B.3 Right and Left Handed Fencing Rules

In the classical period it was common for fencing (and many other sports) to be promoted for its value in contributing to the individual's good health.  For example, Maestro Generoso Pavese included in his 1905 Foil and Sabre Fencing a 5 page encomium "The Beneficial Effects Resulting from the Use of Fencing as a Physical Exercise" by Thomas Yarrow M.D.  This was perhaps a longer than normal advocacy for fencing for health, but the message was not unusual at the time.

Enter Maestro di Scherma Leonardo Terrone, a graduate of the Italian Military Fencing Masters School at Rome.  After teaching in Venice and London, he emigrated to the United States in 1902, taking a position at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.  By all accounts Terrone was an unusual personality with an absolute belief in his own skill, reinforced by his competitive success fencing in open international tournaments in Italy, and a willingness to believe that anyone who disagreed with him was his enemy for life.   

What makes Terrone unique among Fencing Masters of the time, and to this day, was that a doctrine of equal bilateral development of both sides of the body was critical to the athlete's success.  This extended to an analysis of each movement to ensure its anatomical and physiological correctness.  To this end he developed a School of Right and Left Handed Fencing.  When we consider our standard understanding of what makes a school of fencing a School: 

(1)  An established doctrine of fencing - that fencers should develop and demonstrate equal proficiency with both the right and left hands.

(2)  A unique weapon - Terrone developed three increasingly effective models of the Terrone Foil designed specifically to be used in either hand.

(3)  Literature describing the School - Terrone wrote a substantial body of lessons for teaching his method, and in 1959, some years after his death, his students published his book as Right and Left Handed Fencing.

(4)  Students - he never had a large pool of adherents, but he did develop successful competitors, both for Intercollegiate Fencing Association and Amateur Fencers League of America competitions.

(5)  Some form of organization - a small Left and Right Handed Fencing Association was formed by adherents of the School.  

The key missing element is a body of Masters to teach the School.  Terrone's teaching was deeply personal, and, given his personality, it is difficult to imagine him sharing the stage with another professional.  This resulted in the School disappearing after his death (although the central core of his students may have continued to practice his technique for some time), much as was the case with  Siebenhaar's Dutch Method.

With a unique method of fencing, unique rules were required.  Terrone was very critical of how competitions were conducted by the Intercollegiate Fencing Association and the Amateur Fencers League of America were conducted.  Essentially that critique was focused on the level and type of training, the abandonment of principles of sword use in the duel, and a search for victory that led to sloppy and unscientific fencing with a drive to the bottom on the quality of technique.  To address the problem, Terrone created specific rules for right and left handed fencing:

PHILOSOPHY

1.  A fencing bout should not be judged by the point total, but rather by the struggle of the mind between the two opponents as could be recognized by an experienced fencer from the actions of their muscles.  Tournaments should be exhibitions of mind control.  Only experts with well-trained minds and great character should be appointed to serve as judges.

2.  Only the hit without being hit should count.

2.a.  The fencer should put his or her opponent in a state of psychological inferiority before lunging.

2.b.  If the opponent less psychologically prepared attacks in error into the lunge, the score should be awarded against him.

2.c.  If both fencers lunge, demonstrating inadequate psychological preparation, neither hit should be allowed.

THE STRIP:

3.  All bouts should be fenced on a strip 20 t0 25 feet in length by 3 feet in width.

4.  Stepping off the strip with one foot results in a touch against the fencer.

THE FORM OF THE BOUT:

5.  Each regular bout should be fenced in the following order:

• The first touch is fenced with both fencers using their left hands.
• At the end of the first touch the fencers change ends of the strip and fence the next touch with both using their right hands.
• At the end of the second touch the fencers change ends of the strip and fence the next touch with one fencer using the left hand and the other the right hand.
• At the end of the third touch the fencers change ends of the strip and fence the next touch with the fencer who fenced the last touch with the left hand now fencing with the right hand and the other fencer fencing with the left hand.
• If at the end of the four touches the score is tied, a deciding touch will be fenced with both fencers using their preferred hand.

