The excellent article by Maestro Gil Pezza "On the Primacy of Fundamentals" has the goal to reclassify the fencing material in order to subordinate also in the progression of teaching fencing,  the actions and principles considered secondary to those thought as fundamental; hence the importance to identify these principles.

It’s never easy to put order and structure in what appears to be a chaos. Our ability to understand the world around us is the result of the limitations of our mind. Therefore, we are forced to separate/distinguish what cannot per se be separated/distinguished. The real world is whole and unique which we then parcel in smaller bites which can be digested by our mind. The result of this assimilation process is that we try to make it fit in our own mental order and structure which we have struggled to achieve and accept, and which we tend to defend against any change often against any logic.

We should never forget that the world reality which we so conceive or represent after these operations is always substantially different from the “true” reality which cannot fit our own limitations. What we need is for our approximations to “work,” that they improve in our favor the rapport we have with the world or with that specific part of the world we are interested in—in this case fencing.

The essence of all these considerations is that a different classification of fencing must/should lead us to identify means and ways to train which are useful—more than the previous ones—to attain the goals we set forth.

In sport in general and fencing in particular the effectiveness of what we attempt to do is verifiable on two planes:

•    That of competitive results and medals won, and
•    That of teaching which precedes the results and depends on the clear understanding of the subject matter by the teacher and how he can transfer these principles to his students while still free to question them in order to improve them in a never ending cycle.

That the teacher must have clear ideas is fundamental and essential. And this is why definitions and classifications must be precise and rational as much as possible, yet they must never become cages from which one cannot escape. They must have a foot in theory and a foot in practice.

Tempo, measure (distance), and speed are traditionally considered the fundamental elements of fencing. Actually, in fencing treatises you will not find much written about this. The text for foil, published in 1970 which is currently in use to prepare Italian Maestri says,”…fencing, to attain its objectives, is based on three fundamental elements: tempo, speed, and measure. Howeve, it will be easy to understand from what follows that tempo and measure are more important than speed, notwithstanding that speed contributes very well to complete the fencer’s power.” And that’s all on this topic. Considering the importance of the three elements one would expect something more.

Gil Pezza in his article On the Primacy of Fundamentals proposes to replace speed with initiative in the traditional triad of tempo, measure, and speed.

I agree with him that initiative is an important factor but I would not put it at the same level of the other three and I’ll explain why further down. We could also consider other elements, like killer instinct, concentration, self-control, capacity of observation, intuition, just to name a few. And this would make sense if for each of these factors we knew how to propose instruments to improve.

Other authors have proposed different classifications. Francesco Antonio Marcelli who started the Neapolitan School which had in Masaniello Parise [image to the right] his most illustrious representative, wrote (1686), “One of the three essentials one strives for to attain perfection in actions is the Measure, which with the Way, and Tempo must be the foundation of same so that they [the actions] be effective for the intended scope.” By “Way” Marcelli meant primarily the technique of executing the actions. And quite frankly, I could not disagree with him.  

Let us now consider speed and attempt to give a definition. Given a distance and the time employed to cover such distance, speed is the ratio between these two quantities. Is this enough for fencing? Certainly not. Like Tempo and Measure, Speed is a name which we give to several different things in fencing.

The distance which separates us from the opponent, something which we see and evaluate, is almost never the distance necessary to cover in order to touch him. Our opponent does not stand still and from his movement derives something which is very important: relative speed. If when I start my movement, my opponent retreats, my relative speed is less than my absolute speed. The time to reach my opponent increases and this favors the exits in tempo (counterattacks), which otherwise would not be effective. And it allows for control of the situation when the ’critical point’ has not yet been reached (see Initiative in Fencing), and sometimes even after.

The concept of speed in fencing is part and parcel of that of rhythm. And here too tempo and measure, together with speed, form a whole which cannot be divided. Fencing is relation between two adversaries, and changes in speed make more difficult for the opponent to control measure and tempo.

Furthermore, the maximum attainable speed, which depends from muscle coordination and power, is required only in the final phase of an offensive action. A double feint action, for example, must adapt the speed of the feints to that of the opponent’s parries; a counter-time must synchronize the parry with the counter-offensive, and so on.

Last but not least, the execution speed of a fencing action is interwoven with its perception by the opponent, who will only start to react when he becomes aware of the action in progress. It is for this reason that a hit executed with great skill—without unnecessary muscular contractions, with the point of the weapon leading the way (which is harder to perceive)—is often much more effective and appears faster than hits delivered solely with power and speed; these latter hits are commonly referred to in Italian as “telegraphed” as in being "preannounced" to the opponent by their pedestrian execution.

Why I would not put initiative at the same level of the other three fundamentals in fencing?

In the first place, because initiative is certainly useful but not indispensable. If I have a superior ability to foresee and understand the game, I can still let my opponent have the initiative and beat him, something which would be almost impossible without the required tempo, measure and speed for a certain action.

Initiative is part of the preparation: it is active preparation. The fencer who has initiative proposes but in doing so he also exposes himself. The other observes, decodes, guesses, and if he is good, predicts. The essential advantage lies in this ability to predict/foresee.
In my article Initiative in Fencing I concluded thusly: “Initiative and counter-initiative are part and parcel of the game to win the preliminary battle of distance (measure). It consists in reaching the ‘critical point’ as part of an action plan, since both fencers reach the ‘critical point’ at the same time. But it’s the fencer who has planned for this situation to occur who can act ‘in tempo,’ i.e., with those two tenths of a second of advantage which make the difference once we pass the ‘critical point.’ ”
Once we acquire this advantage we must maintain it until the conclusion of the action and for this speed is necessary. Speed may be a quality which can be easier to train for but cannot be neglected or undervalued.

