-
Title
-
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : The Scoring System
-
Date
-
December 1941
-
volume
-
6
-
issue
-
5
-
pages
-
11-12, 16
-
content
-
en
Sidelights on the New Rules Book
THE SCORING SYSTEM
By Miguel A. de Capriles
This is the sixth in a series of articles of comment on the new rules book by Mr. de Capriles, chairman of the A. F. L. A. and I. C. F. A. rules committees. Interpretive in nature, they are designed to assist directors, judges and fencers throughout the country in applying the newly revised code. Any questions or interpretations asked by readers will be discussed by the author in future issues.
—
IN MY preceding article on the subject of “Resolving Ties in Round Robin Events,” I suggested that there was a good argument for the current system of “counting touches,” as compared with the “percentage” system originated by the late Dr. Scott D. Breckinridge. I plan to present this argument here. However, in order to obtain proper perspective, it will be necessary to examine the theory of scoring in fencing competitions and the history of our present system.
—
Basic Viewpoints
If you will turn to our Rules Book (Article V, pp. 92–96), and particularly Rules 507 and 508, you will notice that we speak of touches being “won” by the contestant scoring them. On the score sheet (p. 93) we record, opposite a competitor’s name, the number of touches which he has scored. This is the method which we adopted in the Intercollegiate Fencing Association under the leadership of Hugh V. Alessandroni as far back as 1935, and in the Amateur Fencers League of America in 1937. It is contrary to the otherwise world-wide international system which prevailed in the United States previously. The international system reverses the viewpoint on fencing touches. Under F. I. E. rules (and our own some years back), they speak of a fencer being hit (not of his opponent touching him), and they record on the score sheet, opposite his name, the number of touches which he has received. In this country we always speak of Fencer A winning his foil bout against Fencer B by 5 to 3. But abroad, it is just as frequently said that A defeated B by 3 to 5.
This difference in point of view is expressed also in the method of awarding touches by the Director. Under our present system, the Director calls the touch “for” the successful contestant, either by naming him or by reference to his position on the strip, e. g., “for the right” or “for the left.” According to the international system, the Director calls the touch “against” the fencer who has been touched, so that when a Director says “touch left,” he means that the fencer on his left has been validly hit.
To summarize: The American system looks upon a touch as a successful offensive action by the fencer who scores it. The international system regards a touch more as a defensive fault to be counted against the fencer who suffers it. Is this a purely academic “distinction without a difference”? Not quite. It is rather an expression of a basic theory of fencing, and in this respect, the international view is the more consistent. Let me show you why.
—
The Duel
While it is perhaps old-fashioned to discuss the rules of a modern sport by reference to the more or less romantic past, I think that much of the theory of fencing can be logically explained only in terms of the grim realities of the duel. Thus interpreted, I believe that the roots of scientific swordsmanship reach deep into the soil of human psychology.
Take, for example, the rules governing the “right of way.” The correct attack against the defender’s threatening point in line requires that the threat be first turned aside. Why? Because, if the weapons were deadly sharp, no attacker in his right senses would run the risk of impaling himself upon the defender’s threatening point. Much as a duelist might wish to destroy his opponent, he would first take care not to kill himself.
Much the same type of analysis explains why the defender, against a properly executed attack, is required to turn aside the threatening blade by a parry before initiating a counter-offensive. Self-preservation is the first rule of life.
There is a famous story, perhaps a legend, that runs as follows: Some years ago, two of our better-known college coaches were engaged in a heated though friendly argument over the relative merits of the stop-thrust and the parry in modern dueling-sword contests. Louis Vauthier was propounding the fundamental correctness of the parry, while Bob Grasson was upholding the deadly effectiveness of the stop-thrust against a wild attacker. Vauthier said: “If you were actually in a duel with a ‘wild attacker’ you would still parry!” Grasson said: “I would stop him dead.” Suddenly Vauthier made a violent threatening gesture with his hand directed at Grasson’s face ... and Grasson’s arm automatically and swiftly blocked the menacing hand! Said Vauthier: “You would parry!”
By virtue of the same fundamental logic, the double touch is regarded as a basically faulty result in fencing. In the conventionalized weapons (foil and sabre), which are further removed from the ancestry of the duel, the double touch is scored against the fencer who is at fault in provoking the double touch. In the epee, which most closely follows the duel, the double touch counts against both fencers. If the bout is for a single touch, the rules of the F. I. E. and of the A. F. L. A. agree, each fencer is charged with a full loss. They are both symbolically “dead.” If the bout is for several touches and, as a result of a double touch, the score ends in a tie, both fencers likewise are charged with a full defeat.
