-
Title
-
XVI. Directing - Control of Fencing (1)
-
Date
-
June 22, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
10
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
6
-
content
-
en
XVI. DIRECTING - Control of Fencing (1)
I hope that my last article has cleared up the question of the "quick" halt—that is, that the director should call halt when the orderly sequence of play has come to an end. I have outlined for you the difficulties to be encountered by the director when he has to officiate at a bout between top-notchers. In essence—and I speak now chiefly of the foil—the director must strive to "fence" with the contestants, and to gauge his "halt" accordingly.
Now it must be obvious that, with slower fencers, the problem of the director in waiting for the completion of a planned composite attack, or attack of second intention, is much simpler. By careful watching, such instances can be detected with far greater ease than with first-class fencers, and the "dubs" need not suffer any injustice whatsoever.
In summary, therefore, the "quick" halt is NOT an easier form of directing; good directing is never easy. All that happens is that the emphasis is shifted: the efforts of the director need not be bent upon the reconstruction of long and complicated phrases, in many cases so thoroughly mixed up that neither fencer has an idea of what has actually occurred. Instead, the director's whole attention is concentrated upon doing a perfect job of keeping the bout moving at a rapid pace, within the "planned" actions which characterize the best in fencing—the battle of wits and physical power between the fencers—rather than haphazard and sloppy "accidents."
Still, it is true that as Dr. Zettleman implies, such conduct of a bout entails a measure of "control" of the fencing by the Director, and thus raises the question as to whether the Director should in any way attempt to control the bout, or simply let the fencers go on until a touch has been scored or a corps à corps has resulted.
In this particular case (the "quick" halt), my answer is that the Director should use it, with the limitations that I have already discussed, for one simple reason: That it is the international practice in the foil.
This is not to say that this or any other international practice is necessarily "right." But I think that the whole trend in modern fencing is toward international uniformity in the conditions of competition, and that the conventions of the game which have survived in international competition have generally proved themselves to be beneficial to the sport.
I am therefore going to depart to some extent from the purely analytical treatment of the director's job to give you a historical account of changes in the rules which illustrate this point.
As a general principle, the chief danger in "control" of a bout by the Director is that his own personal prejudices as to what constitutes good form in fencing may operate to the disadvantage of either or both contestants. Therefore, and it would seem that in the words of Dr. Zettleman "we must suit the Director to the fencing and not the fencing to the Director."
The original international rules were devised for this purpose. The problem was a difficult one: Because of national isolation and rivalries, each nation developed its own "school" of fencing, and the two leaders, France and Italy, were figuratively as well as literally at swords' points over the merits of their respective schools. What a Frenchman would regard as correct fencing, the Italian would flout as impractical refinements of the salle d'armes, useless in practical combat. What Italians regarded as vigorous execution, the French would call barbaric roughness and lack of finesse.
At first, bouts used to be fenced somewhat similarly to the boxing bouts: There was a specific limit of time during which the fencers fought as they wished. There was a jury to score the bout, partly on the basis of efficiency, or touches scored, and in some cases on the basis of fencing "form." The decision was given after the bout was over, much in the same manner as a decision is rendered after a boxing bout. And the result would be quite unpredictable; each judge gave an opinion based on the prejudices of the school in which he happened to have been brought up. To a certain extent, this fault still prevails even under our modern rules.
The international rules were designed to place all schools of fencing thought upon an even footing, and subsequent amendments have been made to maintain this fundamental equality. Thus came about the system of scoring on the basis of touches alone; the elimination of the upper arm as valid target in the foil; the limits of the target in foil and sabre; the conventions of the right of way; and the general rule that fencers may fence as they please within the broad limitations of the rules.
Now, the effect of common rules for international contests has been definitely to influence the rival schools of fencing. Each of the leading schools has borrowed extensively from the other, and as a result, it is a rare sight today to see an international fencer patterning his game exclusively to the old French or Italian school. The two leading foil national schools still place varying degrees of emphasis upon physical power and finesse, but an interested spectator who was unable to see the insigniae and the weapons of the competitors would have difficulty in distinguishing between Frenchman and Italian in an international contest today. No better proof is needed to show that the international rules and practice effectively control the type of fencing which is to be used when these rules are applied. And, because of the tremendous interest which prevails in international competitions, the whole fencing world has modified its methods of training and of running local competitions so as to conform with the international standards.
Let me give you a brief sketch of the development of fencing rules in the United States. About the time of the organization of the Amateur Fencers League of America (1891), the prevailing method of scoring was the old one that I have already outlined. Many are the old-time fencers who have told me that under the "jury" system of judging bouts after a set limit of time, the personal preferences of the judges would prevail, regardless of the number of hits scored by the competitors. The same complaint is still heard today, and may still be often justified; but the opportunities for favoritism by the officials have been considerably curtailed by the new rules.
