-
Title
-
A Professional on Professionals
-
Date
-
April 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
2
-
pages
-
5, 11
-
Description
-
en
The article by Aldo Nadi critiques the shortage of qualified fencing instructors in the U.S., arguing that many self-proclaimed professionals lack proper training. It proposes forming an association to regulate the profession and establishing a university-affiliated academy to train instructors. The article emphasizes fencing as both an art and a discipline essential for national defense, highlighting its role in developing agility, strategy, and mental acuity. It calls for expanding fencing programs in schools with properly trained masters to strengthen both the sport and military preparedness.
-
content
-
en
A Professional on Professionals
By ALDO NADI
Recent articles in The Riposte on "America's Fencing Potentialities" and "The Professional Problem" certainly call for comment, if not reply, on the part of America's professionals. The articles were of particular interest to me because the subject of the country’s potentialities and its relationship to coaching has always been a pet of mine.
I was very happy to learn what I did not know: that there are about 125,000 fencers in this country (or should we say people who practice fencing?). Also, that the number of professionals is about 280.
When you state that the number of fencers isn't greater because of a dearth of teachers, I agree completely. I have said more than once that that was the reason why fencing, in this country, was no more than a "poor relation" to the other more popular sports.
You state that these 280 professionals claim to be in a position to teach fencing. You imply, I take it, that not all of these 280 men and women are equipped to teach one of the most difficult of arts. And here too I believe you are absolutely right.
Over five years ago, when I first arrived in America, I was told something I shall never forget. I was told that there were people in the United States who, having read a treatise on fencing, believed themselves adequately equipped to teach the sport. At that time, I thought it only a jest, and a bad one at that. Now, I begin to wonder.
I do not wish to minimize, in any way, anyone’s ability. Yet, I can't help wondering how many of these 280 professionals, who claim to be able to teach fencing, are actually qualified to practice the profession.
No doubt our profession is a very difficult one. Perhaps that is because the sport we teach is as much an art as it is physical exercise; because it imparts so many qualities—moral qualities—besides feline agility and steel blade control. If our sport were merely an exercise designed to keep waistlines trim and develop physically, then its teaching would be far simpler than it is.
We who teach and practice the sport know that fencing teaches courtesy, chivalry, discipline, and courage. All this besides the mere physical exercise, and the tremendously difficult and intricate technicalities which are not a bit easy to learn, understand, or execute, and which are even more difficult to teach. We also know that for these very reasons fencing is as good a mental as a physical gymnastic.
There is a well-founded principle in education that to teach something, the teacher must know it far better than his pupils. In the same light, the better the teacher, the better his product.
I think we all agree that to teach fencing properly, the professional must himself have studied for many years under a good master. That he must have endured a long period of training, and that he must have engaged in competitions (this is essential, as far as I am concerned). Why? Because the teacher must be able to execute what he exacts from his pupils. He must be able to impress on them that he has had to work very hard in order to acquire his ability. If he can't do this, then he loses their respect. With respect goes discipline.
Still, here in our country, anyone who wishes to, can give himself the title of fencing master. I think that is a bit thick.
In my opinion, the fault lies principally with those fencing masters who, like myself, have some sort of document to prove their qualification to practice the profession. These fencing masters have done nothing to kill the above-mentioned abuse which, in the end, can only prove a detriment to American fencing.
And yet the answer is quite simple. We, the American fencing masters, should organize ourselves into some sort of an association. This alone would protect us from these intruders, who can do no other than destroy in the bud American fencing potentialities. The first step to this putative organization should be to draw up a resolution to the effect that no amateur should be allowed to become a qualified professional unless he is passed by a board of, say, five qualified members of the organization. This rule would put the teaching of fencing in the position it deserves. It would protect us, the fencing masters, and it would be highly beneficial to the sport and its future.
I am entirely in agreement with the idea that more professionals should be created. Chances are that we shall not be able to import any from Europe for some time to come. But there isn't any earthly reason why we shouldn't be able to create them ourselves, and in a better way than it has been done so far. By doing that, we would be doing ourselves a favor—and helping the cause of national defense.
Perhaps the simplest solution lies in the creation of an Academy for Professional Fencers, or whatever you want to call it. This academy should be attached to a university. It would be the responsibility of this university to see that such an institution is to be directed by someone qualified to accept this tremendous responsibility towards American fencing.
This idea has already been expressed by two of the most distinguished fencers in this country, who are in the position to achieve this goal better than anyone else, being faculty members as well as top-ranking fencers. The idea may hold the future of American fencing, and, what is more important, one of the best methods of preparation of American youth for the day (let us hope it never comes) when they might be called upon to show what is discipline, alertness of body and mind, and American courage.
For fencing is more than a sport of thrust and parry. Whether anyone thinks about it or not, fencing is an excellent preparation for war. And not the war of knights in armor, but the war of tanks, long-range guns, and dive bombers.
There is a legend that soldiers are born, not made. It is only a legend. Soldiers can be made. The trouble is that it takes so long to train a good soldier. Any dummy in uniform is legitimate cannon fodder. But that's all he is. And cannon fodder isn't what wins wars.
Napoleon said: "The whole art of war consists in a well-thought-out defensive, together with a swift and bold offensive... One must lead his opponent to give battle under the most unfavorable conditions, then, when his last reserves are engaged, destroy him by a decisive attack... The dominating features of any successful campaign are energy and rapidity."
Energy, speed in analysis, decision and execution of a plan, boldness—these are the qualities of a good soldier. Aren't they the master qualities of the fencer?
Fencing is war. A courteous war between two individuals. Furthermore, it is the only sport that requires the concentration of a chess game, the lightning mind of a mathematical wizard, with a speed no sprinter ever had. It is the only sport that is an art, and at the same time a science, requiring mathematical precision in its practice.
We know that fencing gives its adepts and enthusiasts a fighting spirit, a cool head in combat, speed in analysis of attack and defense, and the energy to carry them out with tremendous determination. What more do we want in any soldier?
From many quarters, appeals have been made for more widespread athletic programs to aid national defense. Programs that would include in college athletics every student, and not restrict them to a sporting aristocracy. These appeals should be answered by widening the scope of athletic instruction in all schools; by teaching and coaxing sports, not merely coaching them.
Some universities and a few schools have fencing teams; and of all the athletes, the fencers are the ones who have the highest scholastic ratings. But these fencing teams are only the nucleus around which we must build. One coach cannot teach five hundred or five thousand students. More teachers must be hired, and, since they cannot be found in the United States, they must be made. I have discussed how and where they can be produced. Then, let every high school in the land have a fencing master—a real fencing master, and not someone who, in spite of his good will, is not qualified to the profession.
