How to teach fencing? For many it’s easier said than done. For me it’s the opposite.

What one needs first and foremost to get results is an unlimited spirit of sacrifice.

To make a living from fencing is not enough. If one wants to produce a good number of students one must live “for” fencing. Teaching methodology of course counts but all teaching methods are more or less good if taught with real passion. I’ll describe hereunder, without going too much into technical details, what I have a beginner student do, one who comes to me knowing absolutely nothing about fencing.

http://www.accademiadellascherma.it/educazione-e-formazione/come-insegno-la-scherma.html

Whether he is a young kid or an adult I put him on guard taking great care of the aesthetics and as soon as I can have him in a harmonious position I start with the first steps forward and back continuing so until his execution of the movements is perfect.

When the student has a certain mastery of the footwork (forward and back), I teach him the lunge which he must execute perfectly before moving to the hand positions. My experience has taught me to eliminate everything that is redundant, so the only parries I teach (in foil, obviously, because I’m talking about foil which is the basis of all fencing) are:     

- Third, Tierce (terza)     

- Fourth, Quarte (quarta),     

- First, Prime (prima or mezzo cerchio)     

- Second, Seconde (seconda)

All are executed with the fingernails pointing up without ever turning the hand. From these four positions I make my student execute “glances” (fili) making sure that the angles are perfect, and then I follow with “disengagements” (cavazioni), then “counter-disengagements” (controcavazioni), “counter-disengagements with feint” (controcavazioni con finta) and “counter disengagements on alternate lines” (controcavazioni su line alternate). The progression is very slow and my general rule is not to teach a student anything new until he can execute with enough precision what he has previously learned.

When the student starts to execute all these actions with a certain speed I then teach him the “attack with step forward” (attacco camminando) and as soon as I get him to perform the correct step forward and lunge I add the simplest operations, e.g., “straight feint and disengagement” (finta diritta e cavazione) from all four sides (upper and lower, internal and external). Little by little, all offensive actions will be developed and repeated from a steady position and from marching, paying extreme care to aesthetics and the precise execution even if we have to repeat the same movement a hundred times.

All this takes between eight to ten months of painstaking lessons. In the meantime the student has already assimilated the “contrary” actions which he practices regularly during the lesson until the Maestro believes he’s at the point to be able to practice with another more advanced student. The essence of these drills is the “contrary” actions. However, I believe that it is indispensable for the Maestro to always be present to immediately correct the slightest defect; generally speaking, the older the defect the more costly and harder the correction.

After about a year of this type of work I usually begin what can be called the second phase of my teaching, i.e., “timing” (tempo) and “counter-time” (controtempo) trying to give the student simple and clear ideas about this, not so much with words but with real examples and drills.

As the student slowly progresses in his execution of all movements and in his understanding about fencing, I try to bring him towards the actual bout almost without making him even think about the novelty of bouting. First we work with few short phrases in lesson where no words are exchanged, then on the surprise in the execution of any action, then on his freedom of choice of an action, and then we arrive to the true “spratico.”

“Spratico” is an old term which indicates the bout between the Maestro and the student. In my opinion the Maestro must always be the first to fence with a student and not only once, but for three months at least until the new fighter will be molded in his position and will have attained a technical level which will allow him to cross blades with an opponent in a bout. The Maestro must again select a suitable opponent making sure that he always puts in front of the beginner a strong and correct fencer.

As the beginner makes progress his opponent will change. By now the newbie is on the right path. As long as he will not neglect his lessons and will continue bouting he will gradually acquire that fencing strength to which all those willing can aspire. Beyond that limit is the virtuoso. Persistence and talent open the doors to the elected.

* * * * * * *

 Thus far I covered foil but I want also to talk briefly about saber even though the fencing lesson—at least at the beginning—is almost exactly the same. What is important in all weapons is to give the pupil a solid foundation [in fencing] and only after he will have attained it he will be able to start studying in detail the weapon he prefers.

