p •
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP
ll
BETWEEN COLLEGIATE SABRE FENCING LESSONS AND
COLLEGIATE SABRE FENCING BOUTS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Physical Education
by
Edwin Knox Hurst II
January, 1980
Knox Hurst II is approved:
Advisor
Dr. Merril~ Hardy
t
Dr. Adran Adams
Dr. Darrel Guthrie, Chair
California State University, Northridge
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
iv
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
The Problem
1
Review of the Literature
6
Method
13
Results
19
Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions
25
Bibliography
33
Appendix C
36
Appendix D
39
iii
ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN COLLEGIATE SABRE FENCING LESSONS AND
COLLEGE SABRE FENCING BOUTS
by
Edwin Knox Hurst II
Master of Arts in Physical Education
Observation of collegiate sabre fencing indicated that
there might be a considerable disparity between the actions
emphasized in most sabre fencing lessons and the actions
which actually score most often in college sabre bouts.
As
a result of these observations, it was decided to formally
survey contemporary collegiate sabre competition as well as
contemporary collegiate sabre lessons and then attempt to
discern if there were significant differences between the
two.
Competition data were obtained by observation of the
finals of the 1979 National Collegiate Athletic Association
Sabre Championships and lesson data were obtained from the
iv
answers to a questionnaire sent to college sabre coaches
nationwide.
The data were classified into two general
categories:
"simple" actions and "complex" actions.
Using
these two categories as_parameters, a modified "Z" Test was
employed to determine if lesson data and competition data
constituted the same or significantly different statistical
populations.
The results of the "Z" Test indicated that there were
significant differences between the employment of simple
versus complex actions in actual competition and the emphasis placed on simple versus complex actions in collegiate
sabre lessons.
The conclusions of this study, that there
were significant differences between college sabre bouts
and college sabre lessons, thus raised the question whether
the average lesson is providing the optimum preparation for
modern collegiate competitive conditions.
this question was strongly indicated.
v
Further study of
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Fencing is one of this country's older intercollegiate
sports~
yet it seems to have entirely escaped
the statistical scrutiny so prevalent in other areas of
athletics.
As a result, most American coaching lessons
have come about through imitation of lessons given by European fencing masters, rather than through an analysis of
the requirements of the modern collegiate game (lO:ix-x,
15:xi-xiii, 25:4).
Since there is no such thing as col-
legiate fencing in Europe, this method could be somewhat
suspect.
Fencing is traditionally taught by a fencing coach
giving an individual lesson to each student.
As .the student
becomes more adept, the lessons become more complex and
intricate.
It appears, however, that as these lessons
become more complicated, they seem to bear a decreasing
resemblance to an actual college bout.
This tendency is
most noticeable in sabre, where the large target area,
combined with the ability to score with the entire cutting
edge of the blade, give the advantage to the attack and
make for a preponderance of quick, explosive, yet simple
actions.
1
2
Continued observation of collegiate sabre competition suggested that there might be a considerable disparity
between the actions emphasized in most sabre fencing lessons
and the actions which actually score most often in college
sabre bouts.
Specifically, it appeared that, while success-
ful simple actions seemed to heavily outnumber successful
complex ones, most lessons observed seemed to strongly
emphasize complex actions over simple ones.
As a result of these observations, it was decided
to formally survey contemporary collegiate sabre competition as well as contemporary collegiate sabre lessons and
then attempt to discern if there were significant differences between the two.
To form the basis for this investi-
gation, a statement of the overall problem was formulated.
Statement of the Problem
There is a significant difference between the
emphasis placed on simple versus complex actions .in an
average college sabre lesson, and actual use of simple as
opposed to complex actions in college sabre bouts.
Significance of the Problem
This problem is significant in that its investigation provides a basis from which to infer whether modern
collegiate sabre lessons are correlating with the demands
of the college game itself.
Such inferences, and the ques-
tions raised by them, could be of great value to college
3
fencing coaches.
In addition, the data developed by such a
study would provide a basis with which an individual coach
could compare his lessons with existing competitive conditions.
Hypotheses
In order
t~
proceed with the investigation of the
problem, three hypotheses were formulated:
1.
There is a significant difference between the
ratio of simple to complex attacks taught in an average
college sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex
attacks which succeed in college sabre bouts.
2.
There is a significant difference between the
ratio of simple to complex ripostes taught in an average
college sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex
ripostes which succeed in college sabre bouts.
3.
There is a significant difference between the
ratio of simple to complex counterattacks taught _in an
average college sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to
complex counterattacks which succeed in college sabre
fencing bouts.
Three hypotheses were formulated as there are three
general categories of fencing actions, i.e. attacks,
ripostes and counterattacks.
It
w~s
decided that, in order
to more precisely investigate the problem, it was necessary
to survey and compare the three basic categories separately.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study is limited by the following factors:
1.
Only members of the National Fencing Coaches Association
of America were surveyed.
2.
These coaches are currently coaching a college sabre
team or have overall head coaching responsibility for
one.
3.
Data was obtained by observation of the 1979 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Fencing
Cha~pionship
sabre finals.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of clarity for the lay reader,
various fencing terms will be defined below.
All actions
listed under this category are defined in the Rules Manual
of the Amateur Fencers' League of America (8).
