The Agony of the Dual Meets
Item
-
Title
-
The Agony of the Dual Meets
-
Date
-
December 1940
-
volume
-
5
-
issue
-
6
-
page start
-
6
-
page end
-
6
-
content
-
en
THE AGONY OF DUAL MEETS
By WILLIAM T. PECORA
IN A RECENT ARTICLE in The Riposte, Mr. John Dimond of West Point voiced the common opinion of all followers of intercollegiate fencing by deploring the length of time it takes to complete a college dual meet. In my few years of recent experience as a fencing official, I have noted that the average dual meet will require between 3 to 3½ hours; and it is only by the application of dictatorial powers by the director that the meet can be finished under 3 hours. This article is written with the purpose of arousing fencing alumni to interest the athletic associations and fencing groups at their specific colleges in modifying the present plan of dual meets.
Under the present scheme of a twenty-seven bout meet, there has been a marked decrease in public following at dual meets, a noticeable decrease in efficiency of judges after one or two hours, and an impatience of the fencers themselves. Confusion is a common feature of the present method.
Mr. Dimond has suggested one plan of modification which would result in a saving of time. My objection to his plan is only that it does not save enough time. The dual meets must have a drastic reduction in required time in order to achieve a favorable impression among the public, officials, and fencers.
Two alternative plans are offered; and of these, the first is the favored one.
PLAN 1. Nine-man team, three weapons, and each weapon matched man to man to give a total of nine bouts. Victory in foil and sabre acquired when a fencer has scored seven touches (instead of present five). Victory in the slower and more exacting epee acquired when a fencer has scored five touches (instead of the present three). This plan makes a better combination of skill and strength of the individual, places a greater responsibility on the individual, makes the entire team interested in the outcome of each bout, and will create a greater public interest. Most important of all, it will save about 1½ hours or 50% of the present method. Only a loss of common sense would require a fencing meet to last more than one or two hours.
PLAN 2. Twenty-seven bouts as per present scheme, with epee reduced to one or two touches for victory, and foil and sabre reduced to four touches for victory. This would save about one hour in fencing time, but retain the confusion of the robin which should be retained only for the Intercollegiate Championships (Joke!).
From my many inquiries among college fencers, officials, coaches, and spectators I have concluded that a drastic reduction in the required time for a dual fencing meet must be negotiated before the sport returns to its primeval stage in the United States. Plan 1, above, is favored because of the simplicity, captivation, and greater benefits on the individual fencer because of the greater responsibility he must face.
A drastic reduction in time will aid in procuring more willing officials for these dual meets, increase the spirit of the meets, increase the number of spectators which help make a meet more interesting and finally give fewer headaches all around, please believe me.