In saber I usually teach these parries: prime, seconde, tierce, quarte, quinte, and sixte. The student must learn how to attack with the point from all these positions. An attack with a cut is instinctive and almost everybody knows how to execute a cut more or less correctly. But what is infinitely harder to do and at the same time more effective is to touch with the point. The teacher must watch this very carefully from the start of the first lunges.

The greatest difficulty for a perfect hit with the point is not in the attack but in the riposte. Hence the necessity to insist to work on point touches before moving to cut touches which the student will execute more precisely the better he will have learned how to touch with the point.

How to handle a saber is something that cannot be taught verbally; only the example gives the student a precise idea how to handle a saber, with lightness and vigor, guided by the forearm, not the hand.

Only after a student has mastered the handling of the weapon after having learned during the lessons all offensive and defensive actions, from a steady position and from stepping forward and back, with “tempo” and “counter-time” (controtempo), he can be put in front of another student who must go along with him step by step in the learning process. We are not talking bouting yet but conventional drills which are rather difficult but very useful to develop the attack, strengthen the parry, and give the beginner a precise concept of what saber fencing really is.

For these drills I recommend to place one of the two students at the end of the strip with his left elbow in contact with the wall, his opponent in front. He will attack in the simplest and quickest way possible while the other will try to parry without flinching and then riposte from a steady position. Obviously you must switch often place between the two and this will always take place under the watchful eye of the Maestro who will have to be even stricter in correcting without hesitation both students. One of them at the beginning will have the unavoidable defect to start out of tempo, and the other equally unavoidably will make his parries wider than necessary. With time and patience both beginners will improve.

In foil and saber fencing I believe one should give great importance to the speed of the attack. Therefore, I can’t stress enough the importance to make the student attack with maximum possible impulse at the regular fencing measure and even at a longer distance. In saber the procedure to bring the novice to bouting is the same as in foil: lessons where words are not exchanged, surprise, “spratico” with the Maestro, first bouts with fencers a bit stronger, and finally the real competition.

* * * * * * *

I cannot nor do I want to talk about épée (spada da terreno) because let me first say that I don’t know exactly what it is. Very, very rarely I’ve seen fencers fencing épée who were really good but unfortunately they were foilists. Most of the time I’ve seen very bad épée fencing and people told me that those were the so called pure épéists. If this is an evolution of fencing I admit I am not there yet and I hope nobody will blame me.

Instead of talking about what I don’t know (yet why then among my students I have more than a single exceptional epeeist?) I think it is better if I do a bit of soul searching.

As a fencing Maestro it would be ridiculous of me to be falsely modest because of my results. I did have them because on the strip I’m the strictest, the most annoying, the most irritating, and the most quick-tempered of all teachers. People have pointed this out to me and I admit my faults. However, if one today can appreciate my continuous work for over 50 years, including Christmas and Easter, one could forgive my bad temper which I admit and I am the first to deplore. But without this character Italy—and I say this for the first time with some pride—would have for sure missed on some top fencers.

Fencing has given me as many personal satisfactions as Art can give to an artist. In this city of Livorno which I love ever since I was a child, every drop of my sweat made a fencer blossom. My students are now all over the world. As an old man but thanks God still around and kicking, I continue with my work as always without even giving a thought that one day, alas! it will be over.

These thoughts slow down my pen but even when I’ll have to leave the strip the memories will give to my mind the same joy I have had from my work. And my masterpieces—Nedo and Aldo—will smile at me at the moment of the fatal passing.

Beppe Nadi

Beppe Nadi: Considerations by Maestro Giancarlo Toràn

The article by Beppe Nadi is about fencing of another era; Olympic fencing but still fairly close to the logic of the duel. Nevertheless we can make some interesting observation which should prompt us to think more about the subject.

“Teaching methodology of course counts but all teaching methods are more or less good if taught with real passion.”

This is a valid point. Today also there is a debate on which teaching methodology should be followed. There are Maestri who achieved and continue to achieve excellent results with one methodology and with the opposite one also.

Beppe Nadi’s method was quite rigid and his student had to adapt. Nadi had a tendency to force his students into a mold, his own; therefore, he had to follow them very closely. This was possible then much more than today because of the customs and undisputed authority of parents and teachers.

