One Touch Epee: A Rebuttal
Item
-
Title
-
One Touch Epee: A Rebuttal
-
Date
-
October 1940
-
volume
-
5
-
issue
-
5
-
page start
-
6
-
page end
-
6
-
content
-
en
One Touch Epee - A Rebuttal
During the past fencing season there were two articles in The Riposte advocating the trial of one touch epee with the electric recording machine. In our May issue we also printed a letter, signed by eight important epee men, which disagreed with our opinions and stated why. Since then the Board of Governors has voted to make epee competitions for one touch in all official events for the year 1940-41. This move was prompted by a desire to encourage more of the younger fencers to enter open competitions thereby gaining more experience for themselves and enabling the field to expand.
We thought that the matter had been disposed of for the time being and were pleased that one touch epee was to be given another trial. However, at the first meeting of the new A.F.L.A. Board of Governors for the year 1940-41 several new members of the Board, displeased by the action of last year’s Board, brought the same question up for revote in an effort to rescind that action and to fence for three touches again this year. Both sides of the argument have already been presented (see the April and May issues of The Riposte) and we do not think it is any longer necessary to rehash them here. However, in arguing for a revote, it was continually stressed that there were just as important fencers in favor of three touches as those favoring one touch. To that argument we submit this rebuttal.
Actually, five of the 1940-41 ranking fencers favor the three touch system and five favor the one touch system. Even though all ten were in favor of three touches, I still would not concede that this was a good argument. To me the ranking fencers are of the least importance to the League. The rank and file of fencers throughout the country are much more important. It is their sport and even though they raise ten of their number to temporary glory on the basis of competitive results, it is still their sport and the honored ten still remain unimportant numerically. In the past four years more than forty per cent of the 1936 American Olympic Team has dropped out or become inactive in A.F.L.A. work for one reason or another. Despite the loss of these apparently important fencers the League has grown and fencing has spread more in this time than in any similar period. Hence, it is the rank and file of the fencers that make up the League and it is the rank and file of the fencers who are important, not the first ranking ten. It is for this reason that I advocate the trial of the one touch epee for a year to encourage the younger and less experienced fencers to enter competition.
If any of the ranking ten feels that the one touch rule hurts his game then he does not belong in the ranking ten. It is fitting that rules should help young fencers until they can stand on their own feet; a ranking fencer should have such resourcefulness that he can fence and win with any rules so long as these rules are not changed in the middle of a competition. If he can’t do this then he doesn’t deserve a ranking.
The members of the Board of Governors should support the one touch epee rule for one year to see if such a trial will not show the way to revive epee, admittedly a most interesting weapon but also a phase of fencing which has been failing in recent years to attract its rightful proportion of devotees in this country.
W. D.
