-
Title
-
Aldo Nadi Says
-
Date
-
December 18, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
17
-
pages
-
2, 3, 7, 11
-
content
-
en
ALDO NADI SAYS
"AN INDIGNANT FENCER" writes to me: "I have read with a great deal of interest your articles in the last two issues of the Riposte. It is about time that an authority on Fencing spoke his mind on existing conditions in the League—more particularly the judging. It seems as if we had to wait till you came over from Italy and France before we could see in print that which expresses the thought of many fencers. It seems to me, as well as to quite a few other men and women competitors, that there has been a little too much favoritism and partiality on the part of some of the judges and directors, some of whom have friends, etc., fencing in the same competition in which they are judging—all of this resulting in the 'temporary blindness' or 'poor eyesight' of these officials. However, an overdose of any medicine always has its bad effects. Constant repetition of these situations makes us feel that they are not always accidental but often deliberate. We girls fence because we are extremely fond of the sport, we enjoy fencing, but too frequent occurrence of the situations described above is enough to make us disgusted with the sport. I am determined to continue fencing in competitions for the rest of the season regardless of existing circumstances; however, I know definitely that at least FIFTEEN YOUNG LADIES INTEND TO DROP OUT OF COMPETITION IF THE PRESENT CONDITIONS ARE NOT AMELIORATED. Our purpose in addressing this letter to you is that because of your position in fencing, we feel that you alone can bring pressure to bear upon the proper authorities to make fencing the clean sport it should be."
—
Dear "INDIGNANT FENCER": Allow me to thank you for the importance you give to my poor articles. I don't think I could do more than ask the Editor in Chief of The Riposte to publish the important paragraphs of your letter. It should open the eyes of the A.F.L.A. once and for all because I feel you are right. I thank you also for what you call "my authority and position in Fencing." But as far as my "authority" is concerned, it is but very little. I am a teacher—and, I am proud to say, a scholar—that’s all. However, I think it my duty to the supreme interest of American Fencing to call a cat a cat. How far my criticisms and suggestions do get, I really am unable to say. I have asked, in this country, to have professionals judge as they do in any other country. So far my fingers could have avoided the effort made on my typewriter.
BUT, as far as YOU are concerned, dear "INDIGNANT FENCER," allow me to tell you something else. I believe the fault lies in incompetence rather than in "deliberate" bad judging—even if I am ready to admit that sometimes you may be right there too. To deal with "incompetence" of the judges from the competitor's point of view, there is only one way: to improve yourself and touch more, AND BETTER. May I say here that most of my really important fights (in which I was risking EACH time my past and my future—in one word my "bread and butter") were all won in Paris, the center and Mecca of the glorious French School—the eternal adversary of the no less glorious Italian School—with five French judges? I leave it to you to guess how many touches I had to score for winning, for instance, a match in 12 points.
To fight, instead, against "deliberate" bad judging there should exist another way of dealing with it properly, but I could not possibly—not even I—put that down in black and white.
But for GOD'S SAKE be as generous as you are outspoken. And I ask you and the other 15 young ladies to be patient. Take it from me, judging in this country SHALL HAVE TO BE IMPROVED, otherwise the A.F.L.A. shall sound her death tolling—at least as far as competitions are concerned. If 15 young ladies stop fencing, I do not believe that the Women’s section of the A.F.L.A. could easily withstand such a blow. -A.N.
—
Strangely enough, the women's competition for Novices was even less attractive than the prep. We have NEVER witnessed such bad fencing. I wonder what the teachers of those competitors think and feel when they see their pupils at work.
—
Too often we have seen that the President of the judges does not "departager" if one of the judges says "yes" and the other says "no." Can't the President be a little more sure of what he himself sees? Is it necessary to mention here that his vote is worth one and a half times that of any other judge, and that his word should make the final decision much more often than the American Presidents (in Fencing!!) do?
—
A very interesting competition to watch was the senior sabre. The "lion-tamer" (ARMITAGE) won again, and brilliantly, the round-robin. Mike de CAPRILES, who was defeated by the winner only, had a real chance—at a certain moment of the last bout of the round-robin—to repeat his triumph in the same competition of the previous year. But the "lion-tamer" intervened energetically at the right time and confirmed his superiority in the fence-off. However, Mike de CAPRILES proved himself to be in excellent form—and very intelligent.