When we reach the ’critical point’ we either retreat or we start the action we planned for. We start the planned action when we have the desired conditions of tempo, distance, and blade position. He who foresees (who is not necessarily the person who prepared or held the initiative), he who is ready when the ’critical point’ is reached, has an advantage of about two tenths of a second, namely the reaction time. The final part of any offensive action (and in general of the simple actions) must be quick enough for the opponent—who did not foresee—not to be able to react effectively. It is the small but decisive advantage which allows

•    a feint and disengagement to hit the target before a second parry movement;
•    a decisive riposte to touch before the counter-parry;
•    a counterattack to touch before the attacker can change his action by parrying or changing target.

Always, I repeat, if he has not foreseen what we do.

Even a fencer with minimum training can have—for very brief moments—enough speed, and we already know that speed is one of the easier abilities to train. However, speed diminishes considerably when we get tired and it must not drop as much to nullify the advantage we talked about, i.e., those two tenths of a second.

Let me conclude with this consideration: today we discuss—unfortunately not much—about fencing technique, and we focus totally on tempo, measure, speed, and possible variations or additions, like initiative for example. A century ago people discussed much more—as proven by the number of books and treatises published then—but the main topic was limited on the so called mechanics. We must recognize we have made a good step forward!

Prendo spunto dall’articolo di Gil Pezza “On the Primacy of Fundamentals”,  in italiano “Sulla prevalenza degli elementi fondamentali".

Il tema di questo articolo è il concetto di iniziativa, che Pezza propone di considerare al posto della velocità, come componente della classica triade: tempo, misura e velocità. Di questo tema, più generale, dirò magari in un prossimo articolo. Qui, invece, desidero puntualizzare il concetto di iniziativa: un'idea che non è affatto nuova, ma non mi risulta che sia stata da altri proposta o definita, in tempi precedenti le mie “Dispense di spada", che da circa tre lustri sono testo d’esame per gli aspiranti istruttori e maestri. Riporto qui l’inizio del paragrafo dedicato all’attacco:

Attacco

Si denomina attacco ogni azione di offesa che ha la precedenza (o la contemporaneità, in caso di attacco simultaneo) dell'iniziativa, senza soluzione di continuità sino all'espletamento del colpo, indipendentemente dalla sua riuscita.

Si  dice che ha l'iniziativa chi, a partire dall'ultima  interruzione, o dall'ultima pausa nell'azione, per primo  avanza verso l'avversario, sino al colpo di uno dei due, o di entrambi, o sino alla pausa o interruzione successiva. L'iniziativa e la minaccia (reale, o simulata), insieme, configurano l'inizio di un attacco, che potrà essere  portato a compimento, o interrotto. L'iniziativa, da sola,  fa parte della preparazione.

L'introduzione del concetto di "iniziativa" è necessaria perché, dai trattati e dal Regolamento Internazionale (R.I.), non si deduce,  con sufficiente chiarezza, che un attacco può aver luogo solo avanzando. Ed anche perché, nella spada, è possibile più facilmente colpire arretrando, durante una preparazione: cioè una avanzata,  senza minaccia. Questi colpi, pur non essendo iniziato l'attacco, dovremo comunque denominarli colpi di controffesa.

- Un modo molto efficace per “rubare misura”, e quindi raggiungere il punto critico quando l’altro non se lo aspetta, è partire, per l'attacco o per la provocazione, sull’inizio del passo avanti dell’altro: cioè quando il piede anteriore si solleva per il passo avanti, e non quando si è già posato sulla pedana.

- Se è l’altro a guidare, è più facile: lo si segue per un po', in modo da abituarlo all'idea che sulla sua avanzata arretreremo, e poi si parte, nell'attimo giusto, come sopra precisato.

In genere, però, ci si alterna rapidamente alla guida: prima uno, poi l'altro. Quando uno si ferma, o esita, in generale l'altro ne approfitta per guidare a sua volta, anche solo per recuperare terreno. Buona cosa, in questo caso, è arretrare qualche volta, prima di partire con l'azione voluta, in modo da rendere difficile per l'avversario prevedere la partenza.

Infine, quando l'avversario si chiude in una difesa passiva, e si rifiuta di guidare, un buon modo per stanarlo è alternare passi avanti e passi indietro. L'altro tenderà a sincronizzare il suo movimento col nostro: iniziando il passo indietro, lento, dovremo fare attenzione al piede anteriore dell'altro, che tenderà ad avanzare, per seguirci, e in questo caso, e solo in questo caso, invertiremo rapidamente la direzione per lanciare la nostra azione.

Avanzare quando l'altro ha già iniziato ad avanzare, anche solo muovendo il piede anteriore, possiamo chiamarlo "controiniziativa". E poiché abbiamo considerato come parte dell'iniziativa anche il passo indietro di chi guida, potremo considerare parte della controiniziativa anche lasciare volontariamente che l'altro entri in misura, cioè raggiunga il punto critico, ritenendo di aver previsto ciò che farà, e di aver pronta la giusta contraria.

Iniziativa e controiniziativa sono parte del gioco per vincere la battaglia preliminare sulla misura: che consiste nell'arrivare al "punto critico" avendolo previsto. Ci si arriva necessariamente insieme, ma solo chi lo ha previsto è in grado di agire "in tempo", cioè con quei due decimi di secondo di vantaggio che fanno la differenza, superato il "punto critico".

Giancarlo Toran