-
Title
-
An American School of Foil
-
Date
-
July 1940
-
volume
-
5
-
issue
-
4
-
pages
-
8-10, 15
-
content
-
en
AN AMERICAN SCHOOL OF FOIL
Slowly but surely this country is developing a School of Fencing, an American School recognizable as such. Its development has been so gradual and been due to the contributions of so many that it is barely evident to those who are closest to it. However, anyone who may have been absent from American fencing for the past 15 years would immediately recognize drastic changes. We shall endeavor to study these changes and, if possible, assemble them into recognizable American fencing characteristics. Finally, we shall offer proposals for its further and more rapid evolution.
It is difficult today to find a true French stylist among our amateurs. Our so-called Italian stylists somewhat resemble the true type on the offensive but vary considerably from the Italian foilsmen on the defensive. Variations have certainly been introduced. In competition there is little distinct cleavage between the methods of our fencers whether using the Italian or the French foil. Something happens to them between the time they leave their fencing master's lesson and the time they arrive on the competitive strip.
Where too are the Masters of pure styles? Both the pure French Master and the pure Italian Master are a rarity. Then there are all the other men whose livelihood depends upon fencing instruction. What are they? What do they teach? There are literally hundreds of them and they all seem to give the pat answer that they teach a combination of both Schools. And a good bit of neither. Anyhow they are all experimenting and from that very searching a School may further develop that is particularly adapted to our American boys and girls.
Professionals have indicated that they are thinking about these things. Segregated from each other, scattered far and wide throughout a large country, each has been thrown upon his own resources. Conversations with many of them where occasion has permitted and letters from others containing explanations of personal methods all point toward a search in full cry for a way of fencing best adapted to American youth. One professional writes: "I believe that in numerous instances our best fencers display an effective technique which is in advance of the very principles that they accept as correct. How much more rapid would be the rise of our young fencers if they were not confronted (consciously or unconsciously) with this conflict between theory and practice?"
How does any School develop? How did the French School develop? Or the Italian? Does not the School first develop from a trend and then from some capable personality, either amateur or professional, having such striking success with individual adaptation that he becomes copied and thereby fixes the methods for future fencers? Did not the genius, ingenuity and fresh conception of Italo Santelli create a whole new sabre School, now known as the Hungarian School, out of the Italian sabre School, which had just previously swept the French sabre School to extinction? Here we have a striking example entirely developed by and credited to one man. There need not be a similar one-man source for an American School. It may very possibly be a blend of the best characteristics of several fencers.
Now let us review what we see to date and endeavor to specify the still missing requirements for a complete American School. Development has thus far been the accident of individual qualifications. With some idea of what is still needed, perhaps we can hasten the evolution. Why not determine our objectives and develop a plan of achieving them?
Up until about 15 years ago, there was no distinction between an American fencer and a French fencer. All of our professionals were either French or taught the French School. Our fencers unfortunately were merely a slower copy of the real thing. During the past 15 years, however, there have been some very distinct and interesting personalities among our successful foilsmen. Furthermore, each was specifically different from the other. Except for the basic positions and elementary conceptions, this was a period of individualism, the very period of introduction and experimentation necessary for any new School.
First, we had Lieutenant George C. Calnan. He was closer to the orthodoxy that preceded him than any of his followers. Superimposed upon a simple and direct conception of the French School was a giant in size, strength, and endurance. He was a direct actionist using the simplest of French attacks, parries, and ripostes but backing up every action with a determination and a controlled force that spared no opponent whose attacks hesitated or whose defense was half-hearted. His influence was that of simplification. He disposed of opponents whose ideas were rooted in attacks of many involved movements and whose ripostes were complex.
Calnan died in the Akron dirigible disaster in 1933 at the height of his power. His leadership was sorely missed in the following years but it can be truly said that the fencers who followed him were never untrue to the precedent he set them. Complexity has never re-entered the American fencing game since 1933.
Joseph L. Levis had natural speed of legs and a most flexible sword arm and shoulder. It gained him premier foil standing for many years. His game was essentially one of attack with a surprising speed that landed his point before the defense could gain any organization. He forced the tempo and literally blurred his opponents into submission. Levis turned professional in 1939. His chief contribution was one of mobility and elan. Whereas Calnan seldom used more than a direct lunge or at most a short single march and lunge, Levis gained distance with multiple marches and lunge or even a fleche. Today's greater mobility in all of our leading fencers can be traced back in great part to Levis.
Calnan and Levis together definitely introduced a break with precedent for since their reigns there has been no American foilsman of importance that you could recognize definitely as being from one club or another. An American foil team today consists of so many individuals no two of whom fence alike.
