-
Title
-
A Winning Argument from the Losing Side
-
Date
-
December 1938
-
volume
-
3
-
issue
-
9
-
pages
-
4, 5, 8
-
content
-
en
A WINNING ARGUMENT FROM THE LOSING SIDE
There was a time, and not so long ago, when an American could limit himself to the French School of Foil Fencing in any discussion of this sport. This is no longer true. Today one does not enter far upon any discussion of foil without meeting the necessity of explaining that there are two basic Schools of Foil, the French and the Italian. All active fencers know, at least vaguely, the major differences in these Schools. It is now becoming more and more essential that we analyze these differences closely.
This necessity is due to the gradual realization that the French School of Foil is no longer supreme, that the trend throughout the world is toward the Italian School and results are proving the wisdom of that change. There must certainly be some clearly defined reason for this, some basic causes which can explain an upheaval of this proportion.
—
The Two Schools and Their Weapons
Now let us analyze broadly the major differences between the Schools. Each is based upon a distinct and opposite principle of attack. The French School endeavors to attack in such a way that the defender's blade never achieves contact with the attacking foil until after the touch has arrived. To make a one-two attack against a simple sixte-quarte parry or a disengage and deceive against a counter of quarte would comply with the objective of the French School.
The Italian School attacks with greater caution, endeavoring always to contact and hold the opponent's blade during an attack. An attack with pressure and a disengage is a simple type of Italian attack. Neither School uses its own principle exclusively but borrows frequently from the other School. My point is only that the preponderance of attacks is deceptive in the French School and forceful in the Italian School.
Just as the teeth of carnivorous and herbivorous animals are different for their different purposes, so are the foils in the French and Italian Schools different for the two basic styles. The Italian foil is usually of maximum length and sets deeper into the mounting. The blade tapers more rapidly from the pummel and is slenderer and thinner in cross section. It is softer, having a less stiff tempering than the French Foil. The French blade tends to be a centimeter or two shorter than the maximum allowable length. The major difference, however, is in the handle. The Italian foil handle has a crossbar, is straight or neutral, and is intended to be strapped or bound firmly to the hand and wrist. The French handle is often shorter and plain but bent slightly to shape to the hand. It is intended for use without a strap. These differences comply with the requirements of their respective Schools, the French foil being a light, deceptive weapon, the Italian foil affording a strong grip for the beats and pressures required of it.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of foil handle. The French foil must at all times be gripped by the fingers, the handle being pinched very tightly between the thumb and first finger. Most of the foil movements must be made by those same fingers. This is not only difficult but is also very tiring. However, it allows full play to all wrist motions and permits every movement known to fencing. The sudden contraction of the back fingers creates a snap or whip-beat that cannot be duplicated with the Italian foil. It is a fast defensive weapon, even though light, for fortunately parries in foil need only be heard to be recognized.
It has its drawbacks. It is an exacting weapon that requires constant practice, and in general, it stands up under rough opposition only in the most capable hands. There is always the danger of disarmament. Full disarmament does no harm, for a bout stops with its occurrence, but many times an opposing beat or pressure or even a sudden, fast parry on one's own account throws the French foil out of control and leaves one momentarily helpless.
Now let us pay obeisance to the Italian foil. What a feeling of satisfaction and security it gives to strap on one of these foils and cease all worries about the mere holding of the French foil. This weapon lends itself naturally to a game of beats and pressures; it is capable of forcing itself through any inaccurate parries, it is always under control during defensive stress, and it is the valued 'friend in need' to its many devoted followers.
It has limitations to make up for its advantages. It permits of no wrist rotation, all movements being dependent on the fingers, the elbow, and the shoulder. For all except the most expert, its movements are wider than those possible with the French foil. Its use tends to lessen the sensitivity of the hand. It has no effectiveness at close quarters. Whereas it is relatively easy to shift from the French foil to the Italian foil, it is almost impossible to reverse the process. Once adopted, the Italian foil becomes a crutch that cannot easily be discarded.
—
The Modern Italian School
The present Italian School is the modern School of Foil. It has taken the best principles of the French School, adapted them to the Italian weapon, and contributed several new features that are distinct additions to the sport. Many years ago, it adopted the French bent-elbow "on guard" position, which is now recognized everywhere as the standard position. It simplified the sport by practically limiting a 'phrase' to the attack, riposte, counter-riposte, and remise. It increased the tempo of directing by limiting the requirements of the Director to observing those few movements and stopping the bout immediately upon any hesitation in the 'phrase.' Foil is today a fast, hard, competitive sport fought in many short bursts of blazing speed. Attacks are made on an all-or-nothing basis, scores move rapidly, speed and distance have assumed the importance of technique, and the dominant technique is Italian.
The classic French School is a thing of the past. It will remain so as long as 'phrases' are not permitted to continue, as they used to be, until one fencer or the other received a touch somewhere on his body. Many great French stylists had been capable of starting a false attack, taking up the play as they met it, and working through their opponents' defenses to the ultimate touch. These great French champions have died or retired. Today's champions are Italians in great numbers with modern technique and even rules in their favor. They will undoubtedly dominate foil for many years, just as the French did before them, until some new School is developed that can match their efficiency.