6.  If time does not permit the regular bout format, a shortened format may be used:

• The first touch is fenced with the left hand by both fencers.
• The second touch is fenced with the right hand by both fencers.
• If at the end of the two touches the score is tied, a deciding touch will be fenced with both fencers using their preferred hand.

7.  The length of the bout in a tournament should be 5 to 10 minutes.

FOIL:

8.  The target:

8.a.  To score a touch the hit must arrive on the torso from the waist to the collar bone, including the back, and including the upper arm.

8.b.  If the opponent crouches to hide the target, a hit to the mask counts as a touch.

9.  The hit:  To be counted as a hit:

• The foil blade arrests with a slight upward arc,
• The wrist is at the height of the target,
• There is the impression of a proper grip, and
• The nature of the hit permits a pause of a couple of seconds on the target.

10.  Feints:  A feint executed with a bent arm and a feint executed with the point out of line are incorrectly executed and an attack against either has priority.  

SABRE:

11.  The same procedures for the conduct of the bout were to be used in bouts at sabre with the following sabre specific rules:

11.a.  The target is the body above the hip line, including the arms and head.

11.b.  The carving cut (we believe this is a slicing cut) on the forearm only scores it is well executed so that there is no double hit.

11.c.  The point stop thrust on the forearm executing a carving cut is a source of weakness and will be ignored.

Sources:

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing; [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Terrone, Leonardo F., Right and Left Handed Fencing; [fencing manual]; Dodd, Mead and Company, NewYork, New York, United States of America; 1959.

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III


Right and Left Handed Fencing Rules by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

13. The Renewals

One of the challenges of understanding classical period technique is the considerable variation in how a technique is executed, and even what it is called. In some cases two or more actions may share the same name; in other cases an action may share a name with others.   As a result, it is important to discover early on in your study of the work of a particular Master what the Master calls a particular action and how he or she defines it.

One place where this becomes quite confusing is in the definition of what happens when a fencer is parried but still takes clearly defined actions to try to hit.  For the purposes of analysis the various techniques of renewals of the attack are grouped together as the Remise, Redouble, and Reprise. Readers should be aware that this is a general classification and is not necessarily the approach used by any single Fencing Master of the period.

Note that the summaries provided are a general attempt to capture the key characteristics of the class of action as a point of reference.  As always we recommend that classical fencers base their selection of how to perform the actions on the technique and tactics taught by the particular classical period Fencing master whose works they study.

REMISE

1877 - The French Ministry of War defined the Remise as an attack executed when the opponent detaches from the sword after a parry.  The point is replaced in the original line without being lifted.  

1884 - Appuntata - Parise described the Appuntata as being executed from the lunge with a thrust in the original line against an opponent who attempts to riposte with a single or double feint.

1890 - Prevost described the Remise as an action of returning the point to threaten the opponent after a parry when the opponent (1) uses a compound riposte, (2) uses a timed riposte, or (3) retracts the arm before he ripostes.  The riposte is (1) never executed against a direct riposte, (2) executed without opposition against a timed riposte or a riposte with a retraction of the arm, and (3) otherwise made with opposition.  Note that the "timed riposte" appears to be one executed with broken tempo.

1892 - The Replacing - Rondelle described Replacing as a direct thrust (with opposition as necessary) without recovering against an opponent who (1) does not riposte, (2) does not hold his or her blade in the proper position, (3) abandons the blade after a parry, (4) ripostes direct slowly and without opposition, or (5) escapes the attack and attempts to regain distance in order to riposte.

1895 - Heintz described the Remise as a second thrust executed by the fencer after the lunge if the opponent does not riposte or the riposte is slow.

1904 - Simple Ripigliata - Pavese described a Simple Ripigliata, executed with simple actions following the attack when the opponent parries but does not riposte.

