This article examines the relationship between fundamental and secondary¹ elements of fencing within the context of teaching beginner fencers and offers a systematic approach to the proper integration of the two in the fencing lesson by answering the following question: If fundamental elements are the major themes in the fencing lesson, which, then, among the secondary elements, are the key sub-themes to be developed in tandem with each corresponding theme? While this issue may not be significant to fencing masters, it is, indeed, of note to novice instructors who often teach secondary elements in a vacuum (without the context of fundamentals), which inevitably leads to the creation of mediocre fencers.²

Before reviewing each fundamental element, note the following:

1.    Under a school of thought emerging from Italy, there is a push to revise the fundamental elements of fencing to include: Distance, Timing and Initiative; with Speed to be de facto replaced by Initiative and hence downgraded, by implication, to a secondary element. A more detailed discussion on Initiative is found below at the section entitled “Initiative and Key Corresponding Sub-Themes.”³

2.    Classical fencing overemphasized technique and proper execution during the initial, formative, stages of fencing, thereby diverting much of the fencer’s attention away from the opponent.⁴ Throughout the years, the emergence of the “tactical lesson,” and of the lesson as a “problem solving” exercise, focused the fencer’s attention on the opponent.⁵ As a result, the fencing lesson transitioned from the “verbal lesson,” with the fencer reacting to the master’s verbal commands, to the “silent lesson,” in which the master draws the fencer into action via the use of non-verbal cues.

3.    Although Distance is clearly the starting point in a fencer’s upbringing, all three fundamental elements are to be developed together in the lesson (and not sequentially), with increasing or decreasing emphasis on one or the other according to the level and progress of the fencer.

4.    The author of this article is a graduate of the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma and a student of some of the greatest post World War II Italian Fencing Masters including Marisa Cerani, Marcello Lodetti and Arturo Volpini. Therefore, most of the definitions herein are those of the Italian School of Fencing, as translated into English by il caro amico e collega di sempre Maestro William Gaugler in his comprehensive treatise: FENCING -everyone.

¹ Since “Fundamental” means primary, it follows that all non-fundamental elements are secondary elements.

² Ironically, the layout of fencing treatises subordinates fundamental elements to secondary ones by mere chapter placement.

³ It should be noted that the great Maestro Livio Di Rosa, as far back as 1981, advocated for the inclusion of short discriminating reaction times (bassi tempi di reazione discriminante) among the fundamental elements of fencing. Seminario di Livio Di Rosa per docenti di scherma presso gli ISEF, Rome, October 1981. The author includes this function in the sub-theme “Tradecraft” under its corresponding fundamental element “Initiative.”

⁴ Strategy and tactics were introduced later in the development of the fencer, via the “spratico d’assalto”, where the Master bouted with the student. Indeed, it was not unusual for fencing clubs to also hire a “Maestro Assaltante (Bouting Master) to aid in the performance of this function.

⁵ The emphasis on problem solving in the Italian school of modern foil fencing is attributed to Maestro Livio Di Rosa. The tactical lesson, instead, is generally attributed to the Russian School of fencing.

Distance and Corresponding Key Sub-Themes

DISTANCE

Focus &                                       Feeling & Eluding                                        Tactical

Observation                                          the Blade                                           Coordination

Distance is defined as the distance that must be covered with a thrust. That said, from a practical perspective, the first thing that a fencer must learn is to thrust from the guard, on the advance and with a lunge by following the master’s silent cues.⁶ This is done with minimal (non-verbal) corrections by the master because the main theme at this stage is for the student to feel the Distance, while focusing the attention exclusively on the opponent, and learning to recognize cues. The master can then transition the fencer into exercises aimed at feeling and eluding the blade on all lines, mixed with simple defensive and offensive actions executed in constant movement while varying the Distance,⁷ the lines and the target. As the skill of the fencer improves, the master can then introduce compound variations around the same sub-themes with special emphasis on the proper hand and foot tactical coordination, especially in connection with actions on the blade executed from long distance.⁸ As the fencer improves in skill, Distance exercises become the “warm-up” part of the lesson.⁹ 

 ⁶ This is easily accomplished by the Master opening the line from his engagement of the student’s blade (a) while standing still, (Thrust) or (b) on the retreat of the back foot (the student lunges), or(c) while the front foot completes the retreat (student hits on landing of the back foot on the advance). Seminario di Livio Di Rosa per docenti di scherma presso gli ISEF, Rome, October 1981.

⁷ Learning to hit first with a thrust on the advance is key to learn how to execute fencing actions from long distance (advance and lunge).

⁸ On executing blade actions from long distance (i.e., advance and lunge), to avoid being caught off-guard, the fencer must learn to take the blade on the landing of the back foot or after the advance is completed.

