A Propos d'un Accident
by
Raoul
Clery, Maitre d'Armes
(translated by Mary Anne Stevens)
(with additional commentary by Adam A. Crown, Maitre d’Armes)
This article, written by one of
France's leading Fencing Masters, first appeared in the Feb-March 1983 issue of
Escrime magazine and was later published in American Fencing magazine with
whose gracious permission we re-print it here.
During the time I studied with Maitre Jean-Jacques Gillet,
1977-1980, he was the head of the National Coaching staff. He fought fiercely
for correct fencing technique and strict application of the rules. He believed
that the proper role of the scoring apparatus was to assist the President du
Combat, not to replace him/her. Some “coaches” would argue that “it turns on
the light.” M. Gillet would simply respond “But it’s wrong and it’s stupid.”
Battles against corruption and stupidity, you may notice, are seldom won.
Everyone still remembers how the
Soviet champion Vladimir Smirnov met his death last July [1982], during the world
championships in Rome. [Memory of this death has since long faded in much of
the fencing world, if the incident is remembered at all.] Everything, or almost
everything, has been written about that dramatic episode in fencing history.
Curiously, however, the fencing masters were the most discreet in their
appraisals. Raoul Clery has just filled in this blank by writing us a text with
the double merit of offering new considerations and of emphasizing that a
thorough reform of fencing is mandatory at all levels and in all categories:
officials, masters, fencers, and directors.
At the October 2, 1982 meeting of the
governing committee, F.F.E. President Roland Boitelle opened the session by
paying tribute to the Soviet fencer Smirnov, mortally wounded during a bout in
the world's team foil championship. It was a highly merited tribute, as much by
the champion who will leave the memory of an exceptional foilist: Olympic
champion, winner of the World Cup, as by the man, whose dignity and conduct on
and off the strip were exemplary.
This tragic loss plunged the little
world of fencing into consternation and fed the news reports on the sport for
some time. People tried to understand what had happened, where the
responsibilities lay, and how to avoid the recurrence of such happenings.
People feared (though it is not
established at this writing) that the horrible nature of the accident might
have repercussions in our recruitment, especially among children. Some parents
have, indeed, said that they had not thought such an accident possible. Let us
reassure them at once. No such accident -- or even a less serious one -- has
ever been recorded in the young children's categories. The reason for this [is]
that the children have neither the body weight, nor the strength, nor the
aggressive violence that we see more and more among adults.
In this regrettable affair, one would
have liked the French Academy of Arms to take a stand. There was nothing.
However, in France, 500 fencing masters teach several thousand pupils each day.
Above a certain level of competition, we fear the responsibility of the former
and the safety of the latter are not fully assured.
A journalist wrote, "it would
not be realistic always to blame fate" in fencing accidents. We share this
opinion to the fullest when we notice that in a modest regional league, within
just a few years, the following accidents have occurred:
•
The calf of the leg pierced through. It is really a joke to allow the
protection of legs by... a pair of stockings!
•
A deep wound from a broken blade, just above the knee.
•
A wound in the armpit, as far as the pleura, by a broken blade which penetrated
jacket and underarm protector.
•
Finally, during an inter-regional foil championship: in the course of
infighting, the weapon of one fencer broke; the broken piece penetrated the
jacket collar of the opponent and went through the protective undergarment,
grazing lightly -- fortunately -- the upper left portion of the thorax.
It seems urgent then to consider all
the problems which contribute more and more toward endangering the safety of
fencers. Among those that come up most frequently are:
•
The Blade, of steel the same strength as five centuries ago, sometimes breaking
at an angle and transforming the weapon into a dagger.
•
The Mask, of metal lattice-work, whose mesh can spread apart or break from a
violent blow.
•
The orthopedic Grip, which will not let
the hand release it in case of strong resistance.
•
The Directing, more and more lax in conventional weapons, letting fencers do anything,
in any way.
•
And, in consequence, the very nature of
modern fencing, oriented more and more toward physical contact and brutality
than toward technical perfection.
Let us review these various elements.
Technically incompetent and suicidally aggressive. Double funeral.
THE BLADE
Its responsibility in accidents is
undeniable. Above all, this is what makes fencing dangerous. Of breakable
steel, fragile because of the too-weak portion of the tip, unpredictable either
in its resistance or in the shape it will take at the instant of fracture. When
it breaks at an angle, depending on the force of the thrust, it can penetrate
all fabrics currently in use, as well as the mask -- as the accident of the
unfortunate Smirnov demonstrated.
