The Remise
Item
-
Title
-
The Remise
-
Date
-
March 1939
-
volume
-
4
-
issue
-
2
-
pages
-
2, 5
-
content
-
en
THE REMISE
The Editor has been kind enough to forward what I have flattered myself into thinking is Fan Mail. Three letters, count them; one from John Howard Hanway, one from Douglas Gerard and one from a subscriber whose name I will not reveal here. Mr. Hanway's letter would probably be taken as a fan letter only by someone like myself, hungry for a word from the fencers, for it debated with me upon a subject which I introduced a few months ago. His letter was reproduced in the January-February issue.
Hanway writes well and presents his arguments excellently. I have no debate with him upon the basic statements of his letter. In fact, I feel that we are very much in accord in what we want. We want to see fencing grow and do so under good supervision.
I understand now that the ball has started rolling and that a definite proposal for some sort of New York Committee is under way and that the powers that be in the A.F.L.A. are voting on the proposition at the present time from all parts of the United States. May they give New York this chance to develop underneath as it so badly needs to do. Otherwise I can only foresee a continuation of the stagnant condition that has existed in New York City over the past 10 years with the same few top fencers staying at the top with little effort and not a great deal of fun.
Gerard's letter dealt with the same subject only he was pleased with the proposal and spoke of how badly every fencing group in New York needed some such arrangement for the competitive outlet of their younger fencers. He enclosed a letter which he had sent to all the fencing clubs proposing an Interclub League for frequent competitions. Unfortunately, the Editor wrote me that he had been unable to squeeze Gerard's letter in to the last Riposte although he had had it set in type for that purpose. (Incidentally it is a shame that all the fencers don't support this magazine so that all the fencing news can actually get into print. Boy, did he slash my article last time for the same reason.)
Inasmuch as the discussion that began to be between Hanway and myself is now out of our hands and awaits the vote of the Board of Governors, there remains only one thing to be said. Mr. Hanway's letter raised the point and I believe it may well prove to be the subject of discussion here. He writes, "And who is going to direct and judge these events? Bear in mind that such competitions, if established, will be most important from the point of view of future development of the League and our efforts in this direction will prove only a boomerang if our prospective recruits are discouraged at the start by inadequate or incompetent judging and directing." Which all raises the question of how good directing and judging has to be. Granted, if everyone were born a good director or judge the fencing world would be a happier place to live in. But is it necessary? Do not the fencers in Chagrin Falls have as good fun as the fencers in Paris? Does every fencer in any competition understand the decisions made upon him when they are correct? Actually, does a director have to be much better than the fencer he directs to satisfy him? I say no. I have seen too many cases where a correctly directed bout has left both fencers thinking that some decisions were wrong. I have seen a fencer extend his sword and leave it there, be awarded a touch when his opponent lunged upon his point and wonder why he won the point when he didn’t “do anything.” I have seen so-called Juniors and Seniors extend their swords into a beat-lunge attack and actually believe that they had been of a parry-riposte. I have seen straight attacks parried with a beat riposte, the attack remising immediately after the beat and both fencers believing that the judge had been blind to call the attack "parried" and the director crazy to award the touch to the riposte. Might not these fencers actually be happier with judges of their own class who saw touches the way the contestants thought them right?
Now, I am not claiming that it would be better to serve poor fencers with bad juries than with good ones. I am merely bringing up the point that a poor jury in acting during a poor bout is not as great a hardship as Hanway feels. The fencers really don’t know the difference and they are having a lot of fun. If the professionals would only keep their mouths shut a great many fencers, who go around today explaining in second-hand detail just how they lost such and such a bout through a bad decision, would never have known the difference.
I have dropped in upon fencing matches in many out-of-the-way places. I have seen some terrible fencing and some equally terrible judging and been surprised that the fencers were allowed to fence and the jury allowed to live and yet the audience cheered every touch and the participants were in there doing everything badly with all the pleasure and satisfaction in the world. Would Hanway do away with this pleasure and learning ground because the jury was no better than the fencers? Has he ever seen a competition called off because the juries were not good enough? Has he ever seen a fencer refuse to enter competition because the turnout of judges and directors was poor?
I don’t expect the fencers as a whole to take the statements I have made too easily. Those of you who think I am crazy should ask your professional this question—“Have you ever seen a competition in which the capable judges and directors were being wasted and where there were other men about who needed the practice and who should have been given the chance to judge and direct, even badly, with no harm really being done anyone?” Also, please ask him for me, “Has he ever seen a series of three bouts in a row in which the mistakes by the director and judges were as numerous as the mistakes made by the fencers?” Unfortunately, the jury is expected to be perfect regardless of how bad the fencers are permitted to be. Competitions are supplied all classes of fencers in order to permit them to improve. Do we provide competitions so that directors and judges may learn their duties? We do not. I say that both of these developments may well work hand in hand; that many young fencers may be developed by providing them with more competitions and more juries may be developed by using new men in the handling of these additional and not over-important competitions.