⁹ See La Misura Nella Scherma by Maestro Giancarlo Toran (April 2008) for a more in depth-analysis of Distance.

Timing and Corresponding Key Sub-Themes

TIMING

Off-Guard                  Variations in Speed                 Fencing tempo                

of the Opponent                 & Rhythm                             Applications                    

“Timing” in fencing is defined as the favorable moment at which an offensive action will catch the opponent off-guard.¹⁰ To seize upon the opportunity presented by the off-guard opponent, the fencer must first learn to recognize when the opponent is off-guard.¹¹ Therefore, the master will intentionally execute mistakes in the attack to draw the timely counterattack of the student, for example, by withdrawing the blade on a cut-over attack on the advance (rather than on the landing of the back foot or after the advance), or by attempting to take the fencer’s blade or change the blade engagement on the advance. The master, by randomly mixing-in the same actions correctly executed (in relation to the advance), will teach the fencer to recognize when the opponent is truly off-guard and the optimal moment to counterattack or not. Furthermore, the fencer, at this stage, can also learn how to proactively throw the opponent off-guard by the tactical integration of the half-step (forward or backward) and the appel in fencing actions and by learning to establish a rhythm (and then breaking it), and vary the speed of execution of offensive, defensive, and counter-offensive actions.¹²

“Fencing tempo,” instead, has a more specific meaning: Fencing tempo is the time elapsed between the attack and the counterattack, for the latter to be considered valid.¹³

To facilitate the development of valid counterattacks in the beginner, two methods are recommended:

(a) Starting from long distance, the master executes the feint while advancing in response to the fencer’s invitation (in all the four lines), and the fencer will lunge in opposition or with a glide on the master’s blade.¹⁴ The master should mix feints executed from the guard (with no advance), which the fencer must learn to ignore. This simple exercise will also help the fencer recognize a real attack from a fake attack;¹⁵ (b) Point-in-line exercises in which the beginning fencer learns to execute the disengagement in time, the parry riposte from the line (if allowing the master to take the blade), and the feint in tempo against the master’s counter time action. The master can then switch roles (with respect to the point in line) and teach the fencer to confront the opponent’s point in line and execute the first actions in counter time. Point-in-line exercises are very beneficial to the beginning fencer because they introduce the right-of-way rule of foil, expose the fencer at an early stage to the strategic and tactical discourse of fencing, and help the beginning fencer develop an effective defensive strategy.

¹⁰ Novice instructors should note that offensive actions include counter-offensive actions opposed to the attack.

¹¹ Positive balance is when the fencer has both feet on the ground. Negative (off-guard) balance is when one foot is airborne, as on the advance.

¹² It’s the change in speed that that breaks the tempo, from slow to fast or vice-versa. Therefore, it is both acceleration and deacceleration. See Choice of Tempo in Fencing by Maestro Giancarlo Toran (Jan. 7, 2009) for a more in-depth discussion on Timing and Rhythm.

¹³ Each fencing movement represents one unit of fencing time. The opportunities to land a valid counterattack depend on the number of movements in the offensive action. For example, a feint disengage and disengage (from the opponent’s engagement) comprises two movements, and the counterattack must land before the beginning of the last movement. N.B.: An attack executed from long distance requires two units of fencing time (the step forward and the thrust). FENCING- everyone.

¹⁴ Outside lines should be favored first, because the feint in response to an invitation in 3rd (6th in US) requires the fencer to execute a counterattack with an opposition in prime (mezzocerchio) or a flanconade in 4th, which are more difficult to execute.

¹⁵ Once the fencer has developed confidence in counterattacking on the opponent advance, the master can introduce the counterattack “closing from the guard” opposed to the Master’s feint which is executed after the advance.

Initiative and Corresponding Key Sub-Themes

INITIATIVE

Problem Solving                Tradecraft*                                  Rules

* Tradecraft: Strategic, tactical and technical skills acquired through experience.

Can Speed be the fundamental element which, when combined with Distance and Timing, makes a fencer prevail over other fencers with equal tactical and technical skills? The answer is no. The top fencers in the world are usually the ones who have command and control the bout. Even under traditional Italian fencing theory, Speed was considered of secondary importance compared to Distance and Timing. More specifically, Speed served only to perfect the fencer’s power.¹⁶

