Riflessioni in tempi di crisi economica: scherma come mezzo o scherma come fine? Forse è il momento di nuove idee e nuovi modelli.

Parlare di sviluppo in un periodo storico/economico come il presente è, allo stesso tempo, moda e necessità. Prima di pensare alla crescita ritengo, però, che in questo momento si debbano cercare nuove vie per combattere le conseguenze della crisi economica che, sicuramente, porterà nel breve/medio periodo ad una riduzione del numero dei praticanti.

La scherma è una disciplina che si è, via via, popolarizzata in termini di costi, sia per effetto dell'aumentato numero di praticanti, sia per una certa (seppur minima) concorrenza sulle tariffe da parte delle società, sia per un incremento dei costi delle altre discipline. Ciò ha consentito l'accesso alle sale a gente di quasi tutti i ceti socio/economici della popolazione.

E' giocoforza che una crisi economica come quella attuale, associata ad un aumento della pressione fiscale e ad una diminuita presenza dello stato sociale (p. es: maggiori tickets sui medicinali) costringerà una certa parte dei praticati ad optare per altre discipline meno costose.

Parlare, quindi, di sviluppo in queste condizioni sembrerebbe anacronistico e velleitario.

A mio modesto avviso, però, cercare nuove strade per evitare di perdere consensi è già un modo di pensare allo sviluppo, perché nei momenti brutti l'unico modo per rimanere a galla è quello di ripensare totalmente il "sistema" al fine di offrire un “prodotto” più accattivante che, attirando nuovi appassionati, porti nel breve tempo a tamponare le perdite con nuovi arrivi (magari da altri settori) e successivamente ad uno sviluppo in termini assoluti.

In parole povere: bisogna garantire gli stipendi ai maestri ed agli istruttori che sono allo stesso tempo il punto forte della scherma italiana e l'anello debole del sistema schermistico in quanto di scherma loro ci vivono, mentre per dirigenti ed i praticanti si tratta, pur sempre, di un hobby.

E' necessario ripensare un sistema che abbia come punto di partenza quello di dare agli appassionati la possibilità di praticare uno sport sano, educativo (non solo per i giovani praticanti, ma anche per i genitori e per gli atleti non più giovanissimi) che possa dare uno sbocco ludico/agonistico forte e coinvolgente per tutti e non solo per quelli che arrivano alle medaglie.

Anzi, se si vuole che queste benedette medaglie continuino ad arrivare è necessario allargare la base dei praticanti, perché (come il Faraone Cheope insegna) più è larga la base più alta si ergerà la piramide.

Il primo passo da fare, a mio modesto avviso, è di cambiare metodo nella ricerca dei futuri campioni, o meglio, non fissare l'attenzione dell'ambiente solo sulla spasmodica ricerca dei campioni.

Per quello che è dato vedere, la Federazione, i Comitati, le Società ed una certa parte dei Maestri adottano la linea che mi sento di definire “dei limoni spremuti”: si prendono i ragazzini, piccolissimi, li si istruisce tecnicamente e tatticamente, li si butta allo sbaraglio da subito, li si spreme fisicamente e psicologicamente in maniera intensiva ed arrivati a 14 /15 anni si opera una selezione netta, concentrando l'attenzione sui migliori, facendo così sentire gli altri dei falliti, emarginandoli o costringendoli a gareggiare contro i migliori con il risultato di farli sentire ancora più falliti, e farli sentire in colpa per avere fatto spendere ai genitori tanti soldi in viaggi ed alberghi per poi non classificarsi neppure tra i primi 32.

Se si hanno dubbi in tal senso si prendano le classifiche del GP Kinder (come ho riportato nel mio articolo citato all'inizio) e si veda quanti sono gli assidui partecipanti.

Il risultato è sotto gli occhi di tutti ed invito coloro che non lo vogliono vedere a contare quanti ragazzi sistematicamente abbandonano la scherma attorno ai 15 anni ed a chiedersi seriamente il perché e non giustificarsi dicendo che “tanto non erano portati e non avrebbero mai fatto strada”. Quale strada, qui non siamo nei Marines, l'unica strada che dobbiamo indicare ai giovani è quella della vita, non quella della medaglietta.

Se lo ricordino quei dirigenti e quei maestri che piangono miseria e che non sono in grado neppure di pagare la benzina all'istruttore di sala. Provino, costoro, a ricordare quante volte hanno visto bambini e ragazzi piangere più per le invettive dei genitori sportivamente diseducati e dei maestri che li hanno bollati come “deficienti” per essersi fatti rimontare o per essersi fatti rifilare dieci stoccate allo stesso modo.

Si sono chiesti di chi è la colpa di tutto ciò?