Of today’s active fencers, we must first mention Leo G. Nunes, whose experience and successes exceed that of all the others both in time and breadth. He is extremely orthodox, fences Italian style, blending the advantages of the older with the newer Italian methods in accord with circumstances. He is neat in both offense and defense and is a cool, courageous fighter, one of the few ever to win the National Championship in all three weapons. His is a game which might have introduced a School for it is not individualistic but rather based upon orthodox technique. However, his outstanding achievements took place in the early 20’s at a time when fencing masters in the United States favored the French School. They accepted Nunes, praised his successes, but would not teach his style to others. Up until only a few years ago Nunes was the sole exponent of the Italian School, a fencer with many friends and admirers but with no disciples. In this case, the American professionals permitted their actual or adopted prejudices to overlook the best model we had for orthodox, clean, effective, and teachable fencing, a style that was adaptable to at least half of our young men. Instead, an entire decade was wasted with all of our young fencers being taught French style whether or not it was their forte. Many of them gave up while others turned to the Italian style too late to benefit fully from its youthful appeal. In retrospect, we were fools and missed the boat.
We shall now describe the dominant characteristics of some of our leading foilsmen for later uses in this essay. There is no planned order in their presentation. They are alike in only one regard; they cannot be penetrated with any ordinary threats or attacks when they are set to defend themselves. They may be surprised, hit with secondary intention or well-conceived deception, yes, but they amaze the visitor with their ability to parry anything hurled at them by the eeny-meeny-meiny-mo school. In every other particular, they are unalike as they can be.
The most unusual and individualistic of all is Norman Lewis. He is also the most controversial and unpredictable. Aldo Nadi once said of him that he fenced 60% wrong. That means that the remaining 40% was good enough to see him go into a triple tie for first place in two successive National Championships and come off with one gold and one silver medal.
He has an uncanny sense of distance and timing. He is accurate, patient, and untiring. He is something of the jitterbug, dancing in and out, in constant motion, until his opponent either relaxes his defense or allows him to gain that inch of distance he has been seeking and then straight out for a direct hit. He is cool, dangerous, and damnably exhausting. This last point makes him a fine team fencer, exhausting his opponents for his teammates’ kill.
Lewis’ weakness lies in his being a one-shot player. This accounts for his unpredictability. He probably has a poorer record from early elimination in competition than any other Senior foilsman. He is ultra-cautious on the attack and withholds ripostes until a sure opening is offered. Hence, Mr. Nadi’s statement about him which we interpret as meaning that Lewis hides 60% of his possible effectiveness behind an undue caution.
Jose de Capriles, like Lewis, is a natural, fencing primarily from instinct although more orthodox in doing so than Lewis. Being tall, he worries less about distance and concentrates upon choice of time. He is a master of the stop-thrust, the time thrust and consciously or unconsciously uses delayed time to perfection. Although he binds his foil, his offensive is essentially French, mixing deception and directness well in his attacks. He too is perhaps over-cautious on the defensive, withholding many ripostes. He is patient, unperturbable, has good endurance and is an excellent individual competitor in any weapon.
Our third natural is Frank Righeimer. Here again we find a man who can take one orthodox lesson after another and then enter a competition and fence a highly individualized style. He is tall, fast and the most daring attacker of all our Seniors. He lands more touches in the low line and with high line cavees than any other foilsman. His touches arrive from many angles but unfortunately are as difficult to judge as to parry. His conceptions are bold and unique and when he is in good condition is a flashing winner. His defense is orthodox; his ripostes and counter ripostes certain in reply. He uses delayed timing excellently especially in the stop-thrust, a deadly weapon in his hands.
Now let us turn to others of greater orthodoxy. There is Hugh Alessandroni whose defensive hand is the fastest in competitive foil today. His greatest effectiveness lies in his ripostes and counter ripostes. His attacks are well conceived, being well mixed in either French or Italian conception, although, unless in top condition, he lacks the best in mobility and stamina. He therefore wisely relies to a great extent upon secondary intention. He likes the complex play in foil and one treads very dangerously in challenging him at cross-play.
John Huffman has recently changed over from the French to the Italian foil. At times he loses confidence in his new weapon but when he is "on" he flashes the finest attacks in American foil today. He is a smart, experienced swordsman and knows what he must do and how to do it. He is a fine technician and cool analyst, leaving experimentation to the practice Salle. His strength lies in the offensive with an excellent sense of counter-time. He can stop-thrust with the best of them but otherwise his defensive tends to become cramped. His one weakness lies perhaps in a too great intentness upon the offensive, which he loves, and which he carries off with the best speed in American foil.
Warren Dow, the most experienced of our active Seniors, next to Leo Nunes, has the soundest and most complete game of all. With attacking speed equal to Huffman’s, counter time equal to de Capriles, the only defense with elbow in at all times, a fighting heart equal to Nunes’, ability to hit with straight lunges or with balestres, and a use of opposition that confuses opponents and Directors alike, his record of victories each season tops the list. Starting with the French foil he shifted to the Italian foil several years ago and today blends both styles in a comprehensive understanding of foil. Dow prefers the offense or its equivalent in counter time. He is a hard man to hit, a resourceful attacker and capable of sensing one’s weaknesses quickly and playing against these for clean touches. His chief drawback is one of temperament; the slightest disagreement with judge, director or opponent being sufficient to throw any coolness he has into discard. Therefore, to win he often must defeat opponent, director and all judges. Even so, going about it the hard way, his batting average is on top season after season, a tribute to his full conception of foil.