When multiple touch epee first was tried in the F. I. E., the rule-makers provided that a tie bout be scored as a draw, i. e., the equivalent of half a victory for each contestant. This rule was in effect in the 1932 Olympic Games. But its fundamental clash with the basic theory of fencing caused the partial abandonment of the rule for the 1936 games, and a complete reversion to the theory of the full defeat in the rules that were to have governed the 1940 Olympic Games. In other words, we are clear today that, when an epee bout ends in 1-1, 2-2, or 3-3, neither fencer has won anything. They both lose, because both have been at fault, in a critical moment, in disregarding the rule of self-preservation.
—
Counting Touches “Against”
It is this fundamental principle of scientific fencing which throws primary weight upon the defensive strength of a fencer when ties are to be resolved in round-robin events. Granted that for purposes of the round-robin score, victories are counted so that the offensive ability of a fencer seems thereby to be recognized first, still one could just as easily say that the winners are those who suffer the least number of defeats in a given number of bouts. Then, if on the basis of bouts there is equality between two or more fencers, the more meritorious is the one with the better defense. Therefore the tie is resolved in favor of the fellow who has received the smallest total of touches. Only when the defensive strength of the fencers is equal is the tie resolved in favor of the better offense.
One could also argue, against the “percentage” method, that to count touches is easier than to calculate fractions, so that the possibilities of mathematical errors of computation are minimized. But this argument would apply equally well to the count of touches “for” a fencer as for the count of touches “against.” I think the real basis of our system of resolving round-robin ties is the fundamental theoretical importance of the principle of self-preservation in the duel.
—
Anomalies in Our Present Rules
You may reasonably ask, then, why do we differ from the international system in scoring touches “for” a fencer, instead of “against” him? Why not go back to the older and more logical rule? Why do the college rules still score a tie bout in epee as half a victory instead of a full loss for each contestant? Questions such as these came up at the various meetings of the Rules Committees, and some words of explanation about our peculiar rules are in order:
1. The change to calling touches “for” instead of “against” a fencer was designed to please the spectators. Alessandroni’s sponsorship of the change was based on the belief that the public would be able to follow the progress of a bout more easily, since calling touches “against” was unfamiliar in a combat sport. In the Rules Committee, sentiment was so divided that no change was thought desirable. Warren Dow favored a change back to the international system, supporting his views on the theory that the public should be properly educated to our basic attitudes. Other members, however, felt the matter was of slight technical importance, and that the original reason for our present rule was sound.
The college rule on epee ties was favored by a majority of the I. C. F. A. Rules Committee. Since most of the competitions applying the College Rules were team matches and dual meets, it made little practical difference whether a tie was scored as a full defeat or as half a victory for each contestant. Perhaps also some of the college coaches feared there might be more of an opportunity for the dreaded “judges” to injure the relative positions of their teams in the championship tournament if epee ties, resulting from double touches, were scored as full defeats for both contestants. Coaches are hypersensitive in that respect.
—
Fencing as a Sport
On the other hand, perhaps these “anomalies” are not so strange after all. Although the international rules are unquestionably sounder from the viewpoint of the theory of the duel, fencing has long departed from a strict analogy to the duel and is getting farther away all the time. The best examples, of course, are the conventions of play which govern foil and sabre, but the same is true of the modern duelling sport. The epee game of today is not a sporting counterpart of the duel. The fencers cannot in their heart of hearts make themselves believe that they are engaged in deadly combat; they know, consciously or not, that the weapons are not sharp; and their method of play is consequently freer. The rules and the electrical equipment both eliminate the double touch when there is an appreciable “time difference” between the two hits, although in a duel such time difference might be too short to prevent injury to both fencers.
These are real differences. Fencing today is not only the modern science of swordsmanship, but it is also a sport and a spectacle. As a sport, its athletic qualities are unsurpassed; and, as a sport, it has only a minor place in its repertory for “safety-first” methods of fencing. The highly skillful precision of the old French school, emphasizing technical excellence a pied ferme, has given way to a greater reliance upon agility of foot and faster tempo. Brilliant actions, featuring dash and speed, provide a genuinely enjoyable spectacle. Thus, fencing as a sport tends to place greater weight upon offensive skill, from the viewpoint of both the competitor and the spectator. The public, by and large, prefers to watch a contest which features aggressive combat rather than a defensive battle. Ready examples in baseball, football, boxing, and tennis will come to mind. Fencing as a combat sport falls in a similar classification.
Whether we should allow these considerations to overshadow the scientific background of swordsmanship, as exemplified by the tradition of the duel, is a difficult and puzzling question. There is no doubt that we must live in our own time rather than in the past. Yet we cannot disregard the long tradition of fencing as an art and a science, unless we are willing to risk the loss of our most distinctive heritage. Perhaps time alone will furnish the answer to our question.
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.