Io credo che la colpa di tutto ciò non sia di qualcuno in particolare, ma sia in generale dell'ambiente, sia cioè del fatto che nella scherma italiana quello che conta è vincere...vincere...e...vincere sempre, comunque e dovunque e se a 12 o a 14 o a 16 anni non sei mai stato campione di qualcosa (non dico campione nazionale o regionale, ma neppure campione di condominio) allora sei un fallito e non meriti di rimanere nell'ambiente che piano piano ti farà sentire sempre più una nullità.

Il meno che può fare, un ragazzo, in questo clima è cambiare sport, a prescindere dai costi.

Tralasciamo poi il caso di quei poveri scemi (genitori e figli) che si mettono in testa di iniziare la scherma dopo i tredici anni. Essi saranno per un paio d'anni lo zimbello di molti i quali li guarderanno col sorrisino di chi vuole dire: "...poveretto, non avevate tu ed i tuoi genitori altri posti in cui andare se non venire a portare i vostri soldi in questa sala e costringere il maestro a dovere fare lezione anche a te che in gara arriverai sempre ultimo, per il disonore della società?"
Alla fine abbandoneranno la scherma, si daranno al calcio o al tennis o al nuoto, faranno un torneo, una gara, una partita ogni settimana per nove mesi all'anno, incontreranno gente del loro livello, una volta vinceranno, una volta perderanno, ma si divertiranno e praticheranno calcio, tennis e nuoto, fino alla tomba. Comunque pagando fior di quattrini.

Ma a noi che ci frega. Siamo e rimarremo sempre i migliori al mondo!

I think that anyone interested in fencing, athlete, referee, teacher or officer of a federation, cannot remain indifferent to the question raised in this web site by Maestro Vincenzo Castrucci http://www.accademiadellascherma.it/non-mi-piace/the-third-fencer.html, which has bounced over other web sites, including Fencing.net http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread54875.html. Thanks to gladius patient translation work and contacts we are able to know the opinions and comments of the visitors to the American web site.

Opinions are opinions and rules are rules, but reality is always a different thing. The true rules of the game are not the written ones but those which are effectively enforced, and they depend on those who enforce them, the referees, and those who select/appoint them. I dare say that one of the necessary conditions for advancement in society is when the gap between what is written and what is enforced is getting smaller and smaller.

It seems that in fencing many feel that the gap between the written and applied rules is still too big. I agree with this opinion and I also believe I know the reasons why this is so.

The FIE Règlement Technique (RT) dates back to the birth of the FIE in 1914. In its first version which for the most part has not changed, the technical part was the fruit of a compromise from the beginning between the dominant national schools of that time, French for épée, Italian for foil, and Hungarian for saber. Like any compromise it had many defects and the years since have accentuated them. Then as today the RT made reference to “treatises” without naming them. However, the definitions, few and inconsistent, on which it was and is still based, appear to be taken from French texts. Let me give you two examples from the latest version of the FIE RT (in French) with the English translation on the BFA web site.

Example 1:         The infamous “temps d’escrime” (fencing time)

From the FIE RT

t.6          Le temps d'escrime est la durée d'exécution d'une action simple.

t.6.         Fencing time is the time required to perform one simple fencing action.

• For the French, the “action simple” (simple fencing action) is that which is executed in a single movement.
• For the Italians, the “action simple” (simple fencing action) is that which does not elude a parry.

Therefore,

• for the French a “beat and straight thrust” is not simple, but it is simple for the Italians.
• for the French the action of coupé is simple—i.e., executed in a single movement—even though the blade, for example in a riposte, moves in front of the opponent’s point with an obvious movement back of the weapon—RT calls this Riposte Simple indirecte (Riposte Simple, indirect).

Furthermore there is no reference to legs movement which can accompany the armed arm movement. Consequently, the “temps d’escrime” (fencing time) is the same for a straight thrust executed from different measures, without moving the foot, as well as with a step forward and lunge.

Example 2:         “Actions offensives” (Offensive actions)

From the FIE RT

t.7          Définition: 

t.7.1      Les différentes actions offensives sont l'attaque, la riposte et la contre-riposte.

t.7. 1.    The offensive actions are the attack, the riposte and the counter-riposte.

Aside from the fact that the counter-riposte is a riposte (otherwise we should include the counter-counter-riposte, and so on…), i.e., the offensive action which follows immediately the parry, few lines further down the RT “explains” and lists among the offensive actions the contre-attaque (counter-attack) which was not mentioned in the definition t.7 above. And further down we discover there are others; in the same family we find the remise, the redoublement, the reprise d’attaque (reprise of attack)—which is nothing else than a new attack from the fencer who finished his first attack—and the contre-temps (counter-time) (!), a complex action of second intention, which in the most common case includes a simulation of attack, a parry, and a riposte.

