-
Title
-
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : IV. The National Championship Tournament
-
Date
-
June 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
3
-
pages
-
10-12, 20
-
content
-
en
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
IV. THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT
By MIGUEL A. DE CAPRILES
Chairman of A.F.L.A. and I.C.F.A. Rules Committees
Since this issue of The Riposte will appear shortly before the 1941 National Championship Tournament, I think it fitting to tell you something of the history of our present rules for these competitions, and to point out the various alternatives which have been suggested from time to time.
First, about the history: In the early days, the National Championships, in their entirety, were held in New York City. The great bulk of the A.F.L.A. members were living in the cities of the Eastern seaboard, and New York was then, even more than now, the center of fencing interest in this country. As the number of competitors grew, the championships included preliminaries, semi-finals, and finals—all of which were held in New York.
Then, when the divisions were established, they were given the right to send three men each directly into the "semi-finals" of each weapon, while the non-divisional members (mostly New Yorkers) were permitted to qualify from four to eight fencers, depending on the number of competitors in the preliminaries. The "semi-finals," which in reality were the first round of the Championship Competition as distinguished from the Qualifying Competitions, were held at the New York Athletic Club on successive days, although down to 1932 it was customary to fence the epee and sabre semi-finals on the afternoon and evening of the same day. Then there would be a grand "final," four men in each weapon, immediately preceding the Annual Ball at the Hotel Astor. (The women's individual championship usually was fenced to a decision at the Fencers Club on the evening preceding the foil "semi-finals".)
The National Championship Tournament, therefore, consisted only of the individual events. The national team championships were fenced during the regular season in New York. It was a rare occasion when teams from other cities would compete, although Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington in certain years sent teams that carried away the championship trophies.
By 1933, the divisions had been given the right to qualify competitors into the "semi-finals" on the same basis as the non-divisional group, that is a minimum of four and a maximum of eight, depending on the number of competitors in the divisional preliminaries. Perhaps the idea was to encourage greater divisional participation; perhaps the idea was to destroy what seemed to be an invidious distinction in favor of the New York fencers. At any rate, this rule has stood down to the present time, although the divisions seldom have taken advantage of the increased number of possible qualifiers.
The following year, largely for financial reasons, the Annual Ball at the Astor was dropped, and one of the great social traditions in American fencing was lost. Those balls were truly gala affairs. Each member received a free ticket for himself, and had the right to purchase additional tickets. Most of the Governors subscribed for boxes, and the annual deficit was generally covered by contributions from the wealthier members of the group. Eventually, personal contributions for this purpose dwindled as the great depression took its toll. Rather than finance deficits out of League funds, the Board decided to retrench. A self-supporting "gala night" at the New York Athletic Club was substituted.
The four-man finals in each weapon were retained until 1935. The following year, largely in response to the desires of the leading active fencers, the number of finalists was increased to six. This made a better final round for the fencers, and provided a better basis for the selection of the Olympic Team, but it had the disadvantage of lasting so long as to curtail rather seriously the social phases of the "gala night." The following year (1937), the same plan was followed, but it became obvious that, from the spectators' viewpoint, there was too much fencing and too little party, and that to continue to hold three six-man finals on the same evening would eventually destroy the social gathering.
Consequently, in 1938, a new plan was tried, to send only two men in each weapon into the "finals," so that only three bouts, each for 10 touches, would be fenced. This probably was, from the spectators' point of view, the most interesting championship. But it was highly unsatisfactory from the competitors' angle. The two finalists had qualified out of a round-robin of 8, and only in the epee had the two finished the pool with identical records. In foil, the winner of the round-robin won the championship match. In sabre, the winner of the round-robin lost the championship match. Neither situation was wholly satisfactory. Most of the top-notch fencers preferred to settle the issue on the basis of a round-robin, as being more in keeping with the traditions of amateur fencing as developed in the Olympics and in the Worlds' Championships.
The year 1939, thanks to the enterprise of the California divisions, saw the establishment of a national championship tournament along Olympic lines, and the holding of the title events away from New York for the first time. Four team and four individual championships (the women's foil and the separate weapons for men) were held on eight successive days, each competition being completely finished before the next one was begun. The "gala night" was officially eliminated, although a social gathering was organized on the final night (individual sabre) at a San Francisco night club. New rules were formulated for the qualification of two teams from each division, and the Bout Committee organized the individual events on the basis of semi-final and final pools of eight fencers. The same basic pattern was followed in New York in 1940, except that the individual events were held first, so that the sabre team championship (a relatively short competition) was reserved for the same date as the "gala night."
Your Rules Committee drafted Chapter VIII, therefore, with all these varieties of National Championships in mind. It attempted to clarify the relation of the qualifying events to the championship competitions; and on two subjects, where it found conflicting precedents, it formulated the rule that seemed to have the weight of logic on its side. The first question was whether "alternates" should be allowed to take the place of a regular qualifier who could not compete in the championship competition. In New York, because of precedent set in a junior event some years ago, alternates were not allowed. Elsewhere in the country they were permitted as a matter of course, although there was great variety in the method of selecting such alternates. Your Rules Committee decided that there was no fundamental objection to alternates, but that there certainly should be uniformity throughout the country in the rules to govern their participation.