This book
is a direct translation of the Rules Book of the Federation
Internationale d'Escrime, the governing body of world
fencing.
Direct Attack:
A one-tempo cut or thrust.
Direct Beat-Attack:
A sharp strike against the opponent's
blade followed by an immediate one-tempo cut or thrust.
Direct Riposte:
i~nediately
A straight cut or thrust performed
after executing a parry.
Direct Counter-Riposte:
A straight cut or thrust executed
after the parry of the opponent's riposte.
This is the
second action executed by the original attacker.
Simple Attack:
A direct attack, direct beat-attack, or one-
two (feint-attack).
Simple Riposte:
A direct riposte or direct counter-riposte.
Simple Counterattack:
A direct stop cut or thrust, a
counter-time action, or a direct attack-on-preparation.
More Complex:
Any action which requires more movements of
the sword (or hesitations in lieu of movements) than those
already lis ted.
It must be pointed out that the official definition
of a simple attack would exclude the "beat-attack" and the
"1-2", but these actions are considered so basic to sabre
fencing that they were classified as "simple" for the purposes of this paper.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Development of College Fencing
Fencing is one of this country's oldest intercollegiate sports.
The original Intercollegiate Fencing
Association (comprised of Yale, Harvard, and Columbia) was
founded in 1894, eleven years before the formation of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (28:6).
In the
next few years, other Eastern colleges joined, as did the
U.S. Military and Naval Academies.
Intercollegiate fencing
remained concentrated on the East Coast through the 1930's
although it gradually spread to a select nunilier of universities across the country.
However, the inception of the
NCAA-sanctioned National Collegiate Fencing Championships
in 1941 spurred a rapid growth in ~ollegiate fencing teams.
The introduction of All-America awards in 1951 added
further impetus to that growth until, in 1978, the NCAA
was forced to limit the number of schools entering the
National Championships to forty (28:9-10).
However, American fencing has remained uniquely
European 1n philosophy relative to other collegiate sports
(10, 15, 25).
The coaches who formed the backbone of col-
legiate fencing during the twenties, thirties, and forties
were all European born, educated, and trained fencing
6
7
masters.
Notable among these were Julio Castello of New
York University, Robert Grasson of Yale, and Clovis
Deladrier of the Naval Academy (28:8).
Some of these early
coaches, espousing that the requirements of American collegiate competition were incompatible with many of the
accepted European theories of fencing and training, began
to make certain modifications.
In 1933, Castello tried to Americanize the various
fencing terms.
He changed such terms as "riposte" to
"return", "coupe" to "cutover", "fleche" to "flash", etc.
in an attempt to make the sport more understandable in this
country ( 10). ·
In his 1948 book Deladrier described a system
created out of a combination of the prevailing European
systems of the time.
He felt that such a "new" system was
more attuned to the requirements of college competition
(l5:xi-xii).
Neither of these attempts seemed to gain
. general acceptance, however, as subsequent fencing books
neither mention a "Deladrier" system nor utilize Castello's
terminology (1, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 27, 35).
Nevertheless,
the college teams trained by these men were remarkably
successful (28:7-10).
According to Aldo Nadi (25), the basic incongruity
between American reality and European methodology is the
factor of time.
Nadi observed that European systems are
based on the assumption that the student will not enter
8
competition for three to five years after his first lesson.
Even then, he would be considered little more than a novice.
In discussing the techniques of his fencing master father
in the first decade of the 20th century he wrote:
He never allowed any pupil to start combat
(bouting) until at least one year of mechanical treatment.
Competitions were out of the
question before two years.
And many of his
pupils were never allowed to smell the dust
of a competitive strip.
( 25: 231)
In view of the foregoing, it can be seen that a
question might arise as to whether traditional theories of
fencing instruction are really fitted to the exigencies of
the college varsity environment, where a student sometimes
must be placed into full competition within six months of
his first lesson (15:xiii).
Specifically addressing that question to the sabre,
Barbesetti, one of the progenitors of modern sabre fencing,
in discussing double-feint attacks wrote in 1894:
These double feints are of little practical
value in attacks; but, on the other hand,
they provide excellent exercise for the pupil
in training his hand for the direction of
the point and the accuracy of the parry.
(5:75-76)
Sixty-four years later, in 1958, Roger Crosnier,
the premier fencing master of Great Britain, stated:
As the sabre target is a large one to protect, the novice opponent is P-0ne too easy
to deal with . . . . There is, therefore,
every reason not to attack with compound
movements, but to launch simple, rapid
attacks which will have the right-of-way
over any accidental whip.
(12:191)
9
One of this country's most successful collegiate
coaches, Hugo Castello (son of Julio), looked into the
future of competitive fencing in 1962 and predicted:
It is likely that we shall see a double development in the direction of (1) even faster and
simpler actions in the attempt to score
quickly, and (2) a re-emphasis on the ancient
principle: hit without being hit.
(9:3)
A search of the extant fencing literature revealed
no authors or fencing masters who indicated any disagreement
with the foregoing quotations.
Therefore, a review was
undertaken in order to discover if any observational data
had been collected on what actions were actually most suecessful in collegiate fencing.
