DOCSLIB.ORG

California State University, Northridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California State University, Northridge 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. The Problem 1 II. Review of the Literature 6 III. Method 13 IV. Results 19 V. 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 empha­ sis 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. Further study of this question was strongly indicated. v CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Fencing is one of this country's older inter­ collegiate 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 Euro­ pean 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 competi­ tion 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 competi­ tion as well as contemporary collegiate sabre lessons and then attempt to discern if there were significant differ­ ences 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 investiga­ tion 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 condi­ tions. 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: A straight cut or thrust performed i~nediately 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 pur­ poses of this paper. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Development of College Fencing Fencing is one of this country's oldest inter­ collegiate 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 univer­ sities 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 col­ legiate 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).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020-21 MANUAL NCAA General Administrative Guidelines
    2020-21 MANUAL NCAA General Administrative Guidelines Contents Section 1 • Introduction 2 Section 1•1 Definitions 2 Section 2 • Championship Core Statement 2 Section 3 • Concussion Management 3 Section 4 • Conduct 3 Section 4•1 Certification of Eligibility/Availability 3 Section 4•2 Drug Testing 4 Section 4•3 Honesty and Sportsmanship 4 Section 4•4 Misconduct/Failure to Adhere to Policies 4 Section 4•5 Sports Wagering Policy 4 Section 4•6 Student-Athlete Experience Survey 5 ™ Section 5 • Elite 90 Award 5 Section 6 • Fan Travel 5 Section 7 • Logo Policy 5 Section 8 • Research 6 Section 9 • Division I 6 Section 9•1 Religious Conflicts 6 THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 6222 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222 317-917-6222 ncaa.org November 2020 NCAA, NCAA logo, National Collegiate Athletic Association and Elite 90 are registered marks of the Association and use in any manner is prohibited unless prior approval is obtained from the Association. NCAA PRE-CHAMPIONSHIPS MANUAL 1 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES Section 1 • Introduction The Pre-Championship Manual will serve as a resource for institutions to prepare for the championship. This manual is divided into three sections: General Administrative Guidelines, Sport-Specific Information, and Appendixes. Sections one through eight apply to policies applicable to all 90 championships, while the remaining sections are sport specific. Section 1•1 Definitions Pre-championship Manual. Resource for institutions to prepare for the championship. Administrative Meeting. Pre-championship meeting for coaches and/or administrators. Appendixes. Any supplemental documents to be provided and distributed through the various resources. Championship Manager.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Fencing Championship Zachary Moss Concordia University, Saint Paul
    Concordia University St. Paul DigitalCommons@CSP Master of Arts in Sport Management 2015 NCAA Fencing Championship Zachary Moss Concordia University, Saint Paul Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/sport-management_masters Part of the Sports Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Moss, Zachary, "NCAA Fencing Championship" (2015). Master of Arts in Sport Management. 3. https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/sport-management_masters/3 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@CSP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Arts in Sport Management by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@CSP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, ST. PAUL: ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY AND HEALTH SCIENCE NCAA Fencing Championship A GRADUATE PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree in Sport Management by Zachary Moss St. Paul, Minnesota June 2015 ii © Zachary Moss iii Dedications This project is dedicated to everyone who helped me accomplish my dream of working in college athletics – to my parents, my friends, my coaches, my mentors, and my girlfriend. I couldn’t have accomplished anything without all of your support. iv Abstract This paper examined the many aspects of planning, organizing, and managing a sporting event. Specifically, it focused on the management of the 2019 NCAA Fencing Championships utilizing Welsh-Ryan Arena at Northwestern University as the host site. Every aspect of the event is examined beginning with the organization responsible for it, going through the structure of the event itself, outlining a marketing plan for the event, analyzing the management of employees and volunteers, discussing of potential risks associated with the facility for this event, analyzing ethical concerns of the event itself, and concluding with personal reflection from the paper’s author.
