-
Title
-
Fundamental Foil Training
-
Date
-
July 1939
-
volume
-
4
-
issue
-
5
-
pages
-
8, 15
-
content
-
en
FUNDAMENTAL FOIL TRAINING
By Warren A. Dow
Much has been written about Schools of Fencing; which is the better, the more efficient. After observing the competitions this year, and in particular the I.C.F.A. Championships, I am impressed with one thought; that it is not a change of Schools which is necessary to the improvement of American fencing, but rather a more improved training in whatever School the instructor teaches. I am a great believer in form. I believe that the easiest and most efficient method of making touches is through form; thereby using less energy and wasting fewer motions.
Form to me is motion with the least effort. I realize that good form in one person might be bad form in another. I also would not sacrifice efficiency for the mere sake of form. If fencing is done well, however, it looks well. When you see fencers standing on guard with their feet from 30 to 36 inches apart and with protruding posteriors, you will also see stiffened backs and rigid muscles as a concomitant result. When from that guard position they can lunge only 8 or 10 inches and in an effort to hit, throw themselves off balance, they must, as a result of this, rely upon a running attack. So many running attacks show that something is wrong with one’s training.
My belief is that coaches are forced to turn out fencers and teams too soon. Bouting among Freshmen should be discouraged. No coach, no matter how capable, can make a fencer within 6 or 8 months. The first year of fencing should be spent in the training of fundamentals. The guard, the lunge, the legs should be trained intensively. Body control should be the major point of training, not the hand and not the making of touches. It is true that in the second year a man so trained would, due to lack of experience, be defeated by a man trained to fight in six months. In three years, however, and for sure by the fourth year, the man would laugh at his fundamentals, with balance and control, having passed the six months’ champion, never to be overtaken.
The latest I.C.F.A. Championships produced the worst general fencing that I have ever seen in these Championships. The best team won, but with the exception of that team and a few other individuals, the foil fencing produced hard fighting but inefficient fencing. Naturally, I did not see all of the fencers and there may have been a few who fenced well but who lacked the experience to win many bouts. In general, however, no I.C.F.A. fencers ever looked so lacking in fundamental training as the fencers of the past year.
Articles have been written about producing fencers in four or five years, but no real champion will be produced unless the first year is given over to hard fundamental training. They may then be trained to be hard, efficient fighters. Fighting is done with the legs and if the finesse of the hand is to be overlooked to produce capable fighters, then the legwork must be stressed and stressed. Generally speaking, a fencer is made or ruined in the first year just as a new car is ruined if not properly broken in in its first thousand miles. A fencer may get just so far with poor fundamentals but he will never get to the championship class. Fencing in general may be judged by looks; if it looks good it is good. Naturally, there are exceptions to this and what looks good may be a matter of opinion. By looking good I do not mean a man who plants his feet in a good guard and stands there like the Bunker Hill Monument, but rather I mean a smooth, easy-moving guard with a body ready to explode into an attack or a riposte.
One of the major problems of fencing in this country is the lack of competent officials. This fault does not lie wholly with the officials. How many times have poor fencers made good officials look bad while good fencers have made mediocre officials look good? Too many fencers cause poor judging by their lack of decisive action. Attacks are not definite but are made in a series of running, poking jabs with the hope that one may land and that the judge may see it. Ripostes are made in the same manner. A parry is made and instead of waiting until the opponent is within striking distance a fencer will extend his arm quickly and, whether or not that action is parried, will remove it again as quickly and again extend, hoping that one of these actions will land. An attack or a riposte should be made with the so-called rule of the Western gunman, “Never draw your gun unless you intend to shoot and when you do draw it shoot without hesitation.” Similarly, in fencing do not attack unless you intend to hit but when you do attack let it explode. The last action of an attack should literally explode. Just as a sprinter is traveling the fastest when he breaks the tape, so should a foil be traveling its fastest when it hits, with all of the speed and force of the fencer behind it. Fencing so executed can seldom be misjudged. Actions are definite, touches unmistakable. As a judge and a director, I feel that I could judge a bout, marking fewer mistakes, with a group of champions fencing than with a group of beginners. The actions, no matter how fast, are definite. The touches arrive with no feeling of doubt.
Young fencers seem to be taught movement rather than touching. So many of them make parry-riposte, parry-riposte with no thought of hitting but merely with the training that when you find the blade you extend your arm. Some of them may hit but they are being withdrawn as quickly as they are made.
Much has been said about the superiority of the Italian schooled fencers over that of the French school of fencers at the last Olympics. Much of this superiority was more real than apparent, except in the results. As an observer, this was due entirely to the legs, the tempo, and the physical conditioning of the contestants. The Italian stylists were apparently in better physical condition. They had to be. Their game was based upon athletics. The French team was better in technique than any of the other teams of the Italian school other than the Italian team itself. The French were more experienced, older in fencing, and proved superior until they met a team that could equal them in technique and had the advantage of better athletic training. The legwork of their opponents asserted itself and the result was never in doubt.
This type of fencing should be that with which the Americans can achieve the best results. With our wealth of natural athletes and good physical condition, we can, with intelligent training, develop fencers of the European calibre even though handicapped by the distance from the centre of first-class competition. First, our instructors must realize the importance of the legs. With this type of game it comes first. Training a fencer to be mobile, able to shift in distance or fade out of distance with easy, smooth motion, ready like the mongoose to strike at the least relaxation of his opponent with simple attacks that explode upon his adversary’s chest but, with it, a control and balance that returns him to a good guard. To do this, a fencer must use his first year at least and possibly his first two years in practically nothing but legwork; lunges, advances, balestres, retreating, constantly keeping distance and training to attack from any position. This, rather than being taught to plant his feet in order to lunge. His hand should be developed only at the latter phase of his training; parrying in motion, counter attacks with opposition, stealing his opponent's time by beating him to the punch after his opponent has started his attack. Then we may develop International fencers.
The biggest fault of our foil team in Berlin was in its legs. With the exception of Lewis, no American was able to match the top six European teams in leg work and tempo. As one of the most noted European coaches said, “The American fencers fence well with their hands but they are like cows with their feet stuck in the mud.” While there may be methods to produce efficient competitors in a minimum time, no method can be devised to eliminate the fundamental training. While handbooks may lighten the work of the engineer, no substitute has been found for the routine classroom work of the student. Once the fundamentals have been mastered then the training must be along the lines best suited to the individual. From then on the training of every fencer differs. The man with slow legs develops a defense, learning to maintain distance so that his touches are made with secondary actions. The man with fast legs is trained in attacks and defends himself with counter attacks. The man with natural timing is taught to make his opponent attack from out of distance so he may ‘stop’ him. The man with little natural timing is trained in routine mechanical actions so that his technique is letter perfect.
It is this that makes fencing the greatest of sports. Any man with two legs, one arm and ability to see is a potential champion. No one is too light, too heavy, too short, too tall, too slow in mental reflex that he cannot overcome his handicap. The fundamental training must be the same, but after that he must train himself to bring out and make the most of his peculiar advantages.