The first idea that comes to mind is
to find out whether the time has come to make modern blades heavier or to give
them more "body" in order to increase their resistance. The power and speed of the contemporary
champions, the evolution of their game toward greater and greater violence, are
clearly superior to the strength of the equipment they use. This explains
on one hand why accidents hardly ever happen among children and at the same
time explains why they are becoming more and more frequent and serious among
adults: the former are using equipment whose strength exceeds their own
physical force; with the latter, their physical force dominates the equipment. Heavier blades would not break or would
break less; the speed of the actions would be reduced; directing would be
facilitated; it is even possible that fencing so practised [sic] would be
cleaner, better technically.
Obviously, such a reform would upset
many preconceived ideas and taboos, from which modern fencing seems quite
incapable of freeing itself.
The second solution one thinks of is
to find out whether some process could eliminate or at least reduce the power
of a steel blade to penetrate at the instant of breaking. Since the accident,
some have imagined that it might be possible to have at the base of the blade,
near the guard, a sort of "pre-break" capable of releasing the entire
blade when its flexibility exceeds a pre-determined threshhold [sic]. That is
one solution, though we may still fear that the weak part of the blade near the
point, might break at a lesser pressure than that set at the base. Thus, we must
suppose that a blade would sometimes break into several pieces. Besides, we can
wonder where the commercialization of such an item might lead, and what
reactions -- justified or not -- it might provoke among the clientele.
Another solution might consist in
inventing a device allowing both parts of the blade not to separate at the
moment of breaking, but to remain joined together and thus form a
"plug" -- a little like the way fiber-glass blades break. This plug
would considerably lessen the power of penetration; blows received under these
conditions could no longer go through a mask, and they would be more like
bruises than dagger thrusts. How to get this result? Perhaps by means of an
"unbreakable" wire, soldered to the back of the blade in a groove
like the one used for the electric wire. Not being a technician, I do not know
whether this can be produced, nor what the cost might be.
All the suggestions elicited have,
above all, the object of trying to retain the use of the metal blade while
eliminating the danger that it presents in itself, all while satisfying the
taste of certain fencers who insist that only the "contact of steel"
stirs within them "tactile," "visual" and, indeed,
"auditory" sensations. That is a reflection that leaves us skeptical:
on the one hand, because modern foil fencing -- with only a few exceptions
(French) -- seems to us to rely more on articulation of the shoulder than upon
that of the fingers; the role of sight has not much to do with the
consciousness of steel; that of the ear can be considered as entirely
negligible; and on the other hand, because everything is a matter of habit and
adaptation.
Fifty years ago, for example, all the
tennis players in the world uniformly used racquets [sic] of wood, strung with
cat-gut. Today, without wood being completely abandoned, nor cats on the road
to extinction, they manufacture tennis racquets [sic] (as well as fishing
poles, skies, ski-poles, etc.) of metal, of carbon fibre, or of glass/resin
fibre, and the strings are sometimes nylon or sometimes altogether different.
This evolution in equipment does not seem to have harmed the quality of the
modern tennis champions, who have preserved all their "sensations"
and their "touch."
Then wouldn't it be possible, simply,
to support a development of this sort, researching the manufacture of a blade
of synthetic material, presenting the same qualities (weight, stiffness,
suppleness) as the steel blade, without its drawbacks? Even if the production
of such a blade were expensive, which is not certain, this expense should
quickly be amortized it could last (as has been said) several years. Knowing
that at present a competitive fencer breaks, year in, year out, an average
(very approximate) of a dozen blades, this should not be, in average terms, too
costly for the fencer.
Everyone knows, too, in our
profession, that, depending on the individuals and their personal styles,
certain fencers break twice as many blades as other. Which corresponds exactly
to the indication of danger they constitute on the fencing strip.
In our salle, we prefer the use of the so-called “double-wide” epee
blade, also known as the “musketeer” blade. Just as M. Clery notes, these
blades slow down the pace, resulting in a greater degree of verisimilitude,
clarifiy the phrase, AND are far less like to break under any circumstances.
But they are stiff and receiving a touch is unpleasant. We make the
accommodation by using more protective jackets and/or plastrons.
Wrestling distance, not fencing distance
THE MASK
It was the mask that let the broken
blade reach the unfortunate Soviet fencer. Could it have stopped it? That is
the question.
