Ethics on the Fencing Strip
Item
-
Title
-
Ethics on the Fencing Strip
-
Date
-
October 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
4
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
5
-
content
-
en
Ethics on the Fencing Strip
By GUZMAN ROLANDO and DERNELL EVERY
When one fences in a competitive bout one must employ all of the principles of the art as learned in the fencing room plus the seriousness and attention that one would give to a duel. Without, therefore, entering upon the detail of the art itself, which we must presuppose that all competitors have learned before entering competition, we shall content ourselves with pointing out some of the most common defects which are conspicuous during competitions, so that everyone desirous of becoming a good fencer may endeavor to avoid them.
If, in conformance with the above definition, the fencing bout ought always to be a facsimile of a well sustained combat by both parties, there is generally a great deal wanting to fulfill such a resemblance. There is nothing useful, unfortunately, that does not from its abuse become prejudicial in the end.
The principles of fencing must be strictly adhered to during a bout. All the lessons and instructions previously received should be put into practice. We find, on the contrary, that very little attention is paid to proper technique once a bout begins and fencers seem invariably to resort to an individual and often extemporaneous style of combat that little resembles their actions in the lesson or the instructions of their teachers. These variations are particularly marked in the beginner with whom they seem to take one of two courses. Either he goes into a complete fog and forgets all he knows or he goes into a passion and tries to blitzkrieg himself into a favorable result. In the former case we see good pupils forget to parry and resort to retreats at every feint or attack of the opponent. It is plain to the spectator that they are unsure of themselves and cannot seem to think of a thing to do. They act independent of rule, reason or design with the very strange result that they ignore doing what they have been trained to do and try to do a great many things which they have not been trained to do or even been specifically told they should not do. This is one of the banes of a professional's existence, to see a pupil blow up and show no signs of ever having learned the rudiments of attacks, parries and ripostes.
In the other case we see the apparent fury of what we once knew as a calm pupil. We see such pupils seemingly go berserk trusting entirely to their strength and' energy. Guided by the single efforts of nature they incessantly exhaust themselves by thrusting in vain in futile charges to such a degree that they only become vigorous, awkward ferrailleurs. By far the greater number of this type seem also to neglect all parries, which are the real basis and safety of fencing. Let the opponent give the slightest indication of attacking and they too launch an attack regardless of parries, taking safe opposition or their distance. There results a series of double lunges with the director hard pressed to untangle the contestants and render his decision. Some bouts of this kind go to such extremes that they become humorous with both contestants resolving themselves to one illogical purpose, to lunge simultaneously at the director's command to fence. Our berserk instigator of the double lunging invariably comes off on the shorter end of the final score.
Fencing masters endeavor to teach their pupils calmness and presence of mind. Their lessons are planned to teach prudence, order, foresight, judgment and design. Imagine the embarrassment their pupils give them in such exhibitions of hazard and disorder. Can you blame some of them from staying away from competitions preferring to read in the papers of the rout of their pupils rather than be forced to witness the seeming collapse of all they have been teaching.
These faults are primarily the result of lack of experience. Every fencing master shares this frightful experience. No matter how well his pupils perform while under his watchful eye he can be sure that when they first enter competition they will exploit their predominant characteristic to the extreme. The calm pupil will become apathetic and the nervous pupil turn berserk. This reaction is perfectly comprehensible and can be overcome only by the pupil himself after many bitter experiences of nightmarish nature.
Such actions on the part of the inexperienced can be forgiven. They are unfortunate and regrettable but it must be realized that no one suffers quite as much as the victim himself. There is plenty of self-condemnation after the bout or competition is over when the full realization of what he did or didn't do sinks home. The pupil comes slinking home with tail between his legs and is the more attentive student as the result of it.
As these initial stages are passed, there are other habits of competition that develop that are not so easily forgiven. These are bad customs which should not be allowed to creep into the book of tricks of any real sportsman. They develop as the direct result of the healthy desire to win but they are based upon the unsportsmanlike attitude of "anything to win." There was a time when I thought that fencers should remain quiet when fencing. It seemed ungentlemanly to shout as you attacked. Even a wrestler wouldn't think of humming as he applied a painful toe hold. Nor did I think a fencer should shout as he poked his opponent. I no longer feel that way. To shout as you attack gives a psychological relief to the attacker, it does not disturb the attacked nor influence the jury and it adds a zest to the spectators' interest. It was looked down upon in this country up until about 1929 but has been accepted as approved practice ever since.
There are three definite practices which I abhor and which I consider part of the "anything to win" school. The fact that they are used for that purpose alone is evidenced by the fact that no fencer uses them in the salle d'armes during practice. These include ripping off the mask, turning the back and offering to shake hands after the last lunge before the touch is called by the jury. The unfortunate part of these tricks is that there is little the director can do under the rules to prevent them. Fortunately such tricks are neither widespread nor increasing. A certain few use them and the others prefer to ignore their practice through an innate sense of their impropriety.