1908 - The French Ministry of War defined the Remise as an action executed without returning to guard against (1) a compound riposte or (2) an insufficient parry with no riposte.  The Remise is similar to a time hit gaining time against a compound attack

1915 - Senac and Senac described the Remise as a secondary attack executed from the lunge after the attack with a lunge has failed.  The Senacs' definition of a secondary attack includes a variety of actions intended to capitalize on the opponent's own advance when he or she is in thrusting distance.

1927 - The International Fencing Federation Rules defined the Remise as a renewal of the attack in the same line as the original attack.

1930 -  Cass defined the Remise as an offensive action that is executed on the lunge without recovering to guard and without finding the opponent's blade.

1932 - Barbasetti defined the remise as a repetition of an attack or a riposte from the lunge position against opponents who fail to riposte or retreat while parrying.  The remise includes the simple remise, the reprise (raddoppio), and the reprise of attack (ripresa d'attaco).

1932 - Simple Riposte - Barbasetti described the Simple Riposte as a repetition of an attack or a riposte from the lunge position by disengage, feint, double feint, or any other appropriate movement against opponents who fail to riposte or retreat while parrying.

1932 - Appuntata - Barbasetti did not include the Appuntata as a remise, but he likened its technique and employment to the remise.  He described the appuntata as being executed in the same line as the attack from the lunge against opponents who, instead of riposting, react with a feint or frequently withdraw their blade from the fencer's before initiating the riposte.

1934 - Grave defined the Remise as a placement of the point on the target after the opponent's successful parry without returning to guard when and if (1) there is no riposte and the target is not protected, (2) the riposte is delayed, or (3) the riposte is by disengage or a compound action.

1937 - Replacement - Castello described the Replacement as replacing the point in the line of the attack with opposition against a parry with a hesitant riposte, a riposte as a feint, or a compound riposte. 

1937 - Replacement - Vince described the Replacement as a second thrust made in the same line as the original attack when the opponent does not riposte or does not riposte immediately after the parry.

1943 - Nadi did not distinguish between the Remise and Redouble.  It is a counterattack against the opponent's riposte executed (1) in same line when the parry is insufficient, (2) in any line when the riposte is delayed or executed with a compound action, or (3) in a second intention action.

1948 - Deladrier defined the Remise as a second attack executed from the lunge position against an opponent who replies to the first attack with a riposte.  It is executed in the same line as the parry and fulfills the roles of parry and counter-riposte.  As such it is essentially a time hit (a stop hit with opposition) against the riposte.

1952 - Lidstone defined the remise as a second immediate attack without withdrawing the weapon when after the parry an opponent (1) makes a delayed riposte, (2) makes an indirect riposte, (3) makes a compound riposte , or (4) detaches from the blade with making a riposte. 

1952 - Counter Attack on the Riposte - Lidstone described a Counter Attack on the Riposte, and also a Counter Attack on the Counter Riposte, as being the use of a remise against the riposte or counter-riposte.  

IN SUMMARY: The majority of these descriptions give us an action that is (1) executed from the lunge without a recovery (2) in the line of the original attack by a deliberate technique of replacement of the point (3) with opposition in the line against any riposte (4) against an opponent (a) who ripostes and the blade can be opposed, (b) who does not riposte or whose riposte is delayed or hesitant, (c) does not maintain a parry, or (d) attempts a compound riposte. 

REDOUBLE

1877 - The French Ministry of War defined Redoubling as a succession of two attacks on a parry for which there is no riposte with the fencer not being raised (possibly meaning standing up to guard).  The redouble is executed immediately after the parry, retaking the attack and not waiting for any riposte.

1884 - Second Blow - Parise described the Second Blow as a disengage executed from the lunge with opposition and without withdrawing the arm after the opponent's parry. 

1890 - Prevost defined Redoubling as an action performed on the lunge to hit with a coupe or disengage when the opponent does not riposte after the parry.

1892 - Rondelle described Redoubling as a renewed attack taken on the lunge against (1) a parry not accompanied by a riposte or (2) when an opponent retreats to make the attack fall short and then advances to make a riposte with opposition.  The Redouble may be made in all lines except that it may not be direct; a direct response means the action is a Replacing.