A
violent blow, after the breaking of the blade, can push apart or divide the
mesh
of the present-day mask, especially if it has already been weakened from
sweating and wear. When one fences a lot and sweats abundantly, the mask can
deteriorate quickly. In the big competitions, an equipment check is expected.
We have no reason to doubt that this indeed took place under the conditions
stated in the Rules (Art. 5 -- par. 27) with the aid of the spring punch. If
this is the case, then we must agree that the thrust which went through
Smirnov's mask exceeded in violence the norms and the pressure stated in the
Rule.
A daily paper published a photo of
Smirnov's mask, clearly showing a round
fresh hole about the level of the mouth, the mesh appearing neither pushed in
or dented. To produce such a clean break would require (if photo is authentic)
that the continuing thrust be executed with prodigious force, or else that the
speed of the forward movement of the one who received it (Smirnov) must have
been very great, or that the two fencers must have been right in front of each
other.
These various observations lead us to
think that the solidity of the mask today is insufficient to insure the safety
of high-level fencers. And this is in the very element of its structure: the
mesh. This is so true that before 1914
Maison Souzy had made a so-called rational mask, constructed of two
perforated sheet-iron plates (one for the face, the other for the head and
sides). Much stronger than the woven mask, the "rational" one perhaps
had the inconvenience of being a bit heavier (and we know that fencers have
always preferred lightness to safety), which increased sweating. Perhaps too,
its price was too high? I was too young at the time to know. Anyway, I used a
mask of that type for several years. I can certify that I tolerated it without
any discomfort, and I was not the only one! I retain the private conviction
that, with a mask of that kind, Smirnov would still be among us today.
As for the plexiglass mask, made of
"lexan" (motorcycle type) of American origin, we must try it before
rejecting it. Why can cyclists endure it for several hours sometimes without
discomfort, yet fencers would be traumatized after a few minutes? Annoyance
provoked by lack of ventilation, by the steam of sweat? This problem must be
studied more seriously than has yet been done.
Besides, it is evident that if such a
mask were ever adopted, the glances (visible) which the fencers might exchange
would open up new sensations to them, not in progression of the opposing blade
which is approaching but in the direction it is going to take and which the
glance might betray.
It is however possible that the
plexiglass might more or less distort the image seen by the fencer and
interfere with the exact judgement of distance, an absolutely indispensable
notion for the fencer.
One might not forget, in constructing
a fencing mask, that it must, imperatively, protect the nape of the neck much more
than present masks generally do.
Most masks now are made of stronger, tighter mesh. We prefer the
stainless steel versions because the are the strongest. Prior to 1980, I never
saw anyone’s mask fly off in the middle of a phrase. I never even heard of it
happening. A properly-fitted mask ought not to do that. I’m told, however, that
during the irregular antics of current fencers, it has happened. For this
reason, they now require an elastic strap to hold the mask on the fencer’s
head. We prefer to see that the mask is properly fitted, and that the fencers
fence correctly.
Ugly, off-balance, and out of control,"poke and hope."
THE ORTHOPEDIC GRIP
The first measure we heard discussed
following the Russian champion's accident was the banning of the orthopedic grip. This measure was demanded by the F.I.E.
medical commission the very night of the accident. By returning to the
straight (French) grip, they think the pressure of the hand (and of the arm) on
the blade would be weaker at the moment of the touch, and that the said hand
would be released more easily in case of a frontal shock and breaking of the
blade. This is True! But the truth compels one to say that certain grave -- and
even fatal -- accidents have happened (in three weapons) between fencers who
did not use the orthopedic grip.
More than 20 years ago, when the
orthopedic grip began to florish [sic] in all the salles d'armes in France
under the pretext that the electric blade did not have the same balance as the
old blade, F.I.E. President Commandant Bontemps -- no man for half measure --
decided to prohibit its use by fencers under 20 years of age "except when
medical certificate prescribes its necessity." He had to renounce this
project quickly before the avalanche of medical certificates that piled up on
his desk. Then freedom was left to everyone to use the grip of his choice, and
we observe today that a very clear majority of fencers, in France and in the
world, uses the orthopedic grip.
To ban the grip, of whatever sort,
seems excessive. It is not at all proven that the grip was at fault in Smirnov's
accident.
The
grip makes the weapon, the weapon influences the style, and often determines
the method or school. Formerly, the two fundamental schools of foil, Italian and French,
founded their principles on the use of weapons of different structure.