No such study was uncovered,
and for that matter, only one modern survey of Amateur
Fencer's League of America (AAU) competitions has been published.
This study of the 1965 National Sabre Finals
indicated that, at the highest level of American sabre
fencing that year, one percent of the attacks and ten percent of the defenses met the definition of "more complex"
actions as described in Chapter I (29:15-17).
The Fencing Lesson
The literature was next reviewed to discover what
authorities had to say about what correlation, if any,
should exist between the fencing lesson and the fencing
bout.
The majority of English language works are descrip-
tive texts (6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 30) which are directed
towards a beginning student rather than a coach and the
10
conceptual basis of fencing lessons is therefore not often
discussed.
However, two highly regarded fencing masters
have cowmented on the matter.
Aldo Nadi, considered the best fencer of his era,
in his widely-acclaimed 1943 treatise On Fencing discussed
his conception of fencing lessons with this statement:
My main concern has been to set forth practical theories based exclusively upon the
realities of combat, for he who separates
theory from practice shows that he does not
even begin to understand the meaning of
fencing.
(25:37)
And Maitre Michel Alaux, trainer of one of the greatest of
modern French foil champions and coach of the U.S. Olympic
Fencing Team until his death in 1975 declared that the
fencer should be given three types of lessons:
demic", the "Training", and the "Bouting".
the "Aca-
Of the three,
the "Academic" concentrates on straight fundamentals, tlie
"Training" emphasizes technical and physical conditioning
under conditions similar to those of a bout, and .the "Bouting" lesson teaches tactics under simulated competitive
conditions.
In other words, two of the three types of
lessons should recreate actual bout conditions (1:174-78).
In fact, there is a classical historical example of the
efficacy of adapting fencing lessons to actual bout conditions, rather than vice-versa.
By the end of the nineteenth century, foil technique
had become quite formalized and very different from the
reality of the duel (1:82, 23:177).
In that period from
11.
1896 to 1903, during the infamous Dreyfus Affair, over one
thousand duels were fought in France.
One particular
Parisian fencing master departed from the accepted lesson
techniques of the day and advocated training students under
conditions similar to an actual duel rather than the scholastic conventions of a formal foil engagement.
When one
of his pupils, an unknown fencer, defeated one of the best
foilists of France in a duel, professional notice was taken
of this "new" method.
In the succeeding years, his pupils
won nearly all their combats (over 350 duels).
From this
example, the techniques of epee fencing were established,
and the epee is now one of the three "weapons" of fencing;
the others being the foil and the sabre (15:92).
Statistical Analysis
It was realized that, for convenience, a statistical
test through which to analyze the data would assist the
objectives of the study.
The nature of these data provided
some unique difficulties with respect to mathematical analysis.
For one thing, there is no question as to whether the
data is random:
it is assuredly the result of a conscious
process in the case of both the lesson and the bout.
There-
fore, the classical Chi Square test, which demonstrates
whether data could reasonably be
~he
result of a random dib-
tribution, would be meaningless (19:276).
At the same time,
the basic question addressed by this study was whether there
was any significant relationship at all between bouts and
12
lessons.
The various tests of correlation, such as the Phi
Coefficient, "Q" test, Regressions, or Factor Analysis are
designed to test the strength of a relationship that has
already been established (19:196).
Thus, correlational pro-
cedures were inappropriate for the needs of this study.
A
brief review of the literature (2, 18, 19, 24, 32), plus a
personal interview with Professor Fadil Zuwaylif, Ph.D.,
instructor in Statistics for the School of Business at California State University, Northridge, and author of Applied
Business Statistics (34), determined that the proper method
by which to investigate the existence of a relationship
would be a modified "Z" Test.
This test is described in
detail in Chapter III, but its basic purpose can be stated
as a method by wh-ich to determine if two numbers could
reasonably come from the same population.
Most inferential
statistical methods are based on testing the differences
between samples from the same population.
By definition, if
samples come from two different populations, it is assumed
that there are significant differences between them (19:63).
Thus, the first step in an investigation of fencing lessons
and fencing bouts is to determine if they belong to the same
or different statistical populations.
The "Z" Test was
deemed the appropriate statistical procedure by which to
make that determination.
CHAPTER III
HETHOD
Survey Design and Procedures
It was determined that the optimum procedure by
which to obtain data of a national nature would be to
observe and record performances at the national collegiate
fencing championships, while information on coaching lessons would be garnered by a prepared questionnaire.
The
data on scoring actions were obtained from personal observation by the researcher at the 1979 Sabre Finals of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Fencing
Championships.
These finals consist of twenty-four fencers
who qualified from a preliminary round of forty.
These
initial forty fencers reached the championship by qualifying through Regional tournaments.
They thus represent the
best college sabremen from each region of the country.
It is customary for the directors of sabre bouts
(presiding officials) to describe the actions to their
judges before awarding points.
The determination as to
what type of action resulted in a score was made by recording the analysis of the director of the bout being observeu.
The qualifications of the author to make such observations
are:
13
14
1.
Class II Director's Rating (2nd highest national rating)
2.
Class A Competitor's Rating (highest national rating)
3.
Twenty years competing in and directing sabre
4.
