Spare "Aunt Eppie"!
Item
-
Title
-
en
Spare "Aunt Eppie"!
-
Date
-
March 1938
-
volume
-
3
-
issue
-
3
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
4
-
list of authors
-
Richard F. Warren
-
content
-
en
SPARE "AUNT EPPIE"!
By Richard F. Warren
Editor's Note: The readers of the Riposte have already been introduced to Mr. Warren. For the benefit of our new following, however, we wish to point out that Mr. Warren has been for many years one of the main reasons for the existence and growth of the Philadelphia Division. He is an untiring crusader for our sport in his state.
As one who greatly enjoys the epee or duelling sword, may I be permitted a few comments on Mr. Tinney's interesting article "Aunt Eppie?" I rise to champion the elderly dame, for while I cannot prove her ancient lineage in as bright and delightful delineation as Mr. Tinney, nevertheless the old girl has many sincere devotees.
As one of those who voted for the single touch, I concur most heartily in wishing for the return to that method of deciding a bout. Truly the idea is to 'touch without being touched' and if a little more of the duel were injected into the epee fencing, we should all be better off. Could we, perhaps, allow a little more exposure of the points? Not enough to seriously injure, of course, but sufficiently to make a fencer a little more careful of how he exposed himself to his opponent?
As to the "dismounting of an 'eppie', laying aside the big bell and having a smallsword"—what alchemy is this? My smallswords are far shorter (and better balanced) than this strange weapon would be!
I, too, dislike the double touch and would welcome its entire elimination in deciding a bout—yes, even with our electrical robot, for a double touch is the negation of the idea of the duel.
Don't banish the old girl, she is more "sinned against than sinning", and it is the rules that are at fault (not to mention the fencers), rather than the weapon.