The Italian foil with crossbar, with
a very short grip, requires holding the pommel against the wrist by means of a
strap. There still exists caricatures of the illustrious knight Pini, at the
end of the last century (at encounters with his French rivals Merignac and
Prevost) carefully wrapping his wrist with a sort of ribbon of impressive
length. To my knowledge, neither Eugenio Pini nor the great Italian fencers of
the period preceding the last war, who used the Italian foil, ever killed
anyone when they broke a blade. If I'm wrong, people will certainly let me
know. And if that had happened, would they have banned the crossbar grip and
destroyed the Italian school with the same stroke? It is not so much in the grip that we must intervene, but rather in the
manner of execution, which has considerably evolved since electric scoring came
into use.
On this subject, it is with much
interest that I read the declaration of Carlo Brusati, President F.I.E.,
regretting the nature of today's
fencing: "heavy, without style, without standards (mesure), and the
masters and teachers, contrary to what was done in (his) time, no longer
require the primordal [sic] quality, that is, bringing the blade (toward the
target) with suppleness."
All this to say that it does not seem
necessary -- even with an electric weapon -- to put considerable force into
"carrying" a touch. One should be able to find among the great
fencers of this end of the 20th century what one admires among their
counterparts in tennis or among great pianists, an exceptional
"touch". We are far from this! Fencing
is neither boxing, nor wrestling, nor weight-lifting; one can be effective in
it without being brutal. In case of mediocrity, it's not the grip -- whatever
it may be -- that must be blamed, but the one who holds it and animates it. For
that, perhaps we must rehabilitate the working of the fingers and the wrist,
and the suppleness and relaxation of the arm, notions which passed into the
background a quarter-century ago.
The
combativeness of a fencer should rest on science and technique, not on
violence. Do not confuse, either, the "physical condition" necessary
to any competitor and the "physical force" which is not indispensable
in fencing.
Sometimes
in the past they characterized the talent of the great masters by the
expression, "hand of iron, arm of rubber." Perhaps later, to classify
the fencing of our period, they will need to use the term "hand of steel,
arm of concrete."
We do
not permit the use of the “orthopaedic” or “pistol” grip in our salle.
Dangerous and just plain stupid.
DIRECTING
There is the habit, in sports, in the
case of an incident, or alas! an accident, to blame the officiating. The
accident of Smirnov was no exception to this rule. There were even harsh words
with the directors after the world championships, but certain qualifications
used were excessive.
If a case is to be made on the
matter, it must be about directing in general, rather than about particular
directors. Let me explain. In whatever sport it may be, the rules of the game
are set by an international governing body which defines them and explains them
in order to make them known to all, and charges the officials to watch over
their application. If something is wrong in the application, the international
body has the imperative duty to convene the officials and to explain its
thoughts on the disputed points, in order to arrive at a unity of doctrine.
This is absolutely indispensable to trainers and instructors so that training
and instruction may support each other and conform well to the texts.
At present, in the absence of any reaction of the international organization
against excesses (corps-a-corps, running, violence, dangerous play, attacks
with bent arm, lack of discipline, etc.) which trainers and masters complain of
more and more, one has the right to think that the F.I.E. is satisfied with
"conventional" fencing as it is practiced, and with the way it is
directed. Why then should the officials judge otherwise than they do?
However, it is evident that a certain laxness has set in, led by electric
scoring. Though the rules have absolutely not changed, and on certain
points they have even been stated precisely, one cannot deny that today's
fencing differs more and more from yesterday's. It is possible that there may
be a sort of tacit agreement among officials to leave the apparatus alone, in
order not to seem to be nitpicking. If today an international official had the
fantasy of strictly applying the rules, he would probably be rejected by the
community (directors, colleagues) and pointed at as interfering with good
directing; and, probably, stuck with the label they lately have hung on a
candidate for national director at his examination: "too severe".
In the first analysis (or in the
last, as you like), it is up to the F.I.E. to set things straight. For the
following reason, the observance of the
rules which should bring about an improvement in the game, making it more
attractive, more spectacular, more comprehensible to the public, can only be
achieved by starting at the highest level. It must set an example. The
observance of rules can then proceed toward the lowest levels (where learning
takes place), passing through instructors whose teaching must follow the rules.
It is an illusion or, rather, a mistake to hope to reach a solution from the
other direction. Everyone knows (at least among those who are familiar with the
problem) that the young fencer copies the champion (often more than he listens
to his master!) in what he does well, but also in his mistakes. These can run
counter to or even destroy all that has been taught him.
