-
Title
-
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : III. More About Classification
-
Date
-
April 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
2
-
page start
-
6
-
page end
-
7
-
content
-
en
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
III. MORE ABOUT CLASSIFICATION
By Miguel A. de Capriles
Chairman of A.F.L.A. and I.C.F.A. Rules Committees
One of our more thoughtful New York fencers, who has only recently begun to take a competitive interest in our sport, and who joined the A. F. L. A. last fall, was a contestant in the first "prep" event of the season. He was surprised to find that most of the fencers, far from being—like himself—new to competition, were in reality veterans of college and high school fencing. He checked up on our rules of classification, and found that under these rules such fencers were legitimately "preps," since they were competing in their first A. F. L. A. event, did not specifically come within the definition of "novice," and had not reached "junior" ranking since they had not won medals in a recognized intercollegiate championship.
My conversation with this fencer convinced me that it would be well in this article to examine the relation between the A. F. L. A. and other organizations (official or unofficial) which sponsor fencing competition, and to look over our rules of classification in the light of such a relation. It may be that there are serious shortcomings that should be remedied.
Let us re-read Introductory Chapter "A" of the New Rules Book. We find that the A. F. L. A. is affiliated with the Amateur Athletic Union, and that the A. F. L. A. performs, for fencing, a number of functions which the A. A. U. performs for other amateur sports. The A. F. L. A. is also the only organization which may certify the entries of American amateur fencers in international events. It would be a simple step, then, to come to the conclusion that the A. F. L. A. is the sole official controlling body for amateur fencing—that all other fencing organizations could have no standing in their own right, but only to the extent that their activities were authorized by the controlling body—and that unauthorized competition in events outside the A. F. L. A. would subject a fencer (whether or not he is a member) to disciplinary penalties and loss of amateur standing. Such might be the theory of a truly national fencing league, and it might be the ideal toward which we should strive. But the actual practice is far from clear, not only in fencing but in other amateur sports.
For example, even in A. A. U. sports, the jurisdiction of various intercollegiate organizations is recognized, explicitly or impliedly, by the A. A. U. It is not necessary for college athletes generally to join the A. A. U. in order to maintain their amateur status, and the official championships of certain associations need not be specifically sanctioned by the A. A. U. The situation is crystal-clear when we analyze the situation which has existed in the past in the American Olympic Association, and which now exists in its successor, the United States Amateur Sports Federation; for the purposes of official international games, the National Collegiate Athletic Association stands on a par with the A. A. U. in those sports in which these two organizations are jointly interested.
A college athlete, therefore, may confine himself to official intercollegiate competition, and the A. A. U. keeps hands off. However, if he chooses to compete in A. A. U. events, he must get his A. A. U. card, and he is then subject to a dual jurisdiction. When he graduates, of course, the jurisdiction of the A. A. U. is exclusive. In fact, in common parlance, the terms "college athlete" and "amateur" mean different things, even when no aspersions are intended to be cast on the amateur character of college athletics. When you speak of an "amateur" athlete, you usually mean one who is subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the A. A. U., not to a man who is attending college.
The situation is similar in fencing. Our Rules Book explicitly recognizes the jurisdiction of the Intercollegiate Fencing Association (founded in 1894) and of the N. C. A. A. over fencers who are students in their respective member colleges. For many years, the I. C. F. A. was the only association of colleges which conducted a recognized intercollegiate fencing championship, and its operation through undergraduates and alumni was closely related to the A. F. L. A., not only because of common interest in the sport, but also because college fencing was taken into account in the A. F. L. A. rules of classification.