What can we take from these several men and combine into a worthwhile American School? Let us dip here and there and see if we do not come up with something that would be pretty good. From Lewis we take his quick eye, his sense of distance and some of his in-and-out mobility. From de Capriles we take his choice of time and his stop-thrust. We add to this Righeimer’s daring-do and his conception of low-line attacks which most of us ignore completely. Alessandroni must contribute his fast defensive wrist and his tac-tac ripostes. Huffman’s general technique and his speed of attack, when once started, are needed by the School. Dow’s elbow (well in at all times), his counter-time and opposition must be added to the broth. Nunes’ indomitable fighting spirit must be borrowed. These characteristics, just as they are, provide the basis for a good School. However, it is still not as complete as we should like to see it.
If we were to give these characteristics to a half dozen boys of 19 we would immediately add youth, stamina and recuperative power to our formula. This would fortunately be theirs and very necessary to take the place in small part of the experience which we cannot give them. It would be very nice indeed to take Nunes’ experience and pass it over to our young men, but that is impossible. Experience is something which cannot be taught, but must be acquired individually.
We must add tempo, which is something that is generally lacking in American fencing. Tempo is “forcing the action,” the forward drive that starts things going, that does not allow an opponent to get set or follow any routine plan, that sets the pace for the exchanges within a phrase. It is the wave length to which any bout is tuned and that wave length is set by the dominant opponent. It can be negative as well as positive by drawing an opponent into an ill-timed attack as well as surprising him back upon his heels. It exists in the defense as well as in the offense through the mere expedient of stepping forward or backward with every parry; thereby not being where the attack was aimed for originally. Another example of defensive tempo occurs when you crowd an opponent to the end of the strip and force him to attack you, against his will, in a panic lest he step off the strip. Americans have been slow in appreciating and understanding tempo. It must be studied and applied consciously to our School.
Next, we must add training. It is ridiculous that we should have to stress this but it is a fact that American fencers train less than probably any other National group of fencers. They practice, yes, but they do not undertake sessions of strenuous effort at alternate exercises to perfect the very fundamentals necessary before their minds become free for competition. Competition should actually be but a small part of a fencer’s routine. This is not true with Americans, many of whom do their hardest work in competition and then lay off until the next one. If we practice at all it consists of a lesson from our professional and then a pleasant hour or two fencing for touches with some friend. That is not training and we all know it. Training is planned exercise, a repeated practice of essentials directed mentally and applied to specific actions and counteractions. It is repetitious, like practicing the scales in music, but need never be monotonous. Our Senior fencers are only riding along on hard training in the past. This is possible only because our younger fencers do not seem to train at all. They enter competition with poor legwork, single-reflex ripostes and an inability to make smooth attacks. All they have is youth and enthusiasm. Consequently, they futilely beat their heads against the calm front and resistance given them by the past-trained Seniors. There is no doubt that many of them have promise but scarcely one of them has appeared in the last 10 years with sufficient basic foundation to make more than a temporary dent in the A.F.L.A. list of annual rankings. Our School will never progress far unless we undertake some hard training once again.
With the addition of tempo and hard training there will be a good American foil School. This is true because all of our leading foilsmen use the things we have described; some with more success than others and hence their individual mention. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct School.
Its greatest uniqueness lies in its lack of emphasis upon the type of foil used. Choice of foil is left entirely to the individual preference of the fencer. No American foil team will be recognizable from its weapon bag.
The defense used by the American School is also unique. It is adequate without being superfluous. Foils do not spin frantically at every feint. It is a heady, reserved defensive whose efficiency in the hands of all of our leading foilsmen has been mentioned earlier in this article.
A definite contribution by the Americans lies in their natural use of delayed time. By this we mean the delayed off-beat in some actions that are normally instantaneous. Americans neatly delay their replies until an opponent ceases to expect them. They have raised havoc with this fundamental trick against fast opponents time and time again. Bondoux, one of France’s finest foilsmen, met disaster in our own National Championships against six Americans who fooled him repeatedly with this trick.
Now there we have a School. It has taken concrete form out of a miscellaneous grouping of individual characteristics already evident in this country. If this were bound together and adopted as a School and taught as a series of things to be learned, the American School would definitely be launched. With experimentation and use would come confidence, something that is also lacking in much of our American fencing today. By confidence we do not mean lack of courage; rather we mean that something that keeps assuring you sincerely that you are going to win. Even though the score may be 4-1 against you no thoughts of failure assail you. You cannot lose and you continue fencing exactly as if that were true. With confidence, you finish all of your attacks with authority and, even if that fails, you take care of the riposte too. With confidence, you parry with authority and leap into the counteraction with zip and meaning business. Levis had it and Dow and Righeimer certainly have it. They respected an opponent but that is all. They never allowed an opponent to upset their confidence in themselves or give them any qualms about the outcome. A specific School should increase our confidence and we must acquire this before we can progress from our present standing.
American foil no more resembles the foil work here of 15 years ago than it resembles the pure French or Italian School. It is a School of its own, a spontaneous and developing School that is really not so bad. Give it much more speed, give it tempo, give it further understanding and use of counter-time and give it hard training practice. Such an American School will inevitably acquire confidence and win a string of International successes to repay it for the patient and persistent search for a National expression in its fencing form.
D. E.