~vo-and-a-half
years experience coaching collegiate sabre
The data on fencing lessons themselves were subjective in nature in that they were obtained from answers to a
questionnaire sent to coaches whose names were obtained from
the current membership list of the National Fencing Coaches
Association of America (the only fencing coaches organization in the United States).
Only those questionnaires
returned by coaches who are currently responsible for collegiate sabre teams were included in the survey.
In this
manner it was intended to insure that competitive data
. gathered during 1978-79 would be matched against the type
of lessons given during that same period.
In order to estimate the amount of emphasis placed
on various actions in a lesson, the coaches were·asked to
estimate
t~e
percentage of total lesson time spent on par-
ticular movements.
The questionnaire and covering letter
(Appendix C) were designed so as not to indicate any bias
in the quest for information.
Therefore, many more cate-
gories of actions were listed than were actually necessary
for the purposes of the study.
By reference to" the defini-
tion of terms in Chapter I, it can be seen which actions on
the questionnaire are defined as simple and which are
defined as complex.
Upon receipt of the completed form,
15
the data were combined to arrive at a percentage of total
attacks, total ripostes, and total counterattacks for
simple as opposed to complex actions as taught in fencing
lessons.
Thus, each questionnaire was reduced to a set of
ratio numbers which indicate the percentage of total lesson time devoted to simple as well as complex actions by
each responding coach.
Each category was then arithmetic-
ally combined to arrive at a mean (v) for simple and complex
attacks, ripostes, and counterattacks of all the lessons
surveyed.
These means provided one of the parameters for
the statistical comparison.
The data obtained from observations were analyzed
in the same fashion.
The figures for simple as opposed to
complex attacks, ripostes, and counterattacks were compared
with the total number of actions in each category to arrive
at a ratio number for simple and complex actions in each
category.
Reference to the covering letter (see Appendix)
will demonstrate that coaches were specifically asked to
report on their varsity sabre team only.
It is intuitively
obvious that a lesson given to a rank beginner must consist
almost entirely of drills designed to teach basics and cannot, by its very nature, have any more than a coincidental
relation to an actual bout.
The thrust of this project was
to investigate the types of lessons given to sabre fencers
who are already in competition.
16
Analysis of Data
An investigation into various methods of statistical
analysis concluded that the best procedure through which to
analyze the data was a modified "Z" Test.
In order to employ this test, one assumption had to
be made.
This assumption has no effect on the value of the
data; it merely allows a basis from which to conduct a mathematical test to determine if the two sources of data could
derive from the same statistical population.
The assumption
is as follows:
A coach intends a fencing lesson to be a close
approximation of the actual conditions of a fencing bout.
Thus for example, if he devotes sixty
percent of the attack portion of his lesson plan
to simple actions, he is predicting that approximately sixty percent of the scoring attacks will
be simple ones.
Through use of this assumption, the "Z" Test becomes:
z
p-
=
/
if
(1 n
if
=
Predicted percent
p
=
Observed percent
n
=
Number of observations
if
if
if)
will be the mean of all lessons surveyed.
17
It was decided to test the findings at the traditional 0.05
Level of Significance as no serious damage could be envisioned from the one chance out of twenty that a Type I error
could be committed.
Therefore, testing at a = 0.05, a "Z"
value ~ 1.64 indicates that rr and p came from the same
population; a "Z" > 1.64 indicates that rr and p came from
significantly different populations.
The conventions for use of the "Z" Test do require
an expansion of the hypotheses of this paper.
It is estab-
lished practice to use this procedure to directly test a
null hypothesis and to use an alternate hypothesis in conjunction with it (24:127).
Therefore, the hypotheses were
expanded as follows:
1.
There is no significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex attacks taught in an average college
sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex attacks
which sncceed in college sabre bouts.
1a. There is a significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex attacks taught in an average college
sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex attacks
which succeed in college sabre bouts.
2.
There is no significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex ripostes taught in an average college
sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex
ripostes which succeed in a college sabre bout.
18
2a.
There is a significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex ripostes taught in an average sabre
lesson and the ratio of simple to complex ripostes which
succeed in a college sabre bout.
3.
There is no significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex counterattacks taught in an average
college sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex
counterattacks which succeed in a college sabre bout.
3a. There is a significant difference between the ratio of
simple to complex attacks taught in an average sabre
lesson and the ratio of simple to complex counterattacks
which succeed in a college sabre bout.
Finally, two pilot studies were conducted in preparation for this project.
Observations were made at the 1978
NCAA Fencing Championships at the University of WisconsinParkside and the 1979 Western Regional Championships held
at the University of California, San Diego.
These observa-
tions were used to confirm the reliability of the observations made for this study.
They appear in Appendix (D).
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Of sixty questionnaires sent to college coaches,
twenty-six were returned initially, with twenty-one being
completed in a manner from which data could be taken.
Two
coaches reported that they had no general lesson plan, and
three stated that they did not coach sabre teams.
A second
mailing was effected, and six more questionnaires were
returned for a total of thirty-two, with twenty-seven being
completed in a usable manner.
It should be noted that of
the total, seventeen of the top twenty coaches (based on
team finish at the NCAA's) are represented.