    [Show full text]
  • National Collegiate Men's and Women's Fencing
    NATIONAL COLLEGIATE MEN’S AND WOMEN’S FENCING CHAMPIONSHIPS RECORDS BOOK 2016 Championship 2 History 4 All-Time Team Results 8 2016 CHAMPIONSHIP HIGHLIGHTS Columbia takes home second straight title: The final day of action at the 2016 NCAA National Collegiate Fencing Championships, held at Brandeis, saw three repeat winners. Two individuals achieved the feat, while Columbia was crowned the team champions for the second year running. The Lions took a 13-point lead into the day, and though it closed to double digits at certain points throughout the day, the repeat was not really in question. Columbia finished with a seven-point victory, 174-167, over Ohio State, thanks to a balanced attack that saw them score 30 points in three of the six weapons and not less than 24 in any of them. “To come out ahead shows what a great group of individuals we have on our team,” Columbia coach Michael Aufrichtig said. “Other than all the practices and workouts and all the preparation, one of the main things it came down to is their heart, their love for each other. So when they’re out there on the strip, they’re fencing for not just themselves but for their entire team.” Columbia is the first repeat NCAA Fencing champion since Penn State in 2009 and 2010. It’s the Lions’ fourth overall combined title since the championship went to this format in 1990. They also won back-to-back titles in 1992 and 1993. Ohio State finished in second place despite qualifying one less than the maximum 12 qualifiers for the championship.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Terms, 2016 (PDF Version)
    The Society of American Fight Directors GLOSSARY OF TERMS (revised as of 3/19/16) It is important to note that the terms listed below may not correspond to the proper definitions of the actions as they are applied to historical or modern fencing, swordplay, boxing or wrestling. These terms are theatrical in nature, not tactical, describing the action as it is executed in the performance environment. General Use Terms Active Hand: The non-weapon bearing hand used to block, check, lock, parry, strike, or trap the opposing weapon or parts of a partner’s body. Attacker (also called Aggressor): The actor/combatant who initiates the offensive action or attack. Center Line: An imaginary line that bisects the body. Horizontal Center Line (also called Mid Line): The imaginary line that bisects the body horizontally at waist level delineating High Line and Low Line. Vertical Center Line: The imaginary line that bisects the body vertically through the center delineating Inside Line and Outside Line. Cue: a physical action or event that is a signal for someone to do something. Cue-Reaction-Action: A basic stage combat principle/process used to achieve a safe and dramatically effective sequence of events Distance (also called Measure, Fighting Measure, and/or Fencing Measure): The proper measure between two or more combatants to safely execute any particular technique in stage combat. En Garde: The basic physical "ready" position of a combatant. Eye Contact: A look to one’s partner to assure mutual awareness and readiness to perform the techniques. Fighting Measure/Fencing Measure): see Distance Hand Positions: Pronation: The palm is turned down.
    [Show full text]
  • Fencing Rules
    FENCING RULES 1995 Edition United States Fencing Association, Inc. © United States Fencing Association, Inc. 1995 FOREWORD This American version of the international rules governing fencing competitions is translated and adapted from the 1994 French edition published by the FIE and incorporates changes made by the FIE Congresses through 1995. Unless otherwise noted here or in the USFA Operations Manual, these rules apply to fencing competitions in the United States. Two appendices are included with this 1995 edition: Appendix A – The Fencer’s Publicity Code is part of the FIE Rules for Competitions. Appendix B – The FIE has published a number of “Temporary Provisions” concerning competition formats and certain other rules. The complete, updated text is included in Appendix B; notes are also located in the text in appropriate locations. The USFA, Inc. (founded as the Amateur Fencers League of America in 1891) is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization primarily engaged in increasing participation in the sport of fencing. Membership in the USFA, in an appropriate category, is open to anyone who has an interest in fencing. The USFA is the official governing body for amateur fencing activities in the United States, and is so recognized by the United States Olympic Committee and the International Fencing Federation (FIE). Accordingly, the authority to enact, amend, and repeal the rules governing amateur fencing in the United States rests solely with the Board of Directors of the USFA. As a matter of policy, the USFA normally follows the technical rules enacted for the sport by the FIE, with occasional minor exceptions that are duly announced.
