Post by schlager7 on Dec 2, 2005 13:23:30 GMT -6
Forgive the grammar. High school French was far too many decades ago.
Here are some quotes from an April 1893 interview with Maitre Theophile Gignac that were excerpted from the New York Times of that year. While fencing has changed a great deal since his day, it also shares some very similar issues to those he encountered. It is just something I crossed while doing some research. The form below is a condensation I am preparing for my history project (although his quotes are verbatim from the paper.)
It should be noted that he was very enthusiastic at the extent and quality of fencing he found while in New York City.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gignac was interviewed at some length and gave his views on a host of aspects as regards fencing in America. Some of his observations would echo a century later. When asked what he believed to be the chief defect in American fencers, he stated, “They use fencing too much as an exercise and too little as a game for intellectual men.”
He continued, “They use the head too little, the muscles too much. That is why boxing is so popular here. Men know that they can tire themselves, exercise their muscles, and get into a profuse perspiration in a few rounds with the gloves. Fewer men know that the same thing can be done even better with the foils. But the interesting side of fencing is the exercise of the fencer’s wits, and naturally that is the side of which I, as a maitre d’armes, think most. Now my boldest criticism of the fencing men in New York is that too few of them will make the exertion necessary for this higher kind of fencing; most are content to stick to it for its agreeableness as an exercise.”
He was then asked his opinion of the tournaments then being held. “Well, for one thing, I have no love of the black vest and chalk rubbed on the buttons of the foils. Of what use are these things? We do not so in France. C’est de la pure blaque!”
The reporter asked how, then, could the hit be verified as valid. “Bah! The judges should be experienced enough to see where a button strikes without needing a chalk mark! Besides, the shock of blades knocks off the chalk, and often a chalk mark on a jacket merely means that the end of the foil has grazed the jacket, there was no point at all!”
It was noted that the chalk mark at least settled decisions by the judges. “Perhaps, but I would not permit it if the decision lay with me. You see there is need here of good judges, and the chalk does not give them proper freedom. Now in Paris a poorly placed blow which is the result of a clever combination of moves (un coup de jugement) is held by the judges as more deserving than the very best point made without generalship and at random. You can see how the chalk mark may often cut off judges from taking into consideration these fine distinctions which lend so much interest to the game.”
A bit later he observed, “It seems to me that most of them are a little too anxious to get blows in. The counting of points may be a necessary thing, but to amateurs the way a blow is delivered is more important than getting a blow in.”
He also observed that, “the professors hold aloof from each other too much, each in his own little circle of pupils, each jealously keeping that circle away from the others. This is suicidal policy. The teachers of fencing ought to meet each other every week and fence with each other. Every now and then they should bring their pupils together. This would be the manly, the courteous, and, I may add, the common sense method. It would gradually break down jealousies and force all the fencing men, professors and pupils alike, to keep their tempers in control and give credit where credit is due.”
Finally, he was asked what he thought of the systems of giving out medals and cups to victors in contests. “For my own part, it seems a little childish, but I readily see that beginners in fencing might work hard with the prospect of medals and cups before them, who otherwise would be too lazy or indifferent. Yes, I think medals do some good in stimulating beginners. But I should never urge an advanced, a serious, student of the game to bother himself over such things. Fencing is absorbing enough in itself when properly pursued.”
Here are some quotes from an April 1893 interview with Maitre Theophile Gignac that were excerpted from the New York Times of that year. While fencing has changed a great deal since his day, it also shares some very similar issues to those he encountered. It is just something I crossed while doing some research. The form below is a condensation I am preparing for my history project (although his quotes are verbatim from the paper.)
It should be noted that he was very enthusiastic at the extent and quality of fencing he found while in New York City.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gignac was interviewed at some length and gave his views on a host of aspects as regards fencing in America. Some of his observations would echo a century later. When asked what he believed to be the chief defect in American fencers, he stated, “They use fencing too much as an exercise and too little as a game for intellectual men.”
He continued, “They use the head too little, the muscles too much. That is why boxing is so popular here. Men know that they can tire themselves, exercise their muscles, and get into a profuse perspiration in a few rounds with the gloves. Fewer men know that the same thing can be done even better with the foils. But the interesting side of fencing is the exercise of the fencer’s wits, and naturally that is the side of which I, as a maitre d’armes, think most. Now my boldest criticism of the fencing men in New York is that too few of them will make the exertion necessary for this higher kind of fencing; most are content to stick to it for its agreeableness as an exercise.”
He was then asked his opinion of the tournaments then being held. “Well, for one thing, I have no love of the black vest and chalk rubbed on the buttons of the foils. Of what use are these things? We do not so in France. C’est de la pure blaque!”
The reporter asked how, then, could the hit be verified as valid. “Bah! The judges should be experienced enough to see where a button strikes without needing a chalk mark! Besides, the shock of blades knocks off the chalk, and often a chalk mark on a jacket merely means that the end of the foil has grazed the jacket, there was no point at all!”
It was noted that the chalk mark at least settled decisions by the judges. “Perhaps, but I would not permit it if the decision lay with me. You see there is need here of good judges, and the chalk does not give them proper freedom. Now in Paris a poorly placed blow which is the result of a clever combination of moves (un coup de jugement) is held by the judges as more deserving than the very best point made without generalship and at random. You can see how the chalk mark may often cut off judges from taking into consideration these fine distinctions which lend so much interest to the game.”
A bit later he observed, “It seems to me that most of them are a little too anxious to get blows in. The counting of points may be a necessary thing, but to amateurs the way a blow is delivered is more important than getting a blow in.”
He also observed that, “the professors hold aloof from each other too much, each in his own little circle of pupils, each jealously keeping that circle away from the others. This is suicidal policy. The teachers of fencing ought to meet each other every week and fence with each other. Every now and then they should bring their pupils together. This would be the manly, the courteous, and, I may add, the common sense method. It would gradually break down jealousies and force all the fencing men, professors and pupils alike, to keep their tempers in control and give credit where credit is due.”
Finally, he was asked what he thought of the systems of giving out medals and cups to victors in contests. “For my own part, it seems a little childish, but I readily see that beginners in fencing might work hard with the prospect of medals and cups before them, who otherwise would be too lazy or indifferent. Yes, I think medals do some good in stimulating beginners. But I should never urge an advanced, a serious, student of the game to bother himself over such things. Fencing is absorbing enough in itself when properly pursued.”