-
Title
-
How to Compete in a Foil Competition (3)
-
Date
-
June 1939
-
volume
-
4
-
issue
-
4
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
6
-
content
-
en
HOW TO COMPETE IN A FOIL COMPETITION (3)
There have been many books written about the art of fencing. Generally, these books deal with the actual technique of handling the sword. As you look for advice on what to do once you enter competition, you find less and less help from authors. We have endeavored to give some pointers in this regard in the earlier essays of this series. We soon learned that we were almost completely on our own after doing so and had few, if any, sources of reference for help in the matter. Now, as we come to deal with Team Competition, as compared with Individual Competition, we find no written discussion of the former subject in any authoritative tomes of the past. Nevertheless, we consider the subject important and herewith tackle it, admittedly with more courage than authority.
—
Team Competition: A New Development
There are probably good reasons for the lack of any writings concerning team competition. In the first place, team competition has only recently developed into an important type of fencing competition. Prior to recent Olympic Games and a few more recent World Championships, stress had always been placed upon Individual combat. When France and Italy each had a man whose ability they wanted tested, they arranged for a 10 or 20-touch match between these two Champions, and the entire fencing world turned out to witness this single battle of giants. Today, all of the leading fencing nations meet in team competition, and it is the sum total of the team bouts that keeps the crowd tense and excited. Professional championships have given way to amateur championships, and teams of amateurs have become a popular sport unit.
The most prolific and authoritative fencing writers have been professionals who spent their lives thinking of the theories and preferred techniques of the sport. Competition to these writers was always that of Individual contests. Where they have given any thought to Team Competition, they have considered it nothing more than a series of Individual bouts. We believe that there is considerably more to it than just that and present herewith a few ideas to support our contention.
—
Individual vs. Team Competition
What is the difference between Individual and Team competition? The obvious difference is that the Individual competitor is entirely dependent upon himself for his own success or failure. If he wins all his bouts, he naturally wins the contest. If he loses all or too many of his bouts, he is eliminated. A team competitor does not suffer the same personal pressure. He can lose all of his bouts and still receive a gold medal at the end of the evening. On the other hand, he can win all of his bouts and never reach the Finals. Two-thirds of his success depends upon the results achieved for him by his teammates. (We refer here and henceforth in this essay to three-man teams. Olympic teams consist of four men.) This distinct difference is of more importance than most competitors realize.
In entering a team competition, a competitor immediately assumes a two-fold duty: a duty to himself and a duty to his teammates. The duty to himself is readily understood, for anyone with individual competitive experience has had himself to deal with in many former competitions. The duty to his team is variable. Your teammates are not always the same, and each man generally requires different handling. There is the man who needs to be left alone. There is the man who needs to be cheered on or whose victories must be highly praised. There is the man who profits by being told what actions of his are working badly so that he will correct them. Another man would be upset by this but would benefit by being told what actions he is doing very well so he will concentrate upon them for his remaining bouts. You must work upon some fencers to make them fight. You must work upon others to keep them cool. These differences are all psychological traits of character, and the good team competitor or team captain is the man who understands them and can use the best psychology with each of his teammates.
—
Team Captains
Every club has a man whom his clubmates instinctively respect and like. That man should be your team captain. He need not be your best fencer, nor need he even be an active member of the team. However, he should be on hand when his team fences and take it upon himself to fraternize with his fencers and work upon each of his men as he knows those men respond. So many clubs or colleges choose their strongest fencers as captains. This may be entirely wrong, for often the strongest fencer is prone to be an individualist, incapable of understanding any problems other than his own. The presence of a true captain would have brought about different results in many a team competition.
—
The Important Bouts
Team competition is so much more straight arithmetic than many fencers ever realize. A team of three men meets another three-man team. There will be a maximum of nine bouts. The objective is to win five. One five is as good as another insofar as the results are concerned, but some five bouts are naturally easier than others. Now let us review the possible bouts. The normal club team consists of a good first man, a fair second man, and a doubtful third man. Some fortunate teams have three equally strong men. Some unfortunate teams have three equally weak men. Other variations might be two very strong and one weak man, one fair and two weak, etc. There are seven possible arrangements of these variations. However, as we have said before, the normal team grades down from top to bottom with one A, one B, and one C-grade fencer. For the sake of argument, let us presuppose that all other teams in the competition are also made up of an A, B, and C fencer. Your A should and must defeat the opponent’s B and C men. Similarly, your B must and should defeat the opponent’s C man. The opponent’s A and B fencers may turn around and do the same to your team. The result is now 3-3. Where are the other 2 bouts to come from? The only remaining bouts are A vs. A, B vs. B, and C vs. C. In exact, theoretical team analysis, all team competitions depend upon the bouts between the men of similar standing on their teams.