The various percentages reported were combined
arithmetically to obtain a percentage of time devoted to
simple attacks as compared 'to complex attacks, simple
ripostes as compared to complex ripostes, and simple counterattacks as opposed to complex counterattacks.
These percent-
ages were assembled and a mean derived from each category
as indicated in Table A on the following page.
19
20
TABLE A
RESULTS OF FENCING LESSON SURVEY
Quest.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Attacks
Sim2le Com}2lex
Ripostes
Sim}2le Complex
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
62.5
100
77
71
89
70
46.8
90
85
50
66.6
67.5
87.5
50
75
95
95
75
87
75
75
60
70
50
80
75
80
37.5
0
23
29
11
30
53.2
10
15
50
33.3
32.5
12.5
50
25
5
5
25
13
25
25
40
30
50
20
25
20
75
50
50
74
37.5
33.3
14.3
66.6
60
25
33.3
28.6
50
16.7
70
70
62
62.5
40
65
70
50
65
30
80
65
55
25
50
50
26
62.5
66.6
85.7
33.3
40
75
66.6
71.4
50
83.3
30
30
38
37.5
60
35
30
50
35
70
20
35
45
rr::74.1
7l':w 25. 86
71::52.46
7T:::47.89
Counterattacks
Simple Comnlex
(%)
(%)
100
100
54
79
33
50
40
60
80
40
40
56
65
48
80
85
55.2
40
52.4
45
80
50
60
40
90
45
65
0
0
46
21
67
50
60
40
20
60
60
44
35
52
20
15
44.8
60
47.6
55
20
50
40
60
10
55
35
-'11:60.36
?r::-40.3
To determine the responses from each individual
coach read horizontally. To read individual
responses for each category, read vertically.
21
As described in the previous chapter, observations
were made at the NCAA Fencing Championships held on March 23
and 24, 1979, at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
This information was collated and is presented in Table B,
along with the percentages calculated from the raw numbers.
TABLE B
OBSERVATION OF 1979 NCAA's
Attacks
No.
%
Simple:
120
83.30
Complex:
24
16.67
144
99.97
74
93.67
5
6.33
79
100.00
Simple:
46
79.31
Complex:
12
20.69
Total:
58
100.00
Total:
Ripostes
Simple:
Complex:
Total:
Counterattacks
The applicable ratios were taken from Tables A and
B to compute the "Z" value.
It was deemed redundant to cal-
culate the "Z" values for both complex and simple Means
since if the Mean for simple attacks was (for example) 75
22
percent the Mean for complex attacks had to be 25 percent
and the resulting "Z" calculation would produce an identical value.
Therefore, only the Means. for simple actions
were matched against the observed percentages for simple
actions to compute the "Z" value.
The equations and the
resulting computations are presented in Table C below:
TABLE C
COMPUTATION OF THE "Z" VALUE
z
'IT
p -
=
j
'IT(1 - 'IT)
n
ATTACKS
p
= . 833
'IT= . 741
n = 144
z
=j
.833 - .741
. 741( 1 - .741)
144
= 2.52
RIPOSTES
p
= .9367
'IT= .5246
n = 79
z
=j
. 9367 - .5246
7.35
.5246(1 - .5246) =
79
COUNTERATTACKS
p
= . 7931
'IT = . 6036
n
= 58
z =JJ
. 7931 - . G036
.6036(1 - .6036) = 2.95
58
23
As stated in Chapter III, a test at the 0.05 Level
of Significance requires a "Z" value of 1.64 or less to
confirm the null hypothesis; a value higher than 1.64
results in rejection.
The findings, as shown in Table C,
are as follows:
1.
The "Z" value for simple attacks in bouts com-
pared to lessons is 2.52.
Therefore, Hypothesis No. 1,
that there is no significant difference between the ratio
of simple to complex attacks taught in an average college
sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex attacks
which succeed in a college sabre bout was rejected.
The
alternate hypothesis, that there is a significant difference, was accepted.
2.
The "Z" value for simple ripostes in bouts
compared to simple ripostes in lessons is 7.35.
Therefore,
Hypothesis No. 2, that there is no significant difference
between the ratio of simple to complex ripostes taught in
an average sabre lesson and the ratio of simple to complex
ripostes which succeed in college sabre bouts was rejected.
The alternate hypothesis, that there is a significant difference, was
3.
~ccepted.
The "Z" value for simple counterattacks in
bouts compared to simple counterattacks"in lessons is 2.95.
Therefore, Hypothesis No. 3, that there ts no significant
difference between the ratio of simple to complex counterattacks taught in an average college sabre lesson and the
24
ratio of simple to complex counterattacks which succeed in
a bout was rejected.
The alternate hypothesis, that there
is a significant difference, was accepted.
Although it is statistically more precise to discuss the results in terms of the "Z" Test, comparisons are
more easily comprehended if percentage ratios are dealt
with.
Thus while 83.3 percent of the scoring attacks in
the NCAA Finals were simple actions, the mean time spent on
simple attacks in lessons was 74.1 percent.
And, while
93.67 percent of the scoring ripostes were simple, mean
lesson time devoted to simple ripostes was only 52.46 percent.
In the same vein, although 79.31 percent of scoring
counterattacks were simple, 60.36 percent of mean lesson
time was spent on simple counterattacks.
