Aldo Nadi Says
Item
-
Title
-
Aldo Nadi Says
-
Date
-
November 27, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
16
-
page start
-
2
-
page end
-
3
-
content
-
en
ALDO NADI SAYS
An enthusiastic praise to the A.F.L.A. for the explanation-leaflet on the understanding of competitive for the layman spectator.
—
Not less than 20 new girl-fencers took part in the prep competition at the Fencers Club. An unprecedented number of entries… we all should be very happy about it. The victory, to Miss THEILING, who deserved it fully. After the winner, we give our preference to Miss LANCASTER. I have never seen women judging before. I can only praise the four I saw at work on November 18th…
—
We hear that in a recent competition organized in Princeton the judging was absolutely fantastic. As is often done even in the City, competitors were judging when not fighting. This highly surprised the writer when he first saw such a break of the international rules: the custom adopted here should be barred once and for all. Nothing of the kind exists in Europe. Novices should be treated just as seriously as the Seniors. To disgust a novice it may mean to disgust forever an adept who might become a great champion. And why, may I ask, is this the only country in the world where professionals do not judge? Don’t they know—at least—as much as the best amateur judge in the country? And don’t they know more,—oh! yes, far more—than the average judge we have seen around during last week’s competitions? In every country professionals are always called to judge, except in the Olympics. Here they don’t. Why? Give them a chance. A professional who would prove unable or incapable of such a job should be, of course, barred forever.
—
The red on the epee points should be put there by one of the judges. It was not so during the "JOHN ALLAIRE," which was a great success. The formula of the competition was certainly attractive but we do not think the system of scoring is fair, when, for instance, a bout has given a result of 3-2 because of time-limit. Considering that the number of touches is what counts in the end, why should such a score be brought automatically to 5-4?
Why not count, instead, the hits received? That would mean indeed a superiority of the team winner (at least for that very competition). And no additional point for the winner of the bout, if we are to count the touches only, independently from the results of the bouts.
—
Since childhood we all have been told of the excellency of English manners. Personally, I was never too crazy about them… they leave me cold as many of the people who use them are… I like some flame in the spirit as well as in the brain! But the other night I definitely thought that English manners are not—after all—so—o perfect!
—
Many fencers should be praised for the splendid fights they put up in the John ALLAIRE trophy. The last round was most interesting and the very best fencers of the country were involved for a team supremacy, in the three weapons, which proved to be very thin indeed,… so much the better if nobody can outclass anybody. The competitive spirit will gain and American fencing shall improve. The fights, in that last round, were all good; but the sabre fighting was worthy of an Olympic final.
—
We were impressed by the improvement of MIKE DE CAPRILES even if he was beaten, by a narrow margin, by HUFFMAN and ARMITAGE. No fencer in the field gave us the impression of such poise. May I add—though—that too much of it may prove dangerous? To give the impression of great poise is excellent, but, inside the fencer there must always be, and always ready, the most violent fighting spirit. MIKE DE CAPRILES whose technique has been improving steadily, should never allow his poise to become nonchalance.
—
The best men were the same: ARMITAGE, that lion tamer, was unbeaten; he was excellent particularly against HUFFMAN. DOW had no defeats either. A remarkable result indeed. DOW, we are not particularly fond of your fencing. But you score, and we take off our hats to results. You were perhaps a little less excited (outside) than usually. Why don’t you try harder and harder to keep your energy for yourself instead of wasting it in perfectly useless discussions and recriminations? Also, I beg you to believe me: when you do protest—a bit too often—you are nearly always wrong. If you will protest less, you will touch even more, and better—take it from me.
JAECKEL had seven victories out of eight, being beaten by LEO NUNES (nearly as good as 20 years ago!) only, after a very brilliant epee bout. EVERY was in great form and showed that the foil only when treated like that, is the foundation of the art and science of arms. HUFFMAN had a couple of moments of weakness which cost him two defeats. He is always a beautiful fencer: but should be a little more of a fighter. ALESSANDRONI lighter in his feet than in his last competition, was also beaten twice. GORLIN caught our attention. Our prizes for sportsmanship: JAECKEL, ALESSANDRONI, NUNES, HUFFMAN, JOSE and MIKE DE CAPRILES close the list of our favorites.
The last, fast, and most important bouts were judged VERY well by the charming President of the A.F.L.A., Mr. HAROLD VAN BUSKIRK. This country needs very badly a couple of dozen judges like him at least.
ALDO NADI