Somewhere between 1891 and 1894, the Amateur Fencers League of America adopted the touch system of scoring for its contests. There was a howl of protest from the conservatives—which in those days were largely in the colleges. Thus, the Racquet and Tennis Club presented to the newly formed Intercollegiate Fencing League, the now famous "Little Iron Man"—the bronze statuette which to this day has remained emblematic of the college foil team championship. This trophy was to be fought for on the basis of the old system of scoring. No one knows definitely when the Association finally gave up the old system, but it probably was around 1914, subsequent to the establishment of the Fédération Internationale d’Escrime, in 1913, which is today the controlling international fencing body.
At any rate, the influence of the old system of scoring persisted as late as 1928, in the Clemens Medal competition for novices. That year was the final time that the "long and short" touch system of scoring was used. If a competitor scored a hit with "good form" (as then conceived by the officials)—that is, if he scored on a conventional attack with the arm well extended, or if he parried and riposted to the satisfaction of the judges—he was given two points for his "long" touch. If he scored with an unconventional movement (including many perfectly regular attacks according to the international rules), or on a jab, or a remise, he was given only ½ point for the "short" touch.
The prevailing thought behind this curious system was that "good" fencing should be rewarded, and unconventional fencing should be penalized. As a matter of actual practice, the system emphasized the virtues favored by the French school, which at the time dominated American fencing to an even greater extent than it does now. Today, of course, the universal rule is that a touch is good for one point, no matter how it is scored; but the idea that something should be done to encourage better fencing form, particularly among the younger fencers, still lives and has enough validity in it for all of us to give careful thought to its inherent power for good and evil in the game.
Take, for instance, the subject of the stop-thrust in foil and sabre. Academicians in fencing, of a certain type, objected strenuously to the use of the stop-thrust. They defended their position on the ground that beginners too often blindly stuck out their arms in foil, or cut to the arm of the opponent in sabre, and never learned to parry. Consequently, for a long time there was a rule in the Intercollegiate Association, that a stop-thrust or cut was invalid in sabre, if the attack landed at any time (even if it was a few minutes late). The rule was expected to force fencers to parry—which is one of the difficult accomplishments in sabre. Actually, what happened was that the attack became wilder and wilder, once the threat of the stop-cut or thrust was removed, and more damage was done to the sabre game by the cure than by the disease. The rule was later modified to require that the stop-thrust or cut be "appreciably" ahead of the attack, and finally in the last five years the international and A.F.L.A. rule has been adopted. It is now quite apparent that without the threat of the stop-thrust, the attack degenerates; with the threat, the attack is better executed, and with better attacks, the defenders are compelled to learn to parry.
Until this year, except for a brief interlude in 1933, the Intercollegiate Fencing Association rules limited the foil target to the waistline, instead of the groin line prescribed by the international and A.F.L.A. rule books. Again the idea was that by compelling the competitors to work on a smaller target, the game of young fencers in the colleges could be "tightened up" and better developed by their teachers so that they would have a better foundation for their later fencing careers. The opposing argument, that the short target improved the attack but failed to develop the defense, to include the low-line parries, was long in the minority and the transition to the international target last winter was carried by a bare majority. The waistline target still prevails in schoolboy contests around New York, and would probably still prevail in our colleges except for the realization that our outstanding college stars are rapidly moving into the field of international competition.
By reason of its close affiliation with the F.I.E., the A.F.L.A. during the past ten or 15 years has been specially careful to adapt its own rules to the international standard as soon as possible. There still is a large group of American fencers which believes that we should not let any "foreigners" dictate to us our fencing rules, and there are still some minor differences between the American and international rules.
But, on the whole, the dominating idea in modern American fencing is the same which has won out in every other country in the world—that the best interests of the game are served by uniform rules. There is still room for widespread experimentation, and much is being carried on in various countries now—as for instance, the matter of the markings on the fencing strip with a view to eliminating "warnings" to the retreating fencer; the use of electrical apparatus in foil and sabre; and the requirement of a two-touch advantage for victory in foil and sabre. But these variations are frankly experimental. If the advantages warrant, the F.I.E. modifies its rules accordingly. This is the sound way to progress, in a spirit of international cooperation rather than insular jingoism.
In conclusion, therefore, it seems to me that our basic rules should conform to the international standard. Likewise, the way in which rules are interpreted and applied in practice should follow the international practice. The best test of the relative strength of fencing in various countries is provided in the international tournaments, and our fencers should be prepared to fence in the manner and under the conditions which will carry them to success. The director as well as the governing bodies of fencing should keep this fact in mind.
M. A. de C.