On another plane, that of morale for
example, the non-application of the
rules governing conventional weapons -- or an only partial application --
brings a considerable prejudice against correct fencers or against those
who have been wronged. The essential reason is that in fencing every penalty is
preceded by a warning, which has been subtly modified -- rendering it a little
ridiculous, but certainly not more rigorous. In effect, our sport is the only one that tolerates errors without penalizing them
immediately; errors that put one fencer at a disadvantage without any
reparation. It is even possible physically to assault an opponent, in the
course of a violent action which might send him to the hospital without being
otherwise penalized than by a SPECIAL warning! In other sports, warning
accompanies a penalty and precedes a more severe penalty in case of repetition;
in fencing, the warning always precedes the penalty.
One could write a volume on the
anomaly and the derision of fencing penalties, for they exist only in the
books! The responsible people in the F.I.E. think they are doing their whole
duty by adding one article to another, without supervising its application. For
a good quarter-century, they have been playing this little game which is causing the spirit and the quality of
conventional weapons to disappear. To take just one example, several years
ago they added to the rules precise directives about the correct execution of attacks, in which the extension of the arm must precede the advancement of the
foot. However, people continue to give right of way to an action forward,
with the arm pulled back during its entire development, while along the way the
opponent attacks "on preparation". We have been able to see this
recently in the gala women's tournament at the famous "centenary" of
the Federation. With such errors in directing, how are instructors supposed to
teach? It is true that they are practically never consulted.
Finally, to finish this chapter, it
is perhaps not useless to dwell on one other aspect of directing which D.T.N
Oprendek raises in his report on the 1982 world championships. This is the
matter of certain high-level fencers conducting themselves toward international
directors likely to be active in the course of competition with a sort of
conciliatory behavior based on flattery, on admiring praise, to dispose them in
their favor in case of need. Oprendek has used as reference in this type of
seduction operation the former Olympic champion Drimba.
In our
salle ALL fencers are expected to be competent judges and director’s, and are
trained to apply the rules strictly. Since we are not interested in “winning”
by accident, all touches must be made clearly and distinctly enough to be recognized
by the judges, and must occur in a clear phrase d’armes. No other hits are
counted as touches. We also continue to count touches AGAINST the fencer who
receives them, not in favor of the one who delivers them. We believe this helps
to emphasize the importance of defense, and de-emphasize the importance of
offence, leading to a more conservative, less aggressive and more realistic
bout.
Further,
we IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY a fencer for ANY emotional displays whatsoever, while
in the salle. The rude narcissistic
conduct that seem to be in fashion among “sport” fencers would result in their
expulsion from the salle and the annulment of any victories, prizes, etc that
had won in that event.
Rude, boorish and narcissistic.
THE GAME
It is evident that in the past
quarter of a century the nature of the game, the very character of conventional
fencing, has changed. The fencer in general no longer presents entirely the
same silhouette; his game no longer has the same clarity or evenness as before.
Very recently, during a retrospective on Italian sport, rebroadcast on
television, two fencers of thirty years ago were contending in a world
championship final. Elegant bearing and
position, displacements in measure with the strict minimum required by
distance, practically perfect mastery and ease of movement, left arm in the
air, rounded not to "look pretty" but for the role it has to play in
balance, and respect for the rule which prescribes implicitly that the valid
surface of the trunk must be unconcealed. It was hard not to compare this
immediately with the picture presented by today's fencer, whose back arm -- its
action denied and denigrated -- hangs down, most often between the legs like
the trunk of an elephant, whose armed hand is everywhere and nowhere, and whose
leg movements are wide and crazy leaps. The announcer gives the names of the
antagonists: d'Oriola, Mangiarotti. Evidently it is another time, another
fencing, even if combat still remains combat if the "rules of the
game" are still exactly the same.
Is this view of things personal, or
is it shared by other personalities? To find out, let's let several fencers of
different generations express themselves.
Didier
Flament,
an active fencer toward the end of his career, declared "I think that referees must show themselves more vigilant
and exacting toward fencers who tend to profit from their physical qualities,
to the detriment of technicians respecting the true spirit (of foil)...This
is no longer classic fencing, but sabre for boarding ships!" Thus, Flament
regrets the disappearance (or the impossibility of doing) classical fencing,
that is fencing "which does not depart from the established rules".
