-
Title
-
XII. Directing : The Theory of the Right of Way (2)
-
Date
-
January 21, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
2
-
page start
-
7
-
page end
-
8
-
content
-
en
XII. DIRECTING
The theory of the right of way (2)
Now that I have warned you about simple attacks, invitations, and "point in line," I am going to take you through more complicated situations. You will have gathered by this time that it is always much easier to direct a bout between well-trained fencers than one between unorthodox beginners. A good fencing master educates the hand of his pupil so that he will recognize almost instinctively the most common elements of the right of way. Therefore, your job is simplified, and you have to make fewer difficult decisions.
But, regardless of the technical training of the fencers, you have to render impartial judgment upon the rules, and you will have to direct many bouts in which the fencers will make your job very difficult by bad execution of good intentions.
Let us start, therefore, with some simple points of theory on the subject of compound attacks, which involve more than one movement. Thus, a "one-two" involves a feint (#1), and a disengage (#2) which evades the simple opposition parry. A "double" is a "feint" (1) and a "deceive" (2) which evades the circular or counterparry. The more complicated attacks, in three or more movements (omitting for the present the ones involving the "coupe") are combinations of the above.
Fundamentally, therefore, a composite attack usually begins with a "feint." A good feint must so effectively threaten the opponent that he will react to the desired parry. Its success depends upon how well it is executed, and how wary and experienced is the opponent.
Tactically, the purpose of the feint is to open a desired line for the final thrust of the attack, because when the opponent parries in one line he is usually open in another. Therefore, the feint against an experienced fencer must look exactly like a direct attack and constitute a real and imminent threat, which compels the parry.
Of course, the attacker "A" can sway his body, stamp his feet, or even say "BOO!" and by virtue of such tactics may cause "B" to react in the desired manner. But "A" succeeds only when "B" is comparatively naïve. There is no real threat, and if "B" is an experienced swordsman he won’t even flicker an eyelash.
Normally, therefore, the "feint" puts the point in line; and subsequent motions of the compound attack must flow continuously to the final thrust in order to retain the right of way. Note that the emphasis is upon a continuous threat to the opponent; if the threat is removed at any time, the right of way is lost.
I have seen inexperienced fencers start with a perfect feint, then pull back the arm or wave the sword up in the air before delivering the final thrust. They are under the impression that the first extension establishes the right of way in their favor for all time to come... or at least until they decide to stop moving. When they get touched in the process, they look at the director with disapproving eyes for his failure to realize the purpose they had in mind.
Of course, the moment the arm is pulled back, the threat of the point is withdrawn, and "B" is no longer compelled to parry "A’s" non-existent threat.
If "B" touches "A" while "A’s" weapon is out of threatening position, "B" is right and is entitled to the touch. If "A" is lucky enough to land simultaneously with "B," the best that "A" can get is a double touch. You must analyze the situation into either an "invitation" by "A" accepted by "B" and award the touch to "B"; or else a simultaneous conception of attack by "A" and "B" which results in a double touch because there is no clear right of way for either contestant.
If you are in doubt as to the exact situation, the rules require that you declare a double touch.
It follows from the preceding discussion, that the continuous flow of a composite attack is best obtained if the point skips the parrying blade by close movements around "B’s" guard until the final thrust is delivered. In this manner, a constant threat is maintained and the right of way is retained throughout, so that it is difficult for "B" to score on a stop-thrust without hitting himself. Unless the stop-thrust is made in opposition (a time-thrust), the simultaneous hits that result must be resolved in favor of the attack.
Now suppose that the composite attack involves a "coupe." If "A," instead of skipping the point around B's guard by a disengage, "one-two," "double," etc., proceeds to threaten B's exposed line by clearing the tip of B's foil with a "coupe," he momentarily removes the direct threat as he lifts the point of the weapon. Does "A" thereby lose the right of way?
In most cases, he does. Many of our fencers, even good ones, execute the coupe by bringing back the arm almost to the guard position. Clearly, if they are touched while the arm is withdrawn and the point is high, the touch should be awarded against them.
But among good fencers the problem seldom arises, because the coupe executed in good time does not permit "B" to make a simultaneous counter-movement which will touch while "A’s" arm is back. "A" accepts the risk involved in the withdrawal of the arm; if "B" touches him that moment, "B" is right. But once "A’s" weapon has cleared "B’s," and "A’s" point is back in line and moving forward, "B" must parry. "A" has recovered the right of way, and if the two hits land simultaneously without a parry by "B," "A" is right.
The situation is the same when "A" makes an invitation which "B" does not immediately accept. Then "A" makes an attack and "B" stop-thrusts. Obviously, the touch is awarded to "A." "B" has not taken his opportunity and "A" now has the right of way.
This brings up the question of sufficient "time" advantage in foil which overcomes the right of way. We know already that, against "A’s" simple attack in one movement and properly executed, "B’s" simple stop-thrust (without opposition) is always wrong. Likewise with the case where "A" makes a feint and then a "two" without removing the threatening point, and "B" simply extends.
However, when "A" makes a one-two-three, especially if the point is a little wide, there is plenty of opportunity for "B" to hit "A" on the first movement of the attack, while "A" does not land until the third movement. Then "B" may have sufficient "time" advantage to nullify "A’s" right of way.
The execution of composite attacks involves definite "tempos" or quantities of time. Each full movement of the fencers takes a "tempo," and if "B" touches "A" a "tempo" in advance, "B" is entitled to the touch. In other words, "B" must land on "A" before "A" has started forward on the final thrust of his attack.
Objectively measured, a full tempo will be fairly long when both fencers are slow and heavy-handed; but quite short when both fencers are fast. Between fencers of unequal speed, the faster one generally has the advantage, and controls the tempo.
Many old-fashioned fencing masters decry the frequency of the use of the stop-thrust in modern bouts. But it is quite clear, theoretically, that the stop-thrust awarded to "B" when he lands a full tempo ahead of "A," is entirely logical as a penalty against faulty attacks. If the feint fails to compel a parry, it fails in its purpose and the attacker must take the consequences. The right of way is an important advantage; it is only fair to require that the attacker earn it.
M. A. de C.