It should be noted that the concept of “Initiative” is not a new one in traditional Italian fencing theory. Maestro William Gaugler conceptually links initiative to the attack, in that an attack can be executed on one’s own initiative, or against the opponent’s initiative.¹⁷ Maestro Giancarlo Toran [<---photo], President of AIMS from 1992 to 2008 (Italian Fencing Masters Association), instead, ties initiative to the first fencer to move forward after a pause in the fencing action; but, Maestro Toran expands this concept to include the opponent’s counter-initiative –i.e., when executing a counteroffensive action against the attack.¹⁸ It is this subtle distinction introduced by Maestro Toran which has opened the door to even broader interpretations of this concept. Regardless, another great Italian Fencing Master, Antonio Di Ciolo [---> photo], now sees Initiative as a fundamental element to replace Speed.¹⁹

The author of this article believes that “Initiative” transcends the tight parameters of the attack or the forward movement. Rather, Initiative is the command and control core competency of the fencer that can be used offensively, defensively, and counteroffensively. For example, if the fencer recognizes that the opponent favors actions in counter time which end with a parry and flanconade in fourth riposte, the fencer can let the opponent fake the compound attack and then execute the time thrust with the intention of (i) doing a feint in tempo against the counter time; or (ii) allowing the counter time and flanconade in fourth (to the flank) and execute a counterthrust in opposition, with the hand in second position.²⁰ The opponent may, indeed, have started the attack but who truly had the initiative or command and control of the action?

¹⁶ See, Il Fioretto, C.O.N.I. Federazione Italiana Scherma at page 98. A more modern interpretation of Speed is given by Maestro Giancarlo Toran, who perceives Speed as Acceleration. See, Dispense di Spada, Corsi di Spada –Pesaro Settembre 1999, Maestro Giancarlo Toran at page 34. http://www.accademianazionalescherma.it/Dispense_di_Spada_Toran.pdf

¹⁷ Fencing – everyone at page 125.

¹⁸ See, Dispense di Spada, Corsi di Spada – Pesaro Settembre 1999, Maestro Giancarlo Toràn, at page 13. http://www.accademianazionalescherma.it/Dispense_di_Spada_Toran.pdf.

¹⁹ See, Interview with Maestro Antonio Di Ciolo on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX-UTU4r2Y4&NR=1

²⁰ This action is called Imbroccata in Italian.

The author defines Initiative as: The command and control capability needed for a fencer to be successful in competition; predicated on a mastery of Distance, Timing and of the rules of the game, and resulting from the combined synergy of problem solving, and strategic, tactical and technical skills acquired through experience.

Based upon the premise of this definition, the author identifies the following key corresponding sub-themes for this fundamental element: problem solving, tradecraft and a tactical understanding of the rules of the game.

Problem Solving is the sub-theme that must be introduced to the fencer right from the very beginning. The thrust, the lunge, the feint, the disengage, the parry, the feint in temp, the counter time and so forth, are all solutions reached by the fencer and not instructions imparted by the master.²¹The master’s role is to lead the fencer, with the proper silent cues, in reaching solutions to the problems presented by the master’s actions during the lesson. This allows the master to develop and assess what is called in Italian l’intelligenza schermistica dell’allievo (fencing reasoning of the student), which later will allow the fencer to outwit the opponent by being able to change strategy and tactics during the bout, as needed.

Tradecraft is the convergence of strategic, tactical, and technical skills acquired by experience in lessons and bouting. From the perspective of the lesson, proper, this sub-theme develops in parallel with the fencer’s progress. In other words, the beginner fencer learns from the master to recognize cues, to execute fencing actions with the proper tactical coordination, and to recognize (and seize upon) an action incorrectly executed (intentionally by the master). To stimulate the development of tradecraft, the master must now teach the fencer to conceal true intent aimed at misleading and deceiving the opponent by sending false cues, executing fake actions (e.g., fake parry, fake counterattacks or a faulty point-in-line) or executing an action incorrectly to draw out the opponent. Building upon already developed sentiment du fer skills, the lesson will now emphasize probing actions and actions of concealment (e.g., faking the compound attack to execute instead a direct act). In other words, the fencer must not only learn to recognize cues but must also learn to give cues: false ones. At this point the tactical lesson can accommodate an ever increasing number of variables (i.e., Di Rosa’s short discriminating reaction time), and the true game of fencing is finally afoot.

The last, but definitely not least, sub-theme is the tactical understanding of the rules. The rules of the game, and their interpretations, must be introduced early to the fencer, but not in the abstract. Rules and interpretations must be taught within the context of their tactical applications to inspire the creativity of the fencer. For example, the Point in Line Rule leads, deductively, to tactical applications (e.g., counter-time, feint in tempo) but can also inspire the fencer, creatively, to establish a high point in line or a lower one, depending on whether the goal is for the opponent to take the blade or not; or even to execute, intentionally, an incorrect point in line by slightly folding the elbow or waving the point of the foil (with the arm fully extended) from left and right to draw the attack of the opponent and parry and riposte. Rules are rules, whether we like them or not, including fencing rules; and in recent years the F.I.E., with its rulings, has stirred up significant controversy on a variety of fronts. What is important, though, is to teach the fencer how to leverage the rules to his or her advantage during the bout.