Christian
d'Oriola, Olympic champion thirty years ago, does not formulate a precise
criticism, but he recognizes that "physical engagement is pushed more and
more, especially among high-level performers." He estimates that one does
not actually violate the rules, though one follows them a little
"energetically", and thinks that by "armoring" the fencers
a little more, one might protect them against accidents.
J.Leal, in Figaro, is
practically the only one, with Flament, to consider that it "is urgent to review the rules of directing,
so that fencing does not become still more dangerous."
Finally, I recall the already-cited
opinion of Carlo Brusati, President of the F.I.E., international fencer before
the last war: "Today's fencing is
heavy, without style and without standards." It is well said. It is
also an observation that coincides with our own. But M. Brusati has added an
explanation to this state of things which will be appreciated in varying
degrees by the instructors: "the
masters and the instructors no longer require of their pupils the primordial
quality of bearing the blade with suppleness, contrary to what was done in
my day."
I do not share Carolo Brusati's
opinion on this point at all. As I have already said, the influence of the
top-level fencers on the style of young fencers is considerable, and probably
stronger than the lessons given by their own masters. This is human, and this
is not peculiar to fencing: in sport, style is often a fashion. For example, a
whole generation of tennis players has forced itself to play using top-spin
like Borg and Vilas, because they were at that moment the best. And, in a
little while (retreat of Borg, success of MacEnroe), we are present at an
evolution in another direction, the effects of which we already see among the
constellation of talented young players that France possesses at this moment.
But as for fencing, there is added to
that the existence of an important gap between the spirit (that is, the rules
of conventional fencing) and the letter (the manner in which they are
interpreted on the strip.)
People can, evidently, disagree; that
is, furthermore, that people do won't stop us from continuing to fence. But
what kind of fencing? Do we think to attract a vast public by showing it an
often incomprehensible clashing of
blades? People are too quickly satisfied by this excuse, which is beginning
to lack originality: "The uninitiated don't understand anything because it
goes too fast." That is not correct. Anyone can follow the play -- even
very fast -- if the exchanges alternate. This is the very essence of foil. But
no one can take any interest in it if the exchanges are simultaneous. Scientific
deficiency in a spectacle has never unleashed enthusiasm. A beautiful attack, a lightning parry-riposte, a prolonged exchange,
are understood by everyone. We are scarcely spoiled in this respect today!
Electric
scoring
has meant a two-edged sword for fencing. It has brought a certain indisputable
progress in the realm of materiality of the touch. It has also, unhappily, allowed foilists to risk unknown actions
or, rather, actions impossible to accomplish in real combat (whence the rules
and conventions stemmed): attack into the attack, double touches,
simultaneous actions, or actions rarely attempted before: remises against
direct ripostes, which partakes of poker.
The electric scoring has allowed the
sport of foil to break away from its rules and to put into use actions "not seen" or "not
accepted" previously by a human jury.
It is more precisely the excessive
use of the counter-attack in all its forms which evolution has influenced.
These actions have progressively gained on classic defense. At the same time
there has arisen a new state of mind: a sharp watch for the moment to act --
before the opponent.
Simultaneously -- alas! the mortal
accident of Smirnov has shown it -- the intensity of training of modern
champions, their physical strength, their speed, introduced into actions where
the opponents are advancing toward each other, are added; sometimes these
clearly exceed the norms of safety for fabrics and masks.
The thrust into a thrust (long ago,
they used to call it "the thrust of
two widows") is, I believe, the most harmful, unfortunate, and also
the most dangerous action in contemporary foil fencing. An unusual action
formerly, it is now ancient in the minds of more and more fencers; it quickly
reaches the minds of the young as soon as they enter competition...and God
knows they start early these days! Can one remedy this, and how?
In sabre infighting, the state of
affairs is somewhat comparable, but less dangerous because the cuts (the most
often employed) slide along the target, whereas frontal thrusts with the point
break blades. The sabre has invented a procedure to reduce the number of
simultaneous actions which were literally destroying the game. At a given
moment, this system obliges one of the fencers "to forbid himself to provoke
a simultaneous action." This method has been in use for several years, and
it must be agreed that since then the technical quality of the actions has been
improving. Perhaps one could get for foil a similar dissuading effect on
simultaneous actions if, in an analogous case, one simply counted a touch
against both fencers, as in epee: first, because the fencer on his mark would
have an interest in avoiding these: then, because in case of tie at 5 in a
pool, it could be decided as either a "nul" or a "double defeat",
which is not advantageous to the two fencers. Finally, these new conditions of
attack, which every fencer would confront, might perhaps provoke in the course
of training at the salle a more careful study of hand technique: parries,
ripostes, counter-time.