There are various reasons why the Italian School is dominant in foil competition today. Most of these reasons are actually based upon efficiency in some way or other. In analysis, therefore, we have seen efficiency defeat artistry. We shall try to explain the various factors in this composite picture of efficiency.
In the first place, a fencer of championship caliber can be developed in as few as five years in the Italian School. In the French School, five years would ordinarily only be preliminary to the necessary training. Broadly speaking, the Italians excel in their 20s, and the French in their 30s. That is efficiency.
The Italian School is ideal for competition. It is based upon the making of touches as quickly, as effectively, and as strongly as possible. It is the hand of steel without the velvet glove. It is a serious style, allowing for no play and no quarter. Not as enjoyable a style for friendly exercise in the salle d'armes, it is nevertheless the more efficient style for competition where the primary objective is the making of touches.
The Italian fencers have developed certain recognizable improvements in basic fencing. Their quarte position with blade parallel to the sixte position is definitely safer than the French quarte position, where the point is directed toward the center forehead of the opponent. Once the Italian has parried in quarte, the parry is permanent until the opponent introduces a further movement. There is no possibility of forcing through or remising as there is against the French quarte. Because of the safety of both his quarte and sixte positions, the Italian may hold his parries momentarily, the better to direct his ripostes. Both the French quarte and sixte parries are less tenable and necessitate tac au tac ripostes, sometimes inadvisably. Certainly, there is greater defensive and offensive efficiency in the Italian quarte and sixte positions that afford permanent coverage and the choice of delayed or immediate ripostes.
The Italian School has introduced greater mobility and better legwork into the sport. Today we see foilsmen shifting back and forth, breaking or gaining distance to their own advantage or their opponent's disadvantage. Fencers everywhere are adopting this principle. An American championship of even ten years ago would appear as poses in statuary compared with those same championships today.
The Italian School has improved the lunge itself. The forward foot previously was advanced by raising the foot vertically an inch or two from the floor, with the sole of the shoe kept parallel to the floor throughout the lunge. The new lunge stipulates that the front foot be kicked forward by first straightening the leg from the knee. The upper part of the front leg need never be raised from the crouch or "on guard" position. The action of the back leg is the same in either lunge, but the Italian fencer lands on his forward heel, whereas the French fencer lands with the front foot flat on the floor. The Italian lunge has the following advantages: (1) it does not require the upward lift in starting but is more like an exaggerated step forward, and (2) the landing on the heel breaks the forward momentum so that upon the completion of the lunge the fencer is in perfect balance.
The Italian School appeals to youth. The French foil is a heavy undertaking for the small hand of a young boy or girl. The Italian School is basically simpler because it makes possible many routine attacks that force the play. These appeal to a youngster too inexperienced and enthusiastic to stop to think out the proper deception for the moment. He will practice by the hour on a series of routine attacks that he sees make touches. He has not yet developed the ability to concentrate upon and outthink his opponent, but he does know the meaning of 'fight' and can be taught to fight with an Italian foil. The Italian School can and does start its fencers young. Aldo and Nedo Nadi, Nunes, Marzi, and Gaudini all started fencing at ten years of age or thereabouts. As they entered manhood, they had years of fencing training behind them. Their muscles were developed, their bodies coordinated, their technique letter-perfect. They were the efficient products of an efficient School.
—
Conclusion
The writer has fenced with a French foil for more than fourteen years. He has never owned an Italian foil. He has tried modifications of the French foil all the way from berets and pistol grips to the use of straps and tapes. He has always returned to the plain French foil as the finest foil weapon ever developed. Nevertheless, he is forced by facts to admit that the French School is today in dark eclipse. He believes that he has presented a fair and winning argument for the Italian School from the losing French School viewpoint. However, his faith in the French School is still strong. He agrees with Mr. Orest Meykar of New Orleans who has recently written: “Which school is the better is the question that has no answer. The proof of the pudding is in eating it. The superiority of one or the other school lies in the skill of its adherents. It is the fencer who wins the bout; the school only teaches him broad tactical and technical principles; he supplies the strategy, the apropos, the judgement of situation, which govern all other considerations. What good is it to be well grounded in all parries and attacks, to be able to do them well, but in a bout to do them at the wrong time? Practice, plus experience, plus the inherent intelligence, plus some good luck, wins the bouts.”
It is a good thing for fencing that the French School is no longer supreme. Just as two evenly matched fencing clubs in a city are good for fencing in that city, and a two-party system is good for government, so are two Schools of Foil good for foil fencing. The French must study the Italian School. They must borrow good things from it just as the Italians borrowed from the French as they started to create the modern Italian School. The French must experiment with the Italian quarte position and adapt it or its equivalent to their School. They must emphasize legwork more than ever in the past. They must adopt the Italian lunge. They must develop a modernized French School and throw out every stodgy idea that has been disproved in modern practice. They must create. It may take years, it may take decades or generations, but fencing is timeless, and those units mean nothing. Just as the Italians had the courage of their convictions and persisted with their faith in a weapon that appeared defeated, so must the French have faith in their basic principle and weapon and produce a new School that will add another interesting chapter to the oldest, the youngest, and the most interesting sport in the world, known as fencing.
