When the practice of the duel was about to disappear—but could still happen to a gentleman—there was a lot of talking about the degeneration of sport (Olympic) fencing. Fencing which was born as a martial art, when it became an Olympic sport had to lose some of its crudest characteristics. Without fearing for your life it's an entirely different bowl of wax.

Today we try hard to bring our sport close to the world of science and modern technology without going too far though from the world of art so we can still be proud and say as in the past that fencing is "art and science."

However, science is based on precise definitions. People quote from Molière's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, "tout le secret des armes ne consiste qu'en deux choses, à donner, et à ne point recevoir..." (The secret of successful swordplay is to give and not to receive). Once upon a time...

You may guess where I'm going to parry. That things have changed—quite a bit indeed—everybody will concede. Ditto, that we cannot go back, except maybe the high level of the FIE may think differently after some rather clumsy attempts to manipulate the rules to eliminate—so they hoped—some unwelcome hits (unwelcome by whom?). End result was a big blunder which with rare exceptions has produced considerable damages.

"Enough of this, basta!" I hear... "Why is Olympic fencing against nature?"

I'll tell you why.

According to the logic of nature fencing should indeed be as the Maître d'Armes says so emphatically the art to hit without being hit. What is the opposite of this statement? The art to hit while allowing to be hit! And this is what happens in fencing today. This is what we Maestri teach our students. This is what the smartest of them learn and, thanks to this, they take advantage over their opponents. Let's look at all this in more detail.

Let's begin with the so called conventional weapons, foil and saber, where there is the convention which defines who is right and who is not when there is a double hit.

You'll have noticed, if not let me tell you, that if your opponent throws a hit against you, he is not parrying. Therefore, his target is open, unprotected.

You also noticed a fact which seems irreversible which involves a much bigger problem, i.e., the way the referees call an action. It seems that an attack does not begin with the arm's extension (which almost nobody does), even though this is what the Règlement still prescribes, but from the legs' forward movement.

When was the last time you saw an attack with a well extended arm before the step forward or the lunge? Be careful how you answer because if any of you tells me that this is the rule I'll send to the optometrist or I'll drown you with videos proving this isn't so.

We all know why this is going on. It is much easier to perceive the movement forward of the body for a referee standing less than 2 meters (12 feet) from the strip and must control at the same time the movement of two athletes. And it's also easier for the spectators by the way, not a trivial issue if the justification for many of the latest changes was to make the technical gesture easier and more understandable. Whether we succeeded in all this is another question.

So now we say advance with the arm not fully extended (let's skip the quantitative meaning of fully). This certainly makes more difficult for the opponent to parry or take the blade.

And what about concluding the attack when the opponent cannot or does not want to retreat and, giving up the idea to parry a blade that isn't there, tries to stop to counter attack? You've never seen such an action? Really? Ah, I thought so!

Let's now look what happens when a Maestro must teach such action to his students.

Suppose you have a young kid you are teaching. Just when he's started his attack you throw at him a "wrong" stop hit [wrong because he started the attack and you must first parry]. What does he do? Continue his attack? Most definitely not! The "innocent soul" will parry! He has not yet understood that he must do something that goes against nature, i.e., let me touch him while he touches me at the same time, or even after me. How many drills, how many explanations before instilling in him this behavior which is most definitely against nature, but is also so effective!

On the other hand there is no need to put and keep the blinders on. There is always a contrary action; this is one of fencing axioms. But even the contrary is against nature. You, the coach, explain to the kid that when he sees his opponent advance slowly with a bent arm you've got to let him come closer and when his target is at the right measure, open, inviting even—impossible to miss!—all he'll have to do is to throw the "wrong" stop hit, which is the right thing to do, bringing the point or the blade few centimeters from the target, causing the conclusion of the opponent's action who will parry and riposte.

And now I hear my épée friends "...ours is the real weapon...well a bit more real" (they don't fear for their life either). "We don't have the convention. Ours is the duel weapon." As if in a real duel they were going for the double hit! (Possible exception in the duels of yore cuckolded husbands who in those days felt severely dishonored and even winning a duel would not restore their lost honor.)

Dear épéeist friends, it is not by chance that we have the double hit in épée. As you well know going for the double is the main strategy of the fencer who is ahead and wants to maintain his advantage without risking too much. You don't give the blade, you maintain a long measure, you employ time wasting tactics to run the clock and you wait for the right time, i.e., when the opponent must throw his hit and he uncovers his target. Even here there is the contrary [action] and the most classic one is called counter-time, but you must admit, it's not the easiest action. Only the best can do it. And since the advantage is all for the person ahead for whom it's better to search for the double hit, you've got to admit that this is also fencing against nature. QED

Footnote:

I'm not against modern fencing and the radical changes it brought us. We must accept them. For me fencing is—I said it and I say it again—in its most noble meaning the art of the contrary actions. It is not instrument dependent, épée, saber, or foil; stick, fists, or words. It depends on the mind and heart of the fencers. Tempo, speed, measure. Courage, selfcontrol. All the rest are accessories. This is the key for fencing long term success.

Maestro Giancarlo Toràn

Translation by Gram