Let me pause here: if these are the “definitions” and “explanations” on which the rest of the RT is based, nothing should surprise us. And it really does not mean much that the editors of the RT—almost by way of a justification—add in Note 1, i.e.,

It states that this RT chapter with the “definitions” does not replace a fencing treatise but is only intended to facilitate the understanding of the RT (for some reason this note is not printed on the English version of the RT).

With such shaky foundations the entire building cannot stand. Paradoxically though this is also its strength. Since no one is capable to change it or feels the desire to tackle the monumental task of changing the building’s foundations, things remain as they are and interpretations replace the rules, and they do so rather heavily.

The most glaring example is in one of the cardinal definitions—that concerning the attaque (attack).

From the FIE RT

t.7 Définition: 

t.7.1 -  L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss, t.75 ss).

t.7. 1. — The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).

This is something we have not seen on the strip for decades, except in épée. The forward motion of the legs has become in the current interpretation of the referees by far the most important factor.

It is not my intention here to crucify the referees. It is not their fault if fencing has become too quick to follow from a distance of 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) the contemporaneous development of two very rapid actions. The reality is that fencing with conventional weapons has changed profoundly around the fifties and more specifically since the adoption of electric foil, something which happened thanks to great Italian pressure on the FIE. The RT on the other hand remained the same and it turns out to be now totally inadequate.

How and why did fencing change?

Let me talk for now about foil only. When one had to “see” the hit to assign the point the fencer’s major concern was directed towards the visibility of his hit. Aesthetics mattered. The chest was the main target, if not the only one. Each hit (said the treatises) must be carried with the required opposition (an evident affinity with the duel); the weapon had to be well in line and hits to the body with an angle almost did not exist.

When electric foil took over, hits with an angle, touches to the edges of the target, including the back became common. All one needed was for the signaling apparatus to register the touch. Angled hits require the arm to be more or less bent. Consequently, parries had to be wider. With the new blades, more flexible and lighter for safety reasons, angled hits soon became flicks which require an arm even more bent and parries wider still.

This is when what Italians call “chiusure” (contractions together with chiusura di misura—closing of the distance—almost always with a bent arm which was the only way to contrast an attack with a bent arm!) came to be, together with a more driven distance game, with bigger displacements on the strip. The poor referee, to see both fencers and the scoring apparatus at the same time should move faster than the fencers. He can’t do that. His peripheral vision can catch changes in direction but not the precedence of both weapons’ movements.

Under these circumstances to judge the correctness of an attack, better of two attacks, is a really difficult. What looks at regular speed is then quite different from what becomes evident watching in slow motion.

I find natural, but not at all just, that referees interpret according to their own personal perception—which unfortunately too often varies too much from one referee to another. The fact that one may know perfectly by heart the Règlement technique which per se is so imperfect, does not improve things for sure. We could discuss on any minor or major point ad infinitum. This was the case of the attaque composée and the many discussions that followed.

True, the Règlement says that in saber the touch must land at the latest when the forward foot touches the ground in the lunge. However, in foil, if the thrust were not parried, and the attacker keeps the line, the priority remains his.

In saber, God knows why, even if continuing to threaten the target, the attack is considered concluded if the opponent does not parry but throws his hit together with the final hit—that which follows the feint and arrived together or after the contact of the forward foot with the strip.

This is incomprehensible since the other does not parry and does not touch with a “fencing time” of advantage. The RT states clearly that only a parry (with the blade) gives the “right” to a riposte.

If we wanted to be consistent we should call this action simultaneous, a common fencing time, and give no point to anyone. However, if we really wanted to call this action the way we do now, i.e., giving the point to the fencer who was subject to the first attack, it would be good that this rule were written somewhere. We could think that this rule is stupid or wrong—as in other cases—but at least we would have a sure point of reference. Instead, we must learn that things are so from a certain point in time onwards, because this was decided at some meeting before a competition. But other than the referees present at the meeting and those who found out via verbal communication, everybody else is in the dark.

This is a shameful and disgraceful situation but we have ended up accepting it nonetheless. The more clever ones, those who found out or understood this first will be able to teach the “new” action to their students and get an advantage. The others will be left to protest in vain and get a sick feeling in their stomach.

What should/could we do?

I believe this is the right time for a change. Internet, in my opinion, is the right instrument—news propagates very fast and reaches those who run the business of fencing. As is always the case, at first those on top are annoyed by this “interference.” But if the case is reasonable, properly presented (which means that those who complain understand the difficulty to manage such a complex problem), and most importantly if put forward by many, can get the result of moving mountains.

Giancarlo Toràn



Translated by Gram