More About the Epee
Item
-
Title
-
en
More About the Epee
-
Date
-
March 1938
-
volume
-
3
-
issue
-
3
-
page start
-
5
-
page end
-
5
-
list of authors
-
Earle Goodrich Lee
-
content
-
en
MORE ABOUT THE EPEE
By Earle Goodrich Lee
Editor's Note: Mr. Earle Goodrich Lee is the Minnesota State Director of Fencing. He is largely responsible for the growth of the sport in that state and has been very kind in keeping our readers posted on the activities of the Minnesota League of Fencing Clubs.
—
The article by Roy S. Tinney in the February issue of the Riposte prompts me to add a few words on the same subject in the hope of drawing out the New York professional instructors to the end that they may be induced to give us some technical articles on the subject.
I am another old-timer, having taken my first fencing lesson over forty years ago. I was fortunate in having an instructor who taught me the classic style of Louis Rondelle. I have not read any subsequent author whose teachings showed any improvement over those of "Foil and Sabre", nor have I ever crossed blades with a disciple of a different school whose methods I considered better. Of late years I have fenced a great deal with a number of professional instructors. I could say a great deal on that subject, but in this article I want to talk about the epee.
In the three-weapon contest held in the Twin Cities between St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg teams, our St. Paul boys were able to contend successfully against the Canadians in foil and sabre, but were decisively beaten in the epee. That set me to thinking about the peculiarities of this weapon. I had hitherto looked upon epee fencing rather contemptuously as a wrist jabbing proposition, but after some experimenting with that weapon I am not certain that it need be that sort of a contest.
In handling the epee against an aggressive opponent, I have observed that the stiff blade and the large bell add increased effectiveness to the circular or counter parries. Made with a snappy wrist action (not possible when the pommel is strapped to the wrist), I have found them a complete defense against forearm attacks, specially if it is a thrusting attack unaccompanied by a full lunge. The vulnerable part of the forearm is the outside, and it is particularly vulnerable when a simple sixte parry is relied upon to stop a thrust in tierce. On the other hand, the true tierce parry as taught by Rondelle—with the nails down—will not only fully protect the forearm, but provides an excellent opening for a direct riposte over the top of the opponent's blade. I have used this riposte successfully in both foil and epee. The only way it can be stopped effectively is by a prime parry (which cannot properly be made with the pommel strapped to the wrist).
It seems to me that the weak point about epee fencing is the attempt to make time-thrusts without being in opposition. It is a revival of the old 16th century one-time habit, made necessary by the heavy weapons of those days, and superceded when the lighter weapons came into use. These attacks result in double-hits, and if one is a body hit and the other an arm hit, the arm hit may get the decision merely because it is assumed to be closer and therefore may have arrived earlier. It takes a good referee to prevent an epee contest from degenerating into a wrangle.
I think I have said enough now to stir up the animals, and I should like to hear from some of them.