The other point concerned the method of determining the finalists when the final pool consisted of less than six men (so that a potential bronze medalist might be shut out, as would happen if less than three men were qualified from each of two semi-final pools). In the old days, with a final of four, if two or more fencers were tied for a qualifying place, touches were counted in the manner prescribed by the rules. Since only two qualified from each of the two semi-final strips, it was quite possible for a fencer to lose only a single bout in a long semi-final round, and yet be eliminated from the final. However, in 1938, when the two-man final was tried, and two or more fencers were tied for qualification out of a single semi-final pool of eight, a fence-off was ordered.
The Rules Committee considered both procedures, and decided in favor of the fence-off in all cases where the final pool consisted of less than six fencers. It considered the fact that the system of counting touches for individual qualifying places was completely eliminated from the Olympics in 1940, although it was apparently retained by the F.I.E. for lesser competitions. Furthermore, in this country, there has been growing criticism of this method of deciding ties. This story deserves separate treatment, which I hope to present in a later article.
Finally, the Committee adopted the recommendation of the National Bout Committee, setting the dates of the divisional qualifying competitions at least one month, and the closing date for entries at two weeks, before the opening of the national championship tournament. This action was based on purely practical considerations. If, by any chance, in a given year, all the divisions decided to send on their full quota of qualified fencers for the nationals, the Bout Committee would find it impossible to cope with competitions involving 100 or 200 fencers. Even half of these numbers might require a complete rescheduling of the championships. Therefore, it seemed logical to give the Bout Committee at least two weeks' notice as to the number of entries that might be expected. On the other hand, the Northern Ohio Division pointed out that, to comply with the new regulations, the divisions would have to know the exact date of the national championship tournament early enough in the season to permit proper draft of the divisional schedules. This point was very well taken, so that a new rule was added, requiring the date of the tournament to be set at the first meeting of the National Board of Governors in September of the previous year.
Except as here explained, the rules in Chapter VIII were simply a codification of existing practice down to the summer of 1940. However, a number of alternatives have been suggested, and I give them to you now with a brief statement of their background:
(I) European fencers generally are astonished to learn that our National Championships are open to all amateur fencers, without restrictions as to class, so that a prep or a novice is free to enter the preliminary rounds. In most European countries, only the fencers of the top class are eligible to compete for the national title. It is argued on behalf of this system: (a) that participation in the national championship is an honor which fencers should earn only by proving their worth in lesser competitions; (b) that top-notch fencers should not be required to meet adversaries of lesser rank of ability; (c) that a restricted national championship makes a better competition for participants and spectators, since the contestants are more evenly matched throughout the event.
(II) European fencers are also puzzled to find that we permit foreigners to enter our championships on the same footing as our own citizens. In Europe, in the few cases where a foreigner may enter a national championship, he is required to compete "hors concours"—that is, he may place first, but he cannot win the "championship" title. This title may be won only by a citizen of the country holding the competition. The background, of course, lies in the closeness of one country to another in Europe and the great variations in fencing strength as between those countries. Perhaps we may come to a similar rule in the future, if we should get a large influx of foreign fencers. But at present this possibility seems rather remote.
(III). A number of objections have been made to our qualifying system, which is based principally on the geographical areas represented by the divisions, with relation to the number of fencers registered in each area. The main objection is that, in given situations, the qualifying competition may be "tougher" than the championship event. This has happened in New York in sabre, because of the great concentration of sabre fencers in this area. Two types of alternatives are offered as solutions:
(A) To set a fixed number of competitors in the championship competitions (say 36), and to allocate the number of qualifiers to each section or division on the basis of the relative strength of its fencers in their particular weapon. This plan, offhand, seems to present a number of difficult administrative problems, although it seems to work in golf.
(B) To increase the number of automatic qualifiers for the championship competition. At present, only the defending champion has this privilege as a matter of course. It has been suggested that automatic qualification be granted (1) to all three medalists of the previous year; (2) to all finalists of the previous year; (3) to all former national champions in that particular weapon. In favor of this plan it is argued that a division which is relatively strong in one weapon would thus have the opportunity to send more men into the championships than a weak one—and that this could be accomplished without having to "draft" extra competitors in order to comply with the present requirements for the qualification of more than four fencers. The Board of Governors, as a matter of fact, has recently asked the Rules Committee to study these recommendations for possible adoption next year. Personally, I like the idea of qualifying automatically the three medalists of the previous year.
(IV) There is another group of alternatives offered as improvements in our championships from the viewpoint of the spectator. These ideas favor the decision of the championship on the basis of a match between two fencers, rather than on the basis of a round-robin. As I mentioned before, we tried something of this sort in 1938, and—although the contestants generally did not like it—it was unquestionably popular with the spectators. Some minor details for improvement over the 1938 plan are these: (A) Instead of qualifying both finalists out of a single large semi-final pool, qualify the top man from each of two semi-finals. (B) Instead of a 10-touch final in all weapons (with or without the requirement of a two-touch margin for victory), schedule a final match for two regular bouts out of three—something like the tennis idea of two sets out of three. This last suggestion is probably a good one, but the whole idea must stand or fall on the merits of the final match between two fencers only.
(V) Along similar lines, but worthy of separate classification, is a plan which seems to prevail in certain South American countries. It is substantially the Davis Cup plan applied to individual fencing events. The holder of the championship is not required to "play through." The aspirants for the title enter the regular annual competition, and the winner becomes the recognized "Challenger." The National Champion and the Challenger then meet in a championship match. A similar idea, although on a round-robin basis, would be to limit the championship competition to former national champions plus the Challenger of the particular year, determined as above.
I think this rounds out the more important alternatives to our present rules. Would you like to see any of these tried? If so, let the Board of Governors know your wishes, and if enough think as you do, you may be sure they will be carried out.
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.