This is
where we believe the cause of Smirnov’s death lies. The insanely aggressive
manner of fencing – which can only exist due to incompetent directing – would
be suicidal in the real world, but is homicidal on the fencing strip. When one
fences defensively, as if the blades were sharp DISTANCE is extremely
important. One does not remain in distance to be hit simple because one has
first hit the opponent. Instead one must “strike and get out,” instantly
breaking distance and parrying if necessary, a thrust coming from an opponent
who may be mortally wounded, but way well live long enough to make it a double
funeral.
Only the
most extraordinary mutual error should ever bring the fencers close enough to
engage in a wrestling match.
Today, a
fencer charges in like a football player, hoping, not “to touch without being
touched,” but merely to “touch before being touched,” because only the first
touch will “turn on the light.” That is, the scoring machine artificially
protects the stupid fencer from receiving his opponent’s answering thrust. We
require that the fencer do it himself/herself.
In our salle, one is expelled for any conduct that is dishonest, discourteous or dangerous.
Off-balance and out of control.
CONCLUSION
As is seen, the accident that cost
Vladimir Smirnov his life can have useful consequences if it leads us to
reconsider all the problems that concern the classic weapon. This would
constitute a homage to him.
Without wishing in any way to force
the hand of the responsible international people, it would seem that the
principal points to examine might be, for example:
•
The study, manufacture, and utilization
of a newly-conceived material assuring maximum safety to the fencers. A
simplification of the code of penalties. Suppression of prior warning for
faults in combat. Strict application.
•
Creation of a body of directors, competent, independent, supported, oriented
toward strict respect for the rules, subject to yearly reappointment.
• Attentive research and elimination of
dangerous actions, harmful to safety and to the technical and spectacular
quality of fencing.
•
Periodic consultation between the directing body and a teaching commission, to
reach a unity of fencing doctrine.
•
Establishment of a code for organization
and discipline at fencing meets. Research and elimination of "lost
time" which makes competitions long and wearying for all. The
"next" bout must go on the strip within as brief a lapse of time as
possible. Today, we must call the fencers, sometimes hunt for them, wait for
them to get dressed, to get hooked up, and for them to consent to say they are
ready. Tennis, for example, records all dead time in order to prevent abuses.
• Simplification and reduction of
the composition of the directoire technique, at present too important, too
slow, and too hesitant. Very inferior to that of tennis, which is run by a single man, a
supervisor, who settles all disputes on demand, in the minimum of time, with an
indisputable and undisputed authority.
It
is certain that a profound reform of fencing is needed at all levels, and in
all categories: officials, masters, fencers, directors. It is not normal
that in half-century of two sports about equal in public favor, one -- tennis
-- should have made the development that we see, and that the other -- fencing
-- continues to mark time. Perhaps we might also make comparisons with
equitation. There are reasons for that. It would be necessary to collect and
discuss them to understand them.
But let's end on an agreeable note,
for we still have our defenders and friends. In a book dedicated to the
memories of his youth (La Mansarde, Editions France-Loisirs), the great explorer
and scholar, Paule-Emile Victor, has given two pages to fencing and to his
maitre d'armes: "It is in a big windowless room, cluttered with cardboard
cartons, boxes, empty sacks, it's there that my sister and I, once a week, took
our fencing lessons. My parents thought
-- with reason -- that this sport would develop precision and speed of
reflexes, suppleness and firmness of muscles, and fair play...The maitre
d'armes was called Andre Krestovozdvijenski, adjutant with the 44th Infantry
(Lons-le-Saunier). He was an excellent instructor and very much the
psychologist..."
It is comforting to read that!
We concur that to make fencing as safe as possible while
still retaining the highest degree of verisimilitude compatible with safety,
several things must be done:
1.
The equipment (blades, uniforms and
masks) must be sufficient to the task
2.
The President must enforce the rules
strictly and without exception, with “zero tolerance” for wild, brutal,
unorthodox play.
3.
Fencers must be trained correctly,
both technically and spiritually. Every fencer must have a commitment
to maintaining the integrity of the sword. Anyone who does NOT clearly exhibit
that commitment does not belong in the salle d’armes and must never be
permitted to take the strip, let alone remain on it.
aac