1904 - Circular Ripigliata or Ripigliata Circolata - Pavese described a Circular Ripigliata, executed to avoid the opponent's circular action following the attack when the opponent parries with a circular action but does not riposte.

1908 - The French Ministry of War defined the Redoublement as the execution of a second attack immediately after the initial attack, whether the attack is in the same or a different line when the opponent has (1) parried without executing a riposte or (2) who has avoided the attack with a retreat.  In case (1) the final attack is made after the guard has been assumed with a recovery backwards.  In case (2) the final attack is made after resuming the guard after a forward recovery.

1927 - Redoublement d'Attaque - The International Fencing Federation Rules defined the Redoublement d'Attaque as a renewal of the attack made with a change from one line to another.

1930 - Cass defined the Redoublement as a second attack executed immediately after the initial attack in the same, or a different, line.  There are two cases: (1) when the opponent parries without a riposte the fencer resumes the guard by a backwards recovery before the second attack, and (2) when the opponent has avoided the attack by retreating the guard before the second attack is taken forward.

1934 - Grave defined the redouble as a placement of the point on the target while in the lunge after the opponent's successful parry when there is no riposte and the fencers are maintain pressure on the blades.  It is executed with a change of lines by coupe, disengage, or a one-two.

1937 - Castello defined the Redouble as a retaking of the attack when an opponent hesitates to riposte while still holding the parry.  The Redouble is executed from the lunge (1) by disengage or coupe or (2) if the opponent retreats with the parry, by recovering forward and then lunging with the disengage or coupe.

1937 - Vince described the Redouble as an action used if the opponent closes the line making a remise impossible but does not riposte.  Any simple or compound attack may be used except the straight thrust.

1948 - Deladrier described the redouble as a immediate attack, which may involve a line change, made from the lunge position when the opponent fails to riposte.  The redouble had two categories: (1) if the line was closed the fencer should execute a beat followed by a straight thrust, disengage, coupe, or compound attack, and (2) if the line was open no attempt would be made to retake the blade by a beat, but simply execute a straight thrust, disengage, coupe, or compound attack.

1952 - Lidstone described the Redoublement as a new action made in the lunge with a change of line, a preparation (such as a beat), or a combination of both against an opponent who (1) does not riposte, (2) delays the riposte, or (3) or avoids the attack by displacing the target.

IN SUMMARY: The majority of these descriptions give us an action that is (1) executed from the lunge without a recovery or with a recovery forward if the opponent retreats (2) in a different line from the original attack by a disengage, coupe, a compound action, or with a preparation (3) against an opponent (a) who parries but does not riposte, (b) parries but delays the riposte, or (c) retreats.  The redouble as described by some texts does have characteristics of the reprise, being done with the forward or rearward recovery.

REPRISE

1877 - The French Ministry of War described the Reprise as a renewal of the attack after having retaken the sword without being raised (possibly meaning without a recovery to guard).  The redouble is executed immediately after the parry, retaking the attack and not waiting for any riposte. 

1884 - Feint of the Renewed Attack - Parise described the Feint of the Renewed Attack as an action where the fencer recovers backward from an initial lunge followed by a disengage immediately following the recovery.  It may also be executed as a Double Feint of the Renewed Attack or a Disordinata of the Renewed Attack (with more than two feints).

1884 - Raddoppio - Parise defined the Raddoppio as a return to guard forward after the initial attack, followed by an immediate thrust when the opponent retreats or jumps backwards with the parry. 

1890 - Renewed Attack or Reprise d'Attaque - Prevost described the Renewed Attack as an attack executed immediately following the end of a phrase.  When the adversaries find themselves at the on guard, the fencer seizes the offensive by a simple or compound attack, with or without an advance.

1892 - Rondelle described the reprise as an action immediately after a phrase in which neither fencer has hit.  One fencer, immediately after a recovery to guard or even during the recovery, launches an immediate simple or complex attack to take advantage of an opponent who believes that he or she is no longer under threat.

