-
Title
-
XIX. Directing - The Sabre
-
Date
-
November 12, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
15
-
page start
-
7
-
page end
-
8
-
content
-
en
XIX. DIRECTING - THE SABRE
A number of readers of The Riposte who have been interested in the series of judging and directing articles which have appeared here in the past, have asked me to complete the series by treating in detail the problem of judging and directing sabre bouts. The sabre men, particularly, are of the opinion that it is more difficult to get even passably satisfactory officials in sabre than is the case with the foil and epee. I am inclined to believe that this is a fair statement of the facts, and that we ought to try to determine the reasons for this situation.
The foil has the most limited target of all; touches are scored only with the point. These two facts tend to simplify the problem of judging. Add to this a third fact: that there are more people in this country who have at one time or another fenced foil—and you have part of the answer as to why it is relatively easier to get a jury of reasonable competence in the foil bouts. As a more familiar weapon, we can find more people who can follow the blade and the general play of the fencers. There are still many difficulties in getting directors who will follow the play of top-notch fencers, so that they can accurately decide a touch on the basis of the right of way. But on the whole, the foilsmen have a fair chance of getting an adequate jury.
The epee is a much harder weapon to judge, because of the large size of the target. Were epee fencing judged without any mechanical assistance, it would require the highest degree of judging ability. But as a matter of fact, the electrical weapon has almost eliminated the human factor in judging epee bouts; and where the machine is not used we help the judges by the use of coloring matter, so that many doubtful questions of fact may be resolved correctly. After a little practice, so that the judge may become accustomed to the larger field of valid activity, it is possible for most foil judges to become good epee judges. In fact, the organization of fencing competitions which embrace the three weapons, bout committees generally are willing to place their worst judges on the epee strips, figuring that the aid of “ink” will overcome the deficiencies of the judges. Of course, the getting of a good epee director is an entirely different matter, because he must have a good sense of time.
But pity the poor sabreman! His weapon is quite different from the foil and epee. It has two cutting surfaces, and it operates on a large target. Consequently, the judges' eyes have to become accustomed to following the unfamiliar cutting actions, coming from various angles and directions. How many times it happens that there is a good resounding “whack!” and neither the judges nor the director have any idea as to where the touch was made!
The sabre has three peculiar rules for judging hits, and even experienced sabre men are often unable to apply them properly. How much more difficult then it is for people who do not fence sabre to apply these rules, even assuming that they knew the rules to be in existence. I refer particularly to these three:
(1) The rule that a point thrust, which grazes the target, does not count, not even as a cutting or counter-cutting action. It is simply a pass.
Consider what this rule requires of the judge: He must determine whether a point thrust or a cut was intended. Unless he is familiar with the technique of sabre fencing, the decision is often a difficult one. And the difficulty here is often increased by the fact that the fencers themselves, unless they have learned to make their sabre movements in a clear-cut and well-defined manner, frequently keep their intentions a secret from the judges. A good director may help the judge out in this connection, but a great deal of help might be forthcoming from the fencers themselves.
Then, too, it is possible for the point to pass, and yet for a valid cut to be scored on the way back (as a remise). Unless the sabre judge is on the lookout for such a possibility, keeping his eye on the blade all the time, he may mentally relax when the point has gone by the target and fail to see the remise.
(2) The rule which provides that “whip-overs” after the parry are not counted at all, but that cuts which touch the parrying blade simultaneously with the valid target are good.
Again, then, the judge must determine in a split-second of time, whether one of three possibilities has taken place: (a) That the cut arrived first on valid target, and then on the parrying guard or blade, as for example, when the parry is either late or insufficient; (b) That the cut arrived simultaneously on the guard or parrying blade and upon the valid target; or (c) That the cut was parried first, but because of the force of the blow and the flexibility of the blade, it “whipped over” to touch the valid target. In the first two cases, the touch is valid. In the third, it does not count at all, not even as a foul or invalidation.
The chief weakness in this connection of judges who are not thoroughly familiar (as fencers) with the sabre game, is in the judging of head-cuts. A great majority of the sabre fencers are weak in the head parry, and many a head-cut which a judge calls parried lands on the blade and the mask simultaneously. Some judges, aware of this possibility, go to the other extreme, and call every head-cut good even though it may have been cleanly parried.
Another angle of the sabre problem is this: The whip-overs after the parry frequently touch the target with the flat of the blade—they truly whip over. The result is a resounding smack—much louder than most of the valid hits scored with the cutting edges of the blade. Many judges—and the great majority of the spectators—gaze in wonder at the director who rules out such a hit. I have seen many sabre bouts where the audience openly criticized judges for not calling arm touches which clearly could be heard all over the room—but which actually had been whip-overs, hitting the guard of the sabre and then touching the arm. Partly the solution here is to acquaint the audience with this particular rule so that comments from the spectators will not adversely affect the judgment of the official.
(3) The third rule, which ties up closely with the other two, is the one which provides that touches with the flat of the blade are not good. Here the fault of most inexperienced judges tends to operate in the opposite direction of the previous rule: Many perfectly good hits are declared flat.
As a matter of fact, the number of flat touches in sabre is relatively very small. The judge should not make the mistake of seeing the contact of the flat of the blade—which is immaterial to the result—and fail to see the contact of the cutting edge, which is most important.
The only cases, as a rule, where touches may be declared flat, are cases where the sabre blade is used as a whip, and those where the blade is pushed onto the target after a perfectly good parry. The whipping hits with the flat of the blade are often used effectively to deceive the judges in touches directed to the forearm. The other situation is a common one: after a head-cut has been parried, if the attacker instead of going to parry the riposte, simply allows his blade to drop or “fall through” after the parry. In these cases, the weapon is often said to have been “laid on” the target without a valid cut or point being scored.
So, from the point of view of the sabre fencer, the weaknesses of the judges in the sabre game may be chiefly ascribed to lack of familiarity with the weapon. But it is also true, in defense of the judges, that most fencers in sabre do not help their judges any. Their actions are sloppy to the extent that even an experienced sabreman and official finds it difficult to follow the play. Ergo, there is a lot of room for mutual assistance and forgiveness as between fencer and official, particularly in the sabre game.
M. A. de C.