As a parenthetical addition, it might be of value
to point out that, for overall observed scoring actions,
attacks constituted 51.25 percent, ripostes 28.11 percent,
and counterattacks 20.64 percent.
The pilot study of the
1978 NCAA's yielded figures as follows:
attacks--54.4 per-
cent, ripostes--27.5 percent, and counterattacks--18.1 percent.
The comparable figures for the 1979 Western Regional
Championships were attacks--54.05 percent, ripostes--20.61
percent,
~nd
counterattacks--25.34 percent.
It was thus
deemed legitimate to infer that the observed data are consistent with a general pattern, and not the result of the
chance selection of an aberrant tournament.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
As demonstrated by the results obtained and presented in Chapter IV, the alternate hypotheses that there
are significant differences between the types of actions
taught most often in college sabre lessons and the types
of actions which actually score most often in college
sabre bouts were accepted.
The results of the "Z" Test
indicate that the Mean ratios for simple actions in lessons
derive from significantly different populations than the
Mean ratios for simple actions actually occurring in bouts.
It must be remembered that the "Z" Test is a statistical
method by which it can be determined if two numbers could
reasonably derive from the same population.
A high value
for "Z" does not necessarily indicate the complete absence
of the possibility that both numbers were selected from the
same population, but it does demonstrate that the possibility, if it exists, is very slight.
Discussion
It should be reiterated at this point that a key
assumption was made in order to apply a statistical test:
a coach's lesson plan was intended to approximate actual
bout conditions.
25
26
It must be pointed out that some questionnaires
were returned uncompleted, with the comment that the coach
tailored each lesson to the individual fencer, and thus
followed no general pattern or lesson plan.
Since one of
these particular respondents had established an enviable
collegiate record, and had been twice named "Fencing Coach
of the Year", this type of reply must be considered and
discussed.
In effect, this theory of designing fencing lessons
advocates that the particular strengths of the individual
student (as the coach perceives them) be the determinate of
the structure of the lesson, and, therefore, it is not
necessary that the lessons resemble actual bout conditions.
To be sure, the lessons must conform to the rules of fencing, but they are not geared to competitive conditions per
se.
It is felt that the fencer, by emphasizing his strengths
and minimizing his weaknesses, will dominate and set the
pattern for each bout, regardless of some generally observed
pattern.
In short, the nature of the weapon and the rules
does not inherently set a structure on the bout; only the
individual fencer does that.
Obviously then, to say that
one has no overall lesson plan, or if so, to say that it
does not bear a relationship to general competitive conditions, is a statement of no significance.
One can see a certain existential logic in this
approach, but it does not seem to be supported either by
27
the literature or by history as indicated in the Review of
the Literature in Chapter II.
Both Aldo Nadi and Michel
Alaux clearly stated their belief that there should be a
close relationship between fencing lessons and actual competitive conditions (25:37, 1:174-78), and history, judging
by the development of epee fencing (15:92), appears to
support their views.
The question then arises:
In view of the foregoing,
how can a coach tailor lessons to each individual without
regard to overall bout patterns and still be successful?
No definitive answer is forthcoming, but some answers may
be suggested.
1.
A coach uses many tools with his students.
Technical
exactitude is one of them, but psychology, intelligence, personality, character, ability to communicate,
etc. also play roles.
Thus, a coach's lesson might be
tactically dubious from the standpoint of hard data,
yet the overall approach that coach takes with his
fencers may more than make up for any weaknesses.
2.
In actual fact,· the respondents said that they had no
overall lesson plan, and that each lesson was geared to
the individual.
They did not indicate one way or the
other whether these lessons
bout percentages.
ap~roached
the observed
It is quite likely than an experi-
enced coach would have an intuitive grasp of the general
distribution of actions and subconsciously fit his
lessons into that framework.
28
Further support for the theory that the lesson
should resemble the bout can be found in the general principles of motor learning, such as Specificity, Sensory Set,
and Perception.
In order to obtain definitions for these
principles the works of four authorities from different
sections of the country were consulted.
These works were
all textbooks which were summarizations of current theories
in the field and all agreed on the definitions of the principles listed above.
These authors were Dr. John N.
Drowatzky, Professor of Physical Education at the University
of Toledo (16); Dr. John D. Lawther, Professor of Physical
Education at Pennsylvania State University (22); and Dr.
George H. Sage, Professor of Physical Education at the
University of Northern Colorado (26).
Their definitions
follow below:
. The principle of Specificity basically states that
the best way to teach an activity is to have the student
perform that specific activity as best he can rather than
performing some analogous action.
According to Sage, writ-
ing in 1977:
. . . there is strong support in the motor skills
literature for the specificity of motor learning
principle . . . which is that motor skills are
not based on a few general factors but are based
upon factors which are speciftc to the task in
question.
(26:439)
As for Sensory Set, Drowatzky defines it as the
expectations of the subject regarding the type of stimulus
and its appearance.
Observing that a subject's reaction
29
time under a sensory set was faster than under a motor set
(concentration on the task rather than the stimulus), he
concluded that:
Conditions that enhance the performer's understanding of the task and aid in clarifying his
expectancies will improve reaction time . . .