To attack and rip off the mask with one and the same continuous motion is not only unfair to an opponent who may have parried but is a stronger than necessary hint to the jury that the touch must have landed. It is also foolhardy. Foilsmen run the risk of a foil in the face and sabremen have been cut over the head as a result of this improper action. It puts the opponent in a decidedly unfair position for no one wants to fence when he knows that an opponent, upon the slightest provocation, may voluntarily expose himself to a fatal injury. Ripostes have been withheld as a result of this practice. No matter how careless a person may be of his own life it certainly is not fair that an innocent opponent be forced to live the rest of his life with a charge of manslaughter on his conscience. I believe that the A. F. L. A. should pass a rule that anyone voluntarily removing his mask during a phrase and before the call of "Halt" by the director should be warned once. Two warnings should constitute a touch.
An offense of similar nature but not so dangerous is that of turning one's back upon an opponent at the conclusion of an attack and endeavoring to walk away in a manner which says to the jury, "If you didn't see that touch, you are blind." If an opponent is fast in his replies the attacker cannot risk this trick but I have seen it pulled too often to like it. The director in this case is helpless, just as he is in the first case, for it is his duty and obligation to call halt the instant he sees that a contestant has, for one reason or another, stopped fencing. The trick is nothing more than taking advantage of the rule. This particular trick sometimes leads to amusing results for some fencers refuse to allow their right to riposte to be stolen from them and thrust the retreating fencer in the back. They have even followed such an opponent down the strip to do so. This last is as wrong as the original offense and I do not condone it, but I am always amused at the result. The one who caused the situation is immediately outraged at having been touched in the back when not defending himself. He invariably splutters for the rest of the bout about the poor sportsmanship of his opponent.
I now come to the prize action of all. That is the final lunge when the score is 4-4 or 4-3. There is an attack with much noise and immediately the attacker rips off his mask and extends his hand and smiles beautifully. This generally occurs when the touch, if any, was most doubtful. If it were a clear and obvious touch you will see no such behavior. The attacker will then await the decision nonchalantly and accept the handshake offered by the defeated fencer most graciously. Beyond the fact that this trick has a characteristic smell all its own it puts an innocent opponent in an embarrassing situation. Let us say that he has felt no touch. If he accepts the handshake he acknowledges a touch which may not have occurred. If he refuses the handshake he may look like a poor sport, if the touch is eventually awarded. These actions do not impress the spectators with the fine sportsmanship they have been led to expect from fencing. There is only one excuse for extending the hand to an opponent before the final touch has been announced. That is when the hand is extended by the contestant against whom the last touch was made.
There are two other actions which I dislike to see but which are more the result of ignorance than any desire to gain. One is dropping the arm after an attack, believing that a hit has arrived and allowing the quick opponent to cash an easy riposte. This action is costly, usually unintentional but nevertheless stupid. The other action is the holding of a point after making it. Here you sometimes see the foil held against the opponent’s chest, in fact almost bent double, long after its arrival has registered with the jury. Many beautiful poses for the slow action camera are offered in this way. It is a discourteous gesture at best.
The various vocal expressions of fencers in assisting the juries in their interpretations and decisions or objecting to adverse decisions need not be dwelt upon here. The director is empowered to deal with these by the rules. There are a few silent or non-verbal manifestations that are harder to deal with. There is the silent fencer who stands after an attack and repeats the sword movement in the air for the jury to clarify its interpretation of the action. There is the contestant who stomps the floor or throws his foil or mask down after a decision. There is the fencer who thinks he is fair minded and embarrasses the jury by shaking his head dolefully after going on guard to indicate that his opponent had just been given a raw decision. This action may be done in all fairness to the opponent but it is not fair to the jury.
There is only one way to act upon the fencing strip properly and that is to say and do nothing to influence or embarrass the jury or take advantage of an opponent. The late George Calnan was a perfect example of such comportment. When he fenced he was a machine neither asking nor giving quarter. Between phrases he was a gentleman saying nothing and giving no indication of approval or disapproval of the decisions. He called no touches for his opponent and claimed no touches for himself. He loved competition and he loved the sport. He knew that there was a certain element of chance in the decisions and he did nothing to affect them to his own advantage. As a result he was always a popular competitor in the eyes of the jury, the spectators and, most important of all, his opponents.
I hope that this description of some of the worser displays of sportsmanship will not teach bad tricks to the innocent. Perhaps your particular locality has not been plagued with such bad manners. Nor do I wish to give the impression that fencing in New York City is rife with bad mannered fencers. It isn’t, but unfortunately it only takes one or two actions of this kind throughout an entire competition to taint the impressions of all of the spectators. My only claim is that these actions have no more place on the competitive strip than they have on the practice strip where they do not exist at all. If every fencer would review his own actions in the light of this essay, eliminate those that he may have become guilty of as shoddy tricks whose shoddiness he perhaps was not fully conscious of before, the sport would soon return to the high standards which it has always claimed to have. More people would be attracted to it as competitors and what is equally if not more important, more people would turn out as spectators.