Today, the college fencing situation is very complex. The I. C. F. A., though the oldest, is only one of a number of well-established, reputable organizations conducting intercollegiate fencing events. In the original I. C. F. A. territory, the Northeastern part of the United States, there is a strong Eastern Intercollegiate Conference, organized about four years ago. The Pacific Coast has long conducted successful championships in its section. The Southern Conference, after some years of intermittent activity, has scheduled a promising fencing championship at William and Mary this year. The Mid-West, in addition to the well-established Big Ten meet, will also have this year the N. C. A. A. individual championships at Ohio State University. There are probably more instances. But the net fact is that, though the A. F. L. A. does not explicitly recognize the jurisdiction of the more recent college fencing leagues, nevertheless, such recognition is implied in recent amendments to the rules of classification. Thus Rule 9(c), at pages 28 and 29, classifies as a "junior" anyone who has won "any team or individual medal at a recognized intercollegiate championship." This would apply, of course, to official events sponsored by the organizations mentioned above.
Practically speaking, there is a strong point in favor of control of college athletics by college authorities, since most colleges maintain that intercollegiate athletics are part of the educational program and must be primarily governed by educational considerations rather than by the rules of an outside amateur body. This generally works out satisfactorily from the point of view of the A. F. L. A. and the A. A. U. because the college associations generally maintain excellent standards of amateurism.
A similar situation, not as yet recognized in fencing, exists in connection with the high schools. For example, in New York City, the Public Schools Athletic League and the Association of Private Schools both sponsor fencing championships for schoolboys. That there are possibilities of conflict is indicated by the stand taken by school authorities in New York against the participation of high school track athletes in such events as the Penn Relays, and their insistence that the P. S. A. L. fencing rules be observed in the Biddle Trophy Competition at New York University if any P. S. A. L. member schools were to be permitted to compete. This position is exactly in accord with the theory behind control of college athletes by their college authorities. That the question has not been squarely considered in the A. F. L. A. rules of classification is an oversight due probably to the fact that only recently have high school fencers joined the A. F. L. A. in substantial numbers.
There is another important point. Last year, one of the largest groups of fencers not affiliated with the A. F. L. A., the Southwestern Fencing League, became the flourishing Texas Division of the A. F. L. A. Their status is now clear. But we have not specifically provided for transferring the results of their previous competitions for the purposes of our Rules of Classification. The same problem may arise, and I hope it will, whenever other outside bodies, such as the Minnesota League of Fencing Clubs, are ready to join the A. F. L. A.
Now, then, we are ready to raise a number of questions which affect our Rules of Classification:
1. Should we specifically recognize as "novices" rather than "preps" all college fencers who have participated in official intercollegiate fencing championships as members of a varsity team?
2. Should we recognize the medalists in intercollegiate freshman competitions as "novices," or should we rank the gold medalist as a "junior"?
3. Should we recognize all medalists in official high school championships as "novices," instead of classifying them as "preps" simply because they have not joined the A. F. L. A.?
4. Should we recognize the competitions of unaffiliated organizations for the purpose of classifying their fencers when, individually or as a body, they become A. F. L. A. members?
I am personally inclined to answer the first query in the affirmative. The second question, as far as it applies to the Clemens Medal Competition of the I. C. F. A., should be answered in light of the fact that in its early history, the Clemens Medal rated as an official novice event. The third question seems logically to follow the answer of the first two.
The fourth question is a tough one. If we restrict recognition of unaffiliated competitions to those sponsored by reputable and permanent organizations who observe high standards of amateurism, an affirmative answer might be indicated. However, what standards should be set? Would it be better not to recognize even the most reputable unaffiliated bodies, so as to encourage them to join the A. F. L. A.? Should we classify all "amateur" events not specifically authorized by the A. F. L. A. as invitation events which have no effect on a fencer's classification? Should the penalties (including possible loss of amateur standing) be applied against competitors in unauthorized events, even though participation therein precedes the fencer's membership in the A. F. L. A.?
The problem is a difficult one, not only in practice, but also in theory. I have indicated an opinion on some of these questions, but offer no solution for the last. The A. F. L. A. is still in its growing stages, and the solution should have a definite goal in mind. Whether you are a member of the A. F. L. A. or not, I would welcome your opinion on these questions.
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : II. Those Pesky Classifications
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : III. More About Classification
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : IV. The National Championship Tournament
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : V. Resolving Ties in Round-Robin
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : The Scoring System
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : A New Competitive Plan for the I.C.F.A.
