Another Point of View
Item
-
Title
-
Another Point of View
-
Date
-
February 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
1
-
page start
-
6
-
page end
-
6
-
list of authors
-
William F. Strobel
-
content
-
en
ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
(Response to “An American School of Foil”)
By WILLIAM F. STROBEL
It was very interesting to read the Editor’s article entitled “An American School of Foil” as presented in the July issue. There is no doubt that the fencing in this country has taken on both of the simplicity and rapidity which it has most advantageous. The writer went into detail illustrating his point by citing examples, however, I feel, not too convincingly as proof of the establishment of a new school, but rather merely by pointing out that there exists in a group, a variety of temperament. Whether or not we can rightfully label differences of character and their applications to a skill as a new school is questionable.
The Editor did not point out some of the causes underlying the simplification of sword play and therefore of course its continuation. Perhaps with a certain boldness, we can call it the American school. Fencing masters would probably label it “a degenerated school” and this point of view would not be unjustified. As I see it, the simplification of sword play in this country has two main sources. First of all, the fact that most of our fencers are coached by the high pressure method for quick results, and that the results are measured exclusively in terms of victories in competition. The interscholastic group falls into this category. The collegiate group certainly does. And what clubs have we who do not invite to their membership the competitively successful secondary school or collegiate fencer?
How much fencing is actually done in the “fencing for fencing’s sake spirit,” for the sheer pleasure of engaging in an evening of exercise, fun and social contact, devoid of any competitive tint? Our high school youngsters want to go out and win a bout after several weeks of lessons and play. I say play, rather than practice, because practice for the perfection of movement seems too tedious and uninteresting. They take a lesson and then engage a few of the other fellows around, always with the competitive approach in mind. This system, of course, must lead to a simplification of the art and a throwing out of the so-called unessential movements.
In my opinion this does not contribute to a new school, but rather reverts back to the age in this sport when fencing masters went about selling tricks to duellists. It distinctly is a reversion to the function of fencing for combat rather than to using combat activities in modified form as leisure time hobbies. We can hardly fail to distinguish between the two, nor recognize that the approach to an activity distinctly varies with the purpose for which it is to be used. If fencing is to be a sport, then the school of complexity rather than the school of simplicity is to be aimed at. The idea seems to exist that competitions in almost unlimited number create interest in fencing. To evaluate the effect is not simple since numbers alone do not represent the quality of this interest. Several thousand fence and have fenced in secondary schools and colleges and yet comparatively few have been bitten seriously enough by the sport to continue it after those good old varsity days are over. As stated above, only the most competitively promising are left to continue in the same line of sports philosophy (competition) representing some Salle d’Armes.
Taking the sport in easier strides with the competitive pressure removed, one would indulge in the more complex weapon play for pleasure’s sake. If, of course, touches are paramount, a competitor would be foolish to do more than was needed to ward off an attack or drive through a touch. Hence simplicity. Then too, the high tension of everlasting competition works on the participants to such an extent that the word sportsmanship is just something heard of rather than practiced. No amount of directors and judges with all the knowledge and ability in the world could satisfy these keyed-up prize seekers. Were there a leisurely approach to this whole art of fencing, fellows could just get together, take a lesson, practice with one another for skill perfection, and finally have a series of bouts with clubmates or visitors, without considering victory or defeat, or even keeping score. To have it so that judges were never heard of, arguments about validity in bad taste, not calling a good touch made rude, and neglecting to refuse acceptance of a doubtful touch ungentlemanly, would be an attitude leading not only to real fencing pleasure, but also to real values derived from wholesome participation.
To invite a group from another Salle d’Armes to pay you a visit not to hand it a defeat or even keep score, but rather to make new acquaintances and possibly new friendships, would be far better from all angles than just calling it a practice match in preparation for a competition. In a world and at an age of so much competitive enterprise, must we stretch this spirit to every phase of our life or would it not be more relaxing and beneficial to just play in carefree manner rather than be bent upon competitive success? I would suggest that competition be reduced drastically, and that for Juniors on down the “form” of a test system be applied, and that the composition of a team be raised from three to six, all in the interest of a further growth of fencing. The above two suggestions are tried and tested ideas and I can definitely say that they have done much for the dissemination and improvement of the sport in the New York City high schools. Over-emphasis on victory is one reason why colleges are not ready to swing to this idea, or is it lack of progressive attitude?
My going off on a tangent simply re-enforces my point that simplification of the art is more a deterioration resulting from an over-emphasis of competition rather than the development of something new. Develop a leisurely, carefree, hobby philosophy and the intricacies of the sport will find their place and as a result fencers will converse with the blades rather than swear with them. One will fence with less caution, with less of the do or die, and temperament, drive, calmness, relentlessness, judgment, and what have you will still be part of the art and yet hardly give cause to be labeled a new school. It is, however, not the new school I feel strongly against, but rather the causes which bring it about through emphasis on competition rather than enjoyment. Another evil closely related to this is the concentration of effort and facilities for the few competitively-minded ones instead of the widespread use of all involved for the hobbyists. In other words the old controversy of varsity vs. intramural. I strongly recommend a consideration of this matter.