( 16:140)
Finally, Lawther's definition of Perception is
succinct and supported by the others;
"Perceptions, once
learned, are automatic responses to specific types of
stimuli."
( 22:43)
Fencing, as in any other one-against-one sport,
requires of the individual the ability to perceive movements,
tactical opportunities, and dangers, and to react in an
appropriate manner to them.
The idea behind a fencing les-
son is to teach a student how to respond appropriately to
what he perceives.
It would follow that a fencing lesson
teaches a student to respond to certain types of stimuli.
If the lesson is not predicated on the same stimuli that the
student will encounter in a bout, then the reactions taught
in a lesson (no matter at what length) may not appear in a
bout since the studentjcompetitor is being subjected to
unfamiliar stimuli.
One out of a myriad of "classical"
fencing lessons should serve to illustrate the point.
A training action described in a list of suggested
lessons in 1948 was as follows:
Instructor attacks with a
beat, feint flank, feint head, disengage head (a fourmovement attack).
Pupil responds with parries of 2nd, 5th,
30
and counter-5th, and ripostes with feint to right flank/
cut to head (a three-movement combination parry with a twomovement riposte).
(15:263)
Yet, what the pupil is most likely to encounter in
a bout is a one- or two-movement attack to which (to be
successful) he should respond with a one-movement riposte.
Since it takes roughly twice as long to execute a fourmovement attack as opposed to a two-movement attack, and
consequently requires a greater distance as well, it seems
reasonable to assume that the stimulus provided in this
lesson differs considerably from the stimulus occurring in
a bout.
If the principle of "Sensory Set" is accepted
(26:249), then the lesson just described would probably
have "set" the student to perceive complex movements and
the time required for them.
If the stimulus in a bout is
of a speed or pattern for which the "sensory set" is unprepared, the response may be erratic or delayed.
In summary then, it appears that historical
example, the body of modern fencing literature, and the
generally acknowledged principles of motor learning all
tend to confirm the belief that the complex drill does not
necessarily prepare the student for the simple action.
At
the same time, the well-known principle of "Specificity"
(26:439) would indicate that the complex drill will prepare
the student for the complex action, but the simple drill
will best prepare the student for the simple action.
If,
p '
31
then, the majority of bouting actions at the collegiate
level are simple ones, it would seem logical to suggest that
the major portion of collegiate fencing lessons be devoted
to training the student in those simple actions.
Conclusions
Within the limits of this study, the conclusion that
there are significant differences between the types of
actions taught in the average collegiate sabre lesson and
the types of actions that are most successful in collegiate
sabre bouts is supported.
In particular, the large dispari-
ties between lessons and bout conditions in the categories
of parries and counterattacks.must raise the question as to
whether the average college fencing lesson is providing the
optimum preparation for modern competitive conditions.
It is believed that the findings of this project
are not significant as an end to themselves but for the
questions that they raise.
As mentioned in the introduc-
tion, no published statistical studies of either collegiate
bouting or collegiate lessons were uncovered.
It thus
appears that this is the first study to confirm that a considerable difference does exist between the average college
sabre lesson and collegiate sabre bouts.
It therefore
raises the following basic questions:
I.
Will college sabremen trained only by simple actions
be more successful in competition than college sabremen trained only by complex actions?
32
II.
Will college sabre fencers trained by a combination
of simple and complex actions be more successful in
competition than either of the above?
III.
If so, what would the optimum mix of simple to complex
actions be for a general sabre lesson plan to produce
the most effective competitor?
In addition, the role of perception in fencing
actions was touched on in the discussion.
It appears at
this time that this sport has been left virtually untouched
by specialists in the field of Perceptual Motor Learning.
It is believed that there are implications in the literature
and the findings of this study which indicate that extant
motor learning theories may provide the best framework
around which to design fencing lessons.
More research in
this area seems to be strongly indicated.
The goal of this study, which was to determine if
there were significant differences between college sabre
lessons and college sabre bouts, has been achieved.
The
results indicate that much more emphasis is placed on the
teaching of complex actions than would seem to be warranted
by the requirements of modern collegiate competition.
It
is left to the work of future researchers to determine what
specific correlation should exist between college sabre
lessons and actual bout conditions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Alaux, Michel. Modern Fencing.
Scribner~s Sons, 1975.
New York:
2.
Anderson, T. W. An Introduction to Multivariate
Statistical Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1958.
3.
Angelo, Domenico and Harry. The School of Fencing.
London: 1787. Reprinted New York: Land's End Press,
1971.
4.
Baldick, RobArt. The Duel.
Potter, Inc., 1965.
5.
Barbasetti, Luigi. The Art of the Sabre and the Epee.
New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1936. (First American:·;;;,?:;';!fr
edition--originally published in Italian in 1894.) · ·. . ·.
6.
Bower, Muriel. Fencing. Third edition.
William C. Brown & Co., 1976.
7.
Bryson, Frederick M. The Sixteenth Century Italian
Duel. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938.
8.
Byrnes, J. A. Fencing Rules for Competitions. Westfield: Amateur Fencers' League of America, 1974,
rev. 1976.
9.
Castello, Hugo and James.
Roland Press, 1962.
New York:
Fencing.
Charles
Clarkson N.
Dubuque:
New York:
The
10.
