are important in the case of simultaneous hits, because the fencer who is "right" has the advantage.
In its simplest terms (though not always), the correct phrase d'armes begins with the attack, which has the right of way; if this is parried, the riposte is in order; after the riposte is parried, the counter-riposte has the right of way—and so on. In brief, the conventions contemplate an orderly sequence of actions, with the right of way alternately passing to each fencer after his parry.
These conventions have a fundamentally sound basis, which becomes apparent if we imagine a fight with sharp weapons. Suppose that "A" threatens "B" with the point, so that "B" is imminently in danger of being wounded. If "B" is a normally careful individual, his first reaction is to ward off the thrust. Only a fool will throw himself against a menacing point.
This argument is amply demonstrated in the heat of discussion between two of our best-known professionals some years ago. X made a sudden thrusting motion with his fingers, directed at Y's eyes; and Y immediately brought up his right arm to parry or block the threat. It was an instinctive and sound reaction to an unexpected situation; and it proved X's contention that the parry is the natural and elementary answer to the attack.
Let us therefore first explain the concept of the "attack," with "A" in the role of the attacker and "B" as the defender. If we keep in mind the foregoing discussion, it must be apparent that a correctly executed attack must result in a threat. Therefore, the attack with the foil begins with "a movement of the weapon," so that the point threatens "B’s" valid target.
The point is the only threatening part of the foil; and since touches count only on the valid target, the threat must be directed against that target in all cases. "B" is then required by the conventions to parry or beat the threat out of the way before starting an offensive of his own. If there is no threat, no parry is required.
The most elementary situation, from your point of view as a director, is therefore the following: "A" attacks correctly, with a simple movement (either a direct thrust or a disengage). "B" is surprised, and instead of parrying he simply sticks out his arm. Both touches land. "B" is wrong according to the convention, because it is his fault that simultaneous hits have resulted. Therefore, you award the touch to "A."
You have to establish first, however, that "A" attacked correctly—in other words, that he made the first threatening movement in the instant of time immediately preceding simultaneous hits. And your best guide is to remember that the threat is to be made (in foil) with the point of the weapon, directed toward "B’s" valid target.
Sometimes, of course, an inexperienced fencer genuinely believes that he is making an attack where in fact none exists. For instance, he will move forward, or lunge with his arm bent in the guard position of the French school (elbow close to the body, and the point well up, threatening at best the opponent’s forearm, which is not valid target). Such a movement, no matter how tempestuous, is not an attack because there is no threat.
It follows that the mere movement of the legs, independently of the threat by the weapon, is not an attack. This is true of the direct lunge, or the advance (patinando) or jump (balestro) combined with the lunge. Such leg movements only serve to bring the body of the fencer within the desired distance. Frequently, they are part of an attack if properly coordinated with the threatening weapon.
But if "A" comes within distance without threatening "B" with the point of his foil, the movement is not an attack, but an "invitation." He is “daring” "B" to come out and hit "A." If "B" takes the dare, he initiates the attack, he has the right of way, and "A" must parry. If simultaneous hits result under such circumstances, "A" is wrong for failing to parry, and the touch must be awarded to "B."
Your first real advance as a director will be made when you are clearly able to distinguish between an attack and an invitation. Mastery of this idea will help you over another difficult hurdle: the convention of the right of way provides that if "B" (the defender) has his point in line (arm extended and point threatening "A’s" valid target), "A" is required to beat or press "B’s" blade out of the way before starting his attack.
This requirement is strictly logical. If "B," while on guard or otherwise immobile, is really threatening "A," "A" would be foolish to run himself against "B’s" point. Before "A" goes forward, he must ward off the threat—on exactly the same reasoning that requires "B" to parry "A’s" attack under the circumstances first discussed.
In foil, therefore, the right of way belongs to the fencer who threatens his opponent by placing the point of his weapon "in line" with the opponent’s valid target. And this is true independently of any leg or body movement by any fencer. It is thoroughly possible for "B" to threaten "A" even though "B’s" legs are in the "en garde" position. Actually, the full or rigid extension of the arm is unnecessary. The threat of the point—sufficiently close to being a touch to require the parry—is enough. Thus, in the customary guard position of the Italian school, with the elbow fairly well out and the point "in line" with "A’s" chest, "B" is threatening "A." Were "A" to lunge at "B" while "B" remained immobile, both men would be hit. Therefore the simultaneous hits result from the fault of "A," and the touch should be awarded to "B."
Consequently, you will find that most fencers of the Italian school are taught to start the attack always with a beat or pressure in order to accustom them to remove the existing threat before initiating their own attack.
In the French school, the foil play differs. "B" would keep his elbow close to the body and the point high while on the guard position. If "A" attacks by a direct thrust or disengage, he can do so with impunity because "B" cannot score a good hit without making a definite movement out of the guard position.
These differences in style between the basic methods of the French and Italian schools arose out of the construction of the weapons, but unfortunately, in the modern game, you cannot simply look at the weapons and decide whether a beat is required before "A" attacks. The two schools today have borrowed extensively from each other; French foils are held with the point in line, Italian foils are kept close to the body to such an extent that there is little difference in style and technique among the top-notch foilsmen of the leading countries of the world.
Rather you must look at each specific situation, and find out who initiates the threat. If "B’s" point is in line, "A" must "beat" or take the blade; not otherwise. Just one more point. Suppose both "A" and "B" are in line in the instant immediately preceding "A’s" motion of the body which closes the distance and results in simultaneous hits. The situation may arise often if two inexperienced fencers following the Italian school in the "guard" position are pitted against each other. Who gets the touch?
Obviously the simultaneous hits result from "A’s" act. He is at fault because it was his forward motion, without a beat, which caused both touches to land (while "B" did nothing). Therefore, as director, you must award the touch to "B".
M. A. de C.