The revelation of the competition was unquestionably MARSON. He defeated magnificently and unexpectedly ARMITAGE, and preceded HUFFMAN in the final classification. He who admires the fighting spirit saw that night somebody who does not lack it! How fast and light with his legs and wrist! We may of course be wrong, but if MARSON'S fencing intelligence is equal to his extraordinary physical qualities it won't be long before he will be crowned champion of America. Only, Mr. MARSON, if you can help it, do not strike so hard.
—
The Open foil team competition saw the success—by one touch—of the Salle Santelli (Jose de CAPRILES, DOW, LEWIS). In the final match this team was leading the N.Y.A.C. 4 to 1. HUFFMAN, then, began to beat DOW in the only sure way, with utter simplicity; EVERY went on crushing the same DOW with 5 love, and NUNES triumphed over LEWIS. The veteran fox put up one of the most splendid fights of his long and glorious career. It was very late and LEO was tired. BUT as soon as he realized that there was a renewed chance for his team to grab the victory, he became a tiger. With all the resources of his 60 years of competitions, he mowed down the young and difficult LEWIS. That brought the score to 4 all. And the last bout, a beauty, between Jose de CAPRILES and HUFFMAN, saw the victory of the former 5 to 4.
We were deeply impressed by GIOLITO, the head man of the N.Y.U. team. His face reminds us of one of the portraits of a Florentine smart lad made immortal by the brush of one of the many great Masters of the Renaissance. For what we saw he could have easily starred in those heroic days. He defeated DOW beautifully and proved to possess a very fine hand, but—like LANG—he is, technically, 60% wrong.
Mr. DOW was not so successful that night. We mentioned his defeats just as we mentioned all his victories in the previous competition. The open team proved to us what we have always thought—and shall always think—of his value. ALESSANDRONI directed the final match with calm authority, precision, competence and courtesy. I hope Mr. ALESSANDRONI won’t mind if I allow myself to say that he proves himself to be a perfect gentleman with and without the mask.
The N.Y.A.C. "B" team was defeated in the first round by the Saltus Club ONLY because of the judging ways of Mr. RABB. In the decisive match between INGOGLIA and GREENE the former scored at least 7 times—and was declared beaten. To Mr. RABB goes my personal nomination for the world’s worst judge. The President, in such an important case, could and should have acted and substituted the otherwise charming Mr. RABB. As a matter of record, and to sustain my statement, the PRESIDENT at least once said and decided for "yes" when Mr. RABB said "no." And that happened almost in the beginning of the bout.
—
ALESSANDRONI, when judging the final, was assisted by WESSELMAN. If Mr. RABB could never see anything, Mr. WESSELMAN saw always too much. Much too much. But we feel that we owe to the same charming gentleman from the Fencers Club the highest praise for his sportsmanship and his extreme courtesy while fighting.
—
26 competitors in the women's open competition. Miss GRIMMELMANN won it brilliantly. She is pleasing to look at when fencing (and of how many girl fencers can we say this?) and she seems to be improving. Miss CERRA, one of my favorites in the country, was second; but she was not very lucky in some of the decisions of the jury, particularly in her bout against Miss GRIMMELMANN. Miss CERRA is most gracious of all when fencing and her hand, amongst the women, is excellent. We admire her quarte-riposte. Mrs. VOLKRA was third. She has never appeared in a competition before—at least in this City—but obviously this newcomer has been fencing for years. She proved her very good sportsmanship and succeeded in beating easily, in their first bout, before the tie, a girl of CERRA’s experience. Mrs. VOLKRA practically won all her bouts with a single action… Miss CERRA beat her for second place on touches.
Mrs. FUNKE was very aggressive, Miss DALTON not at all, and Miss ALESSANDRONI who fought beautifully in the semi-final and eliminatory strip, just did not want to be bothered in the final. She lost practically all her bouts.
As a whole there is an improvement in the women fencers. But can’t you realize, girl-fencers, that wide movements mean defeat as well as bad fencing?
—
When MIKE DE CAPRILES is directing one could imagine that CHALIAPIN is present. If I were a competitor I would feel slightly irritated by both his voice and his unnecessary “precipitados” which almost sound as if MIKE were under a permanent uncontrollable nervous strain. This, in spite of his fairly good judging.
Mr. VITEZ must be mentioned for his judging which is excellent and the best I have seen in this country.
We hope he is “in quota”!
Aldo Nadi