1895 - Heintz described the Reprise as a double attack executed after the lunge, as a simple or compound attack, as quickly as possible at the moment when the two fencers are resuming the guard position or even before the resumption of guard is complete.

1908 - The French Ministry of War described the Reprise d'Attaque as an offensive action taken in the lunge (without a recovery to guard) against a parry which is not followed by a riposte.

1930 - Cass defined the Reprise d'Attaque as an offensive action that is executed on the lunge without recovering to guard after finding the opponent's blade with a parry.

1932 - Reprise or Raddoppio - Barbasetti described the reprise as a repetition of an attack or a riposte from the lunge position by recovering forward and repeating the lunge against opponents who retreat.

1932 - Reprise of Attack or Ripresa d'Attaco - Barbasetti described the Reprise of Attack as a repetition of an attack or a riposte from the lunge position against opponents who attempt to evade the attack.  The action moves forward by advance, balestra, or patinando followed by a lunge. 

1934 - Grave defined the reprise as a placement of the point on the target while in the lunge after the opponent's successful parry when there is no riposte and the target is covered.  It is executed with a press or beat to open the line. 

1937 - Note that Castello did not describe a Reprise as a type of action.  However, his Redouble can be executed with a forward recovery and lunge characteristic of the reprise.

1937 - Renewal of the Attack - Vince defined the Renewal of the Attack as a second attack made immediately after the first attack fails to hit as a result of the opponent retreating in defense.  The fencer takes a forward recovery to guard and then executes a second lunge with either a simple or compound attack.  If necessary an advance lunge may be used after the recovery to guard.

1943 - Reprise of Attack - Nadi described the Reprise as the continuation of the attack(1) retreats during the fencer's attack or (2) retreats after having parried the attack without riposting.  It is executed as a walking attack with the attack, recovery, and reprise as a continuous movement while the bladework may be simple or compound.

1948 - Retaking the Attack or Reprise d'Attaque - Deladrier provided a broad statement that the Reprise or Retaking is the act of initiating offensive action after any phrase that is not conclusive (presumably that does not result in a touch).

1952 - Re-Lunge - Lidstone did not categorize this technique as a renewal of the attack, but the description seems directly equivalent to the general descriptions of a reprise: a second lunge executed when the opponent avoids an attack by retreating by recovering forward and lunging after an initial attack, all as one continuous attack.

1952 - Lidstone defined the Reprise as a new attack immediately after the fencer recovers to guard.  It may be executed in three ways: (1) against an opponent who parries, but does not riposte, by a recovery backwards and then the new attack, (2) against an opponent who retreats by a recovery forward and then the new attack, and (3) against an opponent who retreats by continuing on the attack by re-lunging with a simple or compound attack.  The distinction between cases (1) and (2) and case (3) is that case (3) is one continuous attack of two phases, rather than two separate and distinct attacks in cases (1) and (2).

IN SUMMARY:  The majority of these descriptions give us an action that is executed with the recovery from the lunge either forward or backwards followed by an immediate second lunge.  The recovery is generally backward if the opponent takes a parry and remains in place. The recovery is generally forward if the opponent retreats. 

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Cass, Eleanor Baldwin; The Book of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Company, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1930.

Castello, Julio Martinez; The Theory and Practice of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; translation printed 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

International Fencing Federation Rules  in Bertrand, Leon; Cut and Thrust: The Subtlety of the Sabre; [fencing manual]; Athletic Publications, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1927.

Lidstone, R. A.; Fencing: A Practical Treatise on Foil, Epee, Sabre; [fencing manual]; H. F. and G. Witherby, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1952.

Nadi, Aldo; On Fencing, {fencing manual]; G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1943.

Heintz, George, Sr.; Theory of Fencing With the Foil, in Form of a Catechism; [fencing manual]; Freidenker Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America, reprint by Forgotten Books, London, United Kingdom; 1895, reprint no date.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2^nd edition; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Senac, Regis, and Louis Senac; The Art of Fencing; [fencing manual]; American Sports Publishing Company, Nee York, New York; 1915.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Vince, Joseph; Fencing; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III

 
The Renewals by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.