“The progression is very slow and my general rule is not to teach a student anything new until he can execute with enough precision what he has previously learned.” [this is what in education today is called “mastery-based learning”—requiring students to prove they’ve conquered material before advancing] And further down, “…on the strip I’m the strictest, the most annoying, the most irritating, and the most quick-tempered of all teachers.”

How many Maestri today could afford to follow this policy and keep their students?

The opposite method, the “non method” of Antonio Di Ciolo [photo], for example, which was preceded by the innovations of Livio Di Rosa and Ezio Triccoli, gives much more freedom to the students and pushes them to find the motor solutions on their own by emphasizing motor skills which must be developed before and during the teaching of fencing per se.

This evolution is the product of our times and the acumen of Maestri who favor this approach. Fencing is not the same and changes over the last hundred years were at a minimum tumultuous; from the disappearing of the duel, to the electric signaling of the touches, to the changing of the rules (following more the needs of TV than any fencing logic), to end with the free interpretations of today which are detached even from the existing Règlement technique.

The three weapons according to Beppe Nadi 

Foil

For Beppe Nadi it was the basic weapon and many still think so today. However his foil was very closely related to épée. In the 1800s and early 1900s there were considerable differences between French and Italian foil.

As a weapon, French foil was lighter while Italian foil was closer to the traditional épée. The Italian grip which was strapped to the wrist gave more power to work on the blade; the French smooth grip favored a flying game, e.g., coupés, and working at a closer measure.  

In the second half of the XIX century while in France the two weapons—foil and épée—were already quite different both in shape and technique, in Italy they were practically the same thing. The fencing treatise by Masaniello Parise, the official textbook of the Scuola Magistrale, was a treatise on épée and saber. But Italian épée was the Italian foil. See Parise Spada e Sciabola

In these two pictures we can see the difference between the Italian bell guard, more suited to protect the hand and the French bell guard shaped like a figure 8 which practically did not protect the hand.

Saber

As Beppe Nadi explains, foil was also the basis for saber. He gives great importance to actions with the point, something we rarely see today, and to the antique position to control the weapon with the forearm and not the wrist. This makes sense if one sooner or later could have to use a heavy duel saber. This was an old argument but the duel was dying while sport fencing was imposing its own logic.

Sport saber was and still is a light weapon while the true cavalry sabers were heavy, weapons used in battle, and therefore required a different handling. From a certain point in time even in the duels—especially towards the end—lighter sabers were used comparable in weight to sport sabers, but they had a point and cutting edges.

Épée

The “new” épée, imported and developed in Italy by Giuseppe Mangiarotti, was the sport épée. It was a popular weapon, very popular, but in the eyes of the purists it was not nice to watch. The reasons for this dislike were that it was too different from the dueling épée from which traditional Italian foil—not French foil—drew inspiration; the other reason was that maybe Mangiarotti was initially considered almost an intruder in the Italian fencing world and he must have caused some jealousies. Hence the natural antipathy Beppe Nadi felt for a weapon, épée, where his sons, Nedo and Aldo, knew how to comfortably dominate, tanks to their solid foundation in foil.

Mangiarotti learned first form a maestro of old Italian tradition, Enrico Lancia di Brolo, educated at the Scuola Magistrale. He then went to Luigi Colombetti in Turin to refine his style. He was a great admirer of French épée which he studied thoroughly. French épée preceded Italian épée in the sense that in France also there had been strong resistance to the adoption of the “new” weapon which was different from foil. French épéists became well known. Then the Italians followed their example but not without very strong resistance on the part of the fencing establishment.

Weapons used in famous duels

Without checking duelling statistics (e.g. those produced by Jacopo Gelli) I would say that saber duels were more popular among military officers. Some famous duels:

.  1924: Aldo Nadi - Adolfo Cotronei, épée .  1924: Aldo Nadi – Adolfo Cotronei, épée;

. 1924: Oreste Puliti – Gyorgy Kovacs (Italian against Hungarian), saber;

. Nedo Nadi - Adolfo Cotronei, years later, saber.

Maybe saber was favored because épée, in spite of what people may think, was much more dangerous.