Castello, Julio. The Theory and Practice of Fencing.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933.
1i.
Cratty, Bryant J. Perceptual Motor Development in
Infants and Children. New York: Macmillan Co., 1970.
12.
Crosnier, Roger. Fencing with the Sabre.
Faber & Faber, Ltd., 1957.
13.
Crosnier; Roger. Fencing with the Epee.
Faber & Faber, Ltd., 1958.
14.
Curry, Nancy L. Fencing. Pacific Palisades:
year Publishing Co., 1969.
-33-
London:
London:
Good-
34
15.
Deladrier, Clovis. Modern Fencing.
Naval Institute, 1948.
16.
Drowatzky, John N. Motor Learning: Principles and
Practices. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1975.
17.
Garret, M. R. and Heinecke, M. F.
Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1971.
18.
Ehrenfeld, S. and Littauer, S.
Introduction to Statistical Method. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
19.
Fox, Donald J. The Research Process in Education.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 1969.
20.
Grombach, John V. Olympic Calvalcade of Sports.
York: Ballantine Books, 1956.
21.
Hutton, Alfred. The Sword and the Centuries.
Grant Richards, 1901.
22.
Lawther, J. D. The Learning of Physical Skills.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
23.
Lidstone, R. A.
Ltd. , 1952.
24.
Lovejoy, E. P. Statistics for Math Haters.
Harper & Row, 1975.
25.
Nadi, Aldo.
Sons, 1943.
26.
Sage, George H. Introduction to Motor Behavior: A
Neuropsychological Approach. Reading: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1977.
27.
Selberg, Charles A. Foil. Menlo Park:
Wesley Publishing Co.~76.
28.
Tishman, Jeffrey R.
"History of American Fencing",
Portland: U. S. National Fencing Championship Program, 1977.
29.
Toth, Nicholas G.
"Sabre Finals--1965", American
Fencing, 17:15-17, January 1966.
30.
Vince, Joseph.
Co., 1962.
31.
Wagner, Edward. Cut and Thrust Weapons.
Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1967.
Fencing.
On Fencing.
Fencing.
London:
New York:
New York:
Annapolis:
Fencing.
U.S.
Boston:
New
London:
H.F.&G. Witherby,
New York:
G. B. Putnam's
Addison-
The Roland Press
London:
The
35
32.
Walker, H. M. and Lev, J. Elementary Statistical
Methods. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958.
33.
Wilson, John Lyde. The Code of Honor.
James Phinney, 1858.
34.
Zuwaylif, Fadil H. Applied Business Statistics.
Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1974.
Charleston:
APPENDIX C
COPIES OF THE COVERING LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE
SENT TO COLLEGE COACHES
36
37
18561 Prairie St., #23
Northridge, Ca. 91324
Dear Coach
I· am in the process of writing my thesis for completion
of a Master's Degree in Physical Education. My area of interest is collegiate sabre fencing, and my research revolves
around the construction of collegiate sabre lessons. In order
·to obtain some of the necessary data, I have prepared a questtionnaire which I request that you complete.
Please review the lessons you give to your first-string
varsity sabre team over the course of a season and then estimate the percentage of total lesson time that you spend
on each of the various categories o: actions listed. I
realize that your lessons will vary
be~Neen
your individual
fencers, but plec>.se try to estirr.8.te the percentages for your
team as a whole.
I know that this request· reaches you in the heavy part
of your season, but I would be grateful for your assistance.
I will be collating my data in
r.~arch
and therefore request
you return the questionnaire at your earliest convenience. I
h~ve
enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope
for this
purpose.
Thanking you for your cooperation, I am
Sincerely,
Edwin K. Hurst
38
.Are You A Eead Co;1ch 0
Sabre Coach Q
ACTION
A.
other
% TI'-;E
S?zt!T
.;.TT \Ci'.S
1.
S:~.:m;)le
2. Prise de Fer
). 1-2
h.
Prise de Fer 1-2
r'
:;)•
1-2-3
6. Prise de Fer 1-2-3
7.
~!ore
comnlex
B. Ri')o'::tes
1. Direct
2. Counter
3· Co'J.nter-counter
h.
2nd counter
'·
Com:>ound
6. more com:1lex
c.
Sto:>s
1. Direct st<1p
2. Feint-stop
3· counter-time action
4. remise
D. Cornter-Attacks
1. Attack on preparation
2. Pride de fer attack on "9rep.
3. Finta in teJ:t>o
h. 1-lore complex
NAME
-------------------------------------------
SCHOOL - - - - - - - - - - -
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF THE PILOT STUDIES PERFORMED IN PREPARATION
FOR THIS STUDY
39
40
OBSERVATIONS OF 1978 NCAA's
Attacks
No.
%
Simple:
59
72.8
Complex:
22
27.2
Total:
81
100.0
47
92.2
4
7.8
51
100.0
Ripostes
Simple:
Complex:
Total:
Counterattacks
Simple:
Complex:
27
41
OBSERVATIONS OF THE 1979 WIFC's
%
Attacks
No.
Simple:
143
89.38
Complex:
17
10.63
61
100.00
0
0.00
Ripostes
Simple:
Complex:
Counterattacks
Simple:
Complex:
75