Anyone can appreciate the fact that a first man who can win all his bouts is a most valuable man for the team. How many people similarly appreciate the fact that a second man who can win two bouts or a third man who can win one are every bit as valuable? Each man will have done his full duty to his team if he can do such justice to his assigned position. Personally, I have always felt that the most important man on any team was the third man. If he can win one bout, the team’s chances of winning a match are about 60-40. The eyes of the audience are all focused upon the A and B men. The C men go along quietly without much attention being paid to them. If every C man would only appreciate that he must win just one bout in each match, that that bout is every bit as important to his team as any other bout in the match, that he is freer to slip over that victory than his teammates may be before people realize what is happening, many a team competition would have had a different ending.
It is just as important to grade the bouts you have to fence and place the emphasis on the right bouts in a Team Competition as it is in Individual Competition. It is only in this way that the best results can be obtained. What are the important bouts? The most important bouts are those which you are not supposed to lose, those which are difficult or impossible to make up elsewhere. Any of these bouts which were included in the even 3-3 score in the analysis two paragraphs earlier are the most important bouts. Even winning these, your team still has the problem of having two out of your three men come off best against the same two men from the opponent’s team. Should you lose one of the key bouts, you would then have to destroy all three of your opponents in the A-A, B-B, and C-C bouts. Failing this, you would have to make up your loss the hard way by having your B man defeat the opponent’s A man or have your C man defeat their A or B man, an assignment neither should be expected to have to undergo.
—
Use of the Lineup
Each team is free to arrange the order of its men prior to a match. Neither team is entitled to know the opponent’s lineup beforehand. An intelligent use of the lineup can often benefit a team far more than an arbitrary entry of the team in the order of their A, B, and C rating.
Some men are timid about leading off in the first bout of a team match. There are usually men on every team who do not care where they are placed in the order of competition. Use one of these as a lead-off man.
Some men are by their very nature excellent anchor men. An anchor man is the man who has to fence the last bout if the team score goes to 4-4. He should be a fighter who will never say die and who seems to gain strength from the very fact that so much responsibility has been placed upon him. We consider Leo Nunes and Miguel de Capriles as the country’s best team fencers in any weapon. We consider them so not from any mere analysis of their all-around skill, which is admittedly high, but from the fact that they are anchor men par excellence. Put either of these men into a last important bout of any team match, and you will see a fight. Spot their opponents the first four touches and, even blindfolded, they would manage somehow to make touches. That should explain what I mean by a good anchor man. Naturally, it is stupid to waste him. Place him in your lineup so, if necessary, he will come up for that last bout.
As I stated in the Individual competition discussions, some fencers are defensive stylists and others are offensive stylists. There is another very similar distinction between fencers, not entirely based upon offense and defense, but more upon caution versus courage. The best explanation of what I mean is to compare one type to the cobra and the other to the mongoose. Both are dangerous fighters, fast and clever, but the one beats you before you know what has happened while the other slowly and annoyingly wears you down before the kill. Each is valuable for team competition, but common sense directs that the mongoose must be so placed in your lineup that he will meet and tire out as many of your opponents as possible. He must be followed by the cobra, who will strike the weakened opponents before they have fully recovered. It is by such blending of your fencers’ potentialities that the team can be markedly improved.
—
Conclusion
Much will probably be written about the psychology of team competition in the future. It is relatively new insofar as fencing is concerned. What I have said here may all be very elementary. Newer and better arrangements will be evolved as we learn from experience. It is nevertheless an interesting subject and one which requires a great deal of further development. Americans particularly must devote thought to the specialized study of team psychology.
I have mentioned the Americans here purposely, for their greatest opportunities in International competition lie in team competition. Deprived of equal opportunities with Italy, France, and Hungary for the development of great Individual stars, the Americans have proved in more than one Olympics that their teams can function as a unit and place in the Finals. Give us as good teams as we have had in the past, a thorough training in team competition and psychology, a leader who carries the respect of each of his men with full authority to manipulate his teams to the best interests of all, and America can win an Olympic Team Championship.