²¹ Seminario di Livio Di Rosa per docenti di scherma presso gli ISEF, Rome, October 1981.

In conclusion, this article intends to inspire a lively discussion among fencing professionals by calling for (1) the official adoption of Initiative as one of the three fundamental elements in fencing; (2) the recognition of certain corresponding secondary elements as key sub-themes for each fundamental element; and (3), by default, the creation of a tertiary category of elements, which would group all elements that are neither primary nor secondary.

As a final note, although the author’s formation as a competitive fencer and master hails from the Italian school of Fencing, his growth as a professional coach owes much to the interaction and exchanges with his former colleagues on the U.S. National Coaching staff at the U.S. Olympic Training Centers in Colorado Springs, Lake Placid, and training camps across the United States; among them, some of the most unquiet fencing minds on this side of the Atlantic, such as Yves Auriol, Alex Beguinet, Vincent Bradford, Michael D’Asaro, Wes Glon, Emmanuil Kaidanov, Aladar Kogler, George Kolombatovich , Ron Miller, Yuri Rabinovich, Ed Richards, and William Shipman.

About the author: Gil Pezza was a student of renowned Italian Fencing Masters, Marisa Cerani, Marcello Lodetti and Arturo Volpini, and a member of the Italian junior and senior national fencing teams. He received his diploma of Fencing Master from the Italian Academy of Arms in Naples, Italy, and holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from Wayne State University (WSU), and a J.D., magna cum laude from the Detroit College of Law.

Prior to becoming an attorney, he held the position of Head Coach M&W Fencing at WSU, and was a member of the United States National Coaching Staff.

Maestro Pezza was also President of the USFCA from 1992 to 1994. He has recently returned to fencing by teaching his two youngest daughters Marella and Arabella and holding USFCA clinics for fencing instructors in Michigan. Maestro Pezza was recently appointed Chair of the Professional Development Committee of the USFCA.

An interesting article and an accurate analysis. According to our school (which Maestro Pezza cites in his article) initiative is a key element, the principal characteristic of fencing.

I feel the need to formulate a different way to proceed in teaching fencing. In the methodology we follow at our school, technique without tactics or strategy cannot exist. All is strictly tied to the necessity of having initiative. Therefore, when we teach fencing we start from the hypothesis that the student must try his best to reach the control of the technical dialog with his opponent.

The special characterisitic of the school of thought to which I belong is the conviction that each student is unique. Ergo, to find or define primary or secondary elements depend on the individual student we deal with. We don't have or follow a fixed teaching protocol. Each gesture can be fundamental or secondary, easy for one and difficult for another.

Thank you Gil Pezza whom I know by reputation and hope to know in person.

Reply by Maestro Gil Pezza

Dear Enrico,

as we say here in US, "you hit the nail on the head." This was the hardest obstacle to overcome, for me, in writing my article, i.e., the development of fixed protocols when teaching fencing, especially, since I was schooled in Italy where an informal logic based on creativity is employed when teaching fencing (FYI, I will publish an article in February on the USFCA web site about the difference between formal and informal logic as applied when teaching fencing). However, I managed to overcome my innate reluctance toward fixed protocols for two reasons, both dictated by different needs.

First, here in U.S. at the capillary level (geographically speaking), many instructors do not have the opportunity to learn fencing and how to teach fencing, almost  by osmosis, in the shadow of a certified coach. Therefore, for many of these self-taught fencing instructors here in U.S. there is no road map to follow. Hence this rearrangement of the fencing elements by categorizing certain elements which we call fundamental with some pre-selected secondary ones, at a minimum establishes a road map for them to follow, with the hope that during their professional career and development they will develop their own teaching methodology by mixing "ad hoc" fencing elements depending on the needs of their student. And on this I agree totally with your comments. By the way, it would be extremely interesting for us here in USA to have a more in-depth understanding and knowledge of the teaching methodology developed by the Di Ciolo school.

The second need--and this has more to do with fencing theory than with teaching methodology--is that, by definition, theory follows a formal logic (therefore deductive in nature), which in my opinion is missing in the fencing treatises (not in the courses study material). A formal theoretical education inspires creativity and genius because brilliant minds cannot be subject to fixed protocols imposed by a formal logic and hence they challenge its premises to reach new horizons in knowledge. This is the case for fencing as it is for physics. Therefore, a reformulation of the theory of fencing based on a formal deductive logic is even more important here in USA than in Italy or France, for example.

To be continued, I hope...