-
Title
-
Three Touch v. One Touch Epee
-
Date
-
May 1940
-
volume
-
5
-
issue
-
3
-
page start
-
12
-
page end
-
13
-
content
-
en
Three Touch vs. One Touch Epee
In our last issue, we presented an article entitled "One Touch Epee", giving arguments in favor of reducing epee bouts to their former one-touch limit. In further comment, we stated that we had contacted at least a dozen of the leading epeeists and were surprised to find all but one vehemently in favor of our suggestion. This month, other prominent epeeists have come forward and opposed our views. We believe it only fair to admit that what looked like a one-sided argument is now meeting opposition.
We now find that every fencing club in New York City has at least some epeeists who still favor the present three-touch system and are opposed to any change. The preponderance of epeemen at the Fencers Club, a club especially famous for the achievements of its epeeists over half a century, is in favor of continuing the three-touch epee. In epee discussions, its opinions demand respect. We, on the other hand, have without solicitation received several letters praising the contentions of our article. We reprint one of the more unusual of these.
—
Dear Editor:
I was very much interested in the one-touch epee article in the last Riposte and heartily agree with the author in all the points advanced in favor of the single touch.
My chief contention is that if the purpose of duelling sword is to perpetuate the technique of the old duel, let it be 100 percent faithful. True, the best man would not always win first place in a competition, but that is in keeping with the variable feature of the duel. If the purpose of epee is not as stated above, what excuse have we for it—why fence it at all if we cannot accurately duplicate the duel in all but the unpleasant final result?
I won our Divisional championship in this weapon this year, but I would gladly see the touches reduced to one. This would not be in my favor in future competitions, but it seems to me that when winning becomes the chief interest of a fencer, he finds that the sport is losing a great deal of its pleasure for him. Even with one touch, the good epee man has a distinct advantage over the average fencer.
Yours very truly,
—
No adverse criticism was received until, under the date of April 24th, we received a copy of the following:
—
MEMORANDUM TO:
The Board of Governors of the Amateur Fencers League of America.
The members of the Amateur Fencers League of America listed below wish to advise the Board of Governors that they prefer the present method of scoring epee bouts (best three out of five touches) to one-touch epee. While we do not object to experimenting with one-touch epee in one or two competitions during the year, we are against any further extension of the one-touch epee system.
The F.I.E., under whose rules all international competitions are conducted, requires that an epee bout be for three out of five touches. One-touch epee is an entirely different game which neither requires the same tactics nor the same stamina and endurance of the fencer as a bout for three out of five touches. We, therefore, feel that the United States will make a better showing in future Olympics and other international matches if we retain the present method of scoring.
Secondly, a great number of epee fencers do not favor a change to one-touch epee. They have four good reasons for their attitude:
1. One-touch epee emphasizes the element of luck.
2. It does not develop the technical skill of the fencers.
3. It is very dull and uninteresting to spectators.
4. When one-touch epee was tried in former years, there were many more complaints and much more dissatisfaction than with the present system.
We therefore urge you to vote against the proposal now before the Board of Governors to change to one-touch epee. You can do so by signing the enclosed card, addressed to the Secretary of the League. If you have already cast an affirmative vote, we are advised that you can reconsider up to May 1, 1940.
Please act immediately.
Robert S. Driscoll, Tracy Jaeckel, Norman C. Armitage, Alfred Skrobisch, Winslow Cornett, Ralph Marson, Philip Wiedel, Jose R. de Capriles.
—
We respect the opinions of these men. They are constantly active in epee competition and naturally are fully entitled to careful hearing in respect to any proposed changes in their own sport. However, they have not as yet sold us with their arguments.
Their argument about the F.I.E. and future Olympic competition certainly does not hold at the present time. The F.I.E. has temporarily closed up shop with the request that its affiliations in countries not at war carry the torch for fencing until international competitions can be resumed. The Olympics have been postponed for at least four years. There was never a better opportunity for American fencers to experiment. We are free now from any apprehension of going contrary to international procedure lest we lose when called upon to participate internationally again. Should we experiment now, would we not be in a paramount position to propose any changes for international acceptance when the F.I.E. reopens its offices again?
We disagree with all but the first of the four listed arguments of the Memorandum. Point 2 is decidedly faulty. A one-touch epee bout demands the highest epee skill of its exponents, a greater concentration of real epee than will ever be found in the longer bout. Point 3 is subject to challenge. If one-touch epee is very dull and uninteresting to spectators, we can only suggest that three-touch epee is probably three times duller. To us, epee will never become a top sport in spectator interest. Our suggestion was to make the sport more exciting and interesting to the competitors themselves. However, if epeeists have suddenly become spectator-conscious, we believe that they are on the wrong track in favoring the multi-touch bout for the spectators' pleasure.
Point 4 is a statement of fact. It is true of the period to which it referred. We specifically pointed out that we would not want to return to the one-touch epee with anything except the electrical epee.
It is the introduction of that unique weapon that makes any consideration of the return of the one-touch epee attractive. Therefore, to refer to conditions of the past when those conditions have, we believe, been changed is not a good argument.
Now back to Point 1, which we consider a justifiable argument: "One-touch epee emphasizes the element of luck." This is true, and yet we wonder if luck is not being given too much credit for past victories. Let us take a 10-year period back in the one-touch epee days and list the American Champions:
1916 – William H. Russell
1917 – Leo G. Nunes
1918 – No Championship
1919 – William H. Russell
1920 – Ray W. Dutcher
1921 – C. R. McPherson
1922 – Leo G. Nunes
1923 – George C. Calnan
1924 – Leo G. Nunes
1925 – William H. Russell
1926 – Leo G. Nunes
Russell won 3 times, Nunes won 4 times, while Dutcher, McPherson, and Calnan each won once. The frequency of Nunes' and Russell’s winnings would seem to prove that luck tended to average out in a competition and that skill was rewarded with victory. Furthermore, if you knew Dutcher, McPherson, and Calnan in those days, you would not even consider thinking their victories exceptional and due to luck.
The three-touch epee began in 1932. Let us list the champions under this system:
1932 – Leo G. Nunes
1933 – Gustave M. Heiss
1934 – Gustave M. Heiss
1935 – Thomas J. Sands
1936 – Gustave M. Heiss
1937 – Thomas J. Sands
1938 – Jose R. de Capriles
1939 – Loyal Tingley
Here again, you have five different champions in only eight years. Heiss won three times, and Sands won twice. The other three won once apiece. In other words, we have had as many different champions in our eight years under the three-touch system as we had back in the supposedly "lucky" one-touch era. Leo G. Nunes was our first three-touch epee champion. If our opponents dare to contend that he was lucky under the old system, then we must make the silly rebuttal that he was three times luckier in 1932. This, however, is only nonsensical, argument ad extremum.
What is meant by luck in epee? If you mean that bouts are lost through the failure of a judge to find a good touch you have made, or the tendency of some director to give you no credit for a slight advantage in time, then we say that the electrical epee machine is your answer. If you mean that the superior epeeist might miss his point once and lose a bout, then we raise an eyebrow and say that that is not so much tough luck as it is failure in skill and should prove costly.
In view of the favorable comments received thus far from epeeists all over the country and the failure of those opposed to present any overwhelming arguments against an experiment of this kind, we hope that the Board of Governors will vote favorably upon the resolution that, "All A.F.L.A. competitions in epee for the season 1940-41 shall be for one touch with a five-minute time limit."
W. D.