    [Show full text]
  • USFA, 1750 East Boulder Street, Colorado Springs, CO S0909; (719) 578-4511
    GEORGE SANTELLI, INC. United States Fencing Association, 1988-90 President: Michel Mamlouk EXL'<'utive Vice-President: Grorge G. Masin Vice President: Gerrie Baumgart Vice President: Paul Soter Secretary: John Higgs-Coulthard Treasurer: Elvira Orly Counsel: Frank Nagomey Official Publication of the United States Fencing Association, Inc. Dedicated to the memory of Jose R. DeCapriles, 1912-1969 Miguel A. DeCapriles, 1906-1981 CONTENTS Volume 42, Number 2 Editor: B. C. Milligan Business Manager: Laurel Clark Skillman Editorial ..............•........................................ 4 Poetry Editor: Leith Askins To The Editor ................................................... 5 Editors Emeritus: Ralph M. Goldstein, Mary T. In The Final Analysis .............................................. 8 Huddleson, Albert Axelrod. by Charles A. Selberg AMERICAN FENCING magazine (lSSN (0)2-8436) President's Corner ............................................... 9 is published quarterly by the United States Fencing by Michel Mamlouk Association, Inc. 1750 East Boulder Street, Colorado Springs, CO S0909. Subscription for non-members Foil Tactics and Tactical Drill ....................................... 10 of the U.S.F.A. is $12.00 in the U.S. and $1S.00 by Harold C. Hayes elsewhere. Single copies $3.00. Members of the U.S.F.A subscribe through their dues. Address all News Briefs ................................................... 12 correspondence concerning membership to the The Price of Pronation ........................................... 16 U.S.F.A. office in Colorado Springs, CO. Second by Rudy ~Ikmann class postage paid at Colorado Springs, CO and additional mailing offices. Technical Talks: How Does This Thing Work? ....................•...... 17 ©1991 United States Fencing Association by Joe Byrnes Editorial and advertising offices: These are cur­ Circuit Events: Good or Bad? ...................................... 18 rently in flux, as the editor relocated to the Balti­ by William ReIth more, MD, area as this issue went to press.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for Competitions, 2006 1 Book 1
    IWAS WHEELCHAIR FENCING RULES FOR COMPETITION BOOK 1 -TECHNICAL RULES Version: January 2020 IWF RULES FOR COMPETITIONS BOOK 1 – TECHNICAL RULES Article PART I. GENERAL RULES AND RULES COMMON TO THE THREE WEAPONS CHAPTER 1. APPLICATION OF THE RULES Obligatory use of the rules ................................................................ t.1 CHAPTER 2. GLOSSARY Competitions Assaults and bouts ....................................................................... t.2 Match ............................................................................................ t.3 Competition .................................................................................. t.4 Championship .............................................................................. t.5 Explanation of some technical terms Fencing time ................................................................................. t.6 Offensive and defensive actions .................................................. t.7 Offensive actions .......................................................................... t.8 Defensive actions ......................................................................... t.9 The point in line position ............................................................... t.10 CHAPTER 3. THE FIELD OF PLAY . .......................................................... t.11–14 CHAPTER 4. THE FENCERS’ EQUIPMENT Responsibility of fencers ................................................................... t.15 CHAPTER 5. FENCING Method of holding the weapon
    [Show full text]
  • The NCAA NEWS Feels It Makes a Point and Discusses a Topic Through a Series of Disasters, Crises and Alized History
    F/LA decision rejects binding arbitration process The International Amateur FILA can dictate who can de- sociation, was expressly stated opments the NCAA has ques- mittee chairman) and by Ed- Wrestling Federation (FILA) velop and administer USA do- to be binding on the parties. tioned whether $16 million des- ward G. Williams (another has struck down arbitration mestic and international sports Ruling reversed: Neverthe- ignated for the USOC should former Olympian and current procedures central to the reor- teams. The wrestling situation less, the USOC Executive Board be appropriated. chairman of the Athletes’ Ad- ganization of the United States is just an example. This is a -dominated in voting strength In the past few weeks, the visory Council of the USOC), Olympic Committee and in SO broader issue than a power by incumbent national govern- question has arisen whether would have required any in- doing has raised doubts about struggle between two organi- ing bodies - last December the principles of the Amateur cumbent national governing the NCAA’s continued involve- zations. It’s a matter of wheth- voted to reverse a prior ruling Sports Act of 1978 will be per- body that lost a “challenge” ment with the USOC and about er the USOC and the organiza- of the USOC Counselor and to mitted to work as intended by arbitration to be required to the commitment of tax dollars tions which control the USOC continue the Wrestling Di- the Congress, which bears di- resign its position from the in- to this nation’s Olympic orga- are responsible to the United vision of AAU as the national rectly upon the proposed ‘im- ternational sports federation nization when it is not account- States public and their institu- governing body until FILA plementing’ appropriation of from which it was a member.
    [Show full text]
  • Fencing I(Foil)
    FENCING I (FOIL) TULSA FENCING CLUB TULSA FENCING CLUB Committed to Excellence through Training Tomorrow’s Athletes Southminster Presbyterian Church 3500 S Peoria www.tulsafencing.com © 2013 Tulsa Fencing Club All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, scanning, or other – except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles, without the prior written permission of the Tulsa Fencing Club. FENCING I (FOIL) Table of Contents The Basics ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 En Garde ........................................................................................................................................... 2 How to Hold the Weapon ................................................................................................................ 2 The Advance ..................................................................................................................................... 3 The Retreat ...................................................................................................................................... 4 The Extension ................................................................................................................................... 4 The Lunge ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Parries Powerpoint
    Parries Definition The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving. USA Fencing Rules, t.9.2 Names of Parries • Position • Type of motion Positions 1. Prime 2. Seconde 3. Tierce 4. Quarte 5. Quinte 6. Sixte 7. Septime 8. Octave Lines Symmetry • Four positions in inside line • 1, 4, 5, 7 Symmetry • Four positions in outside line • 2, 3, 6, 8 Symmetry • Four positions in high line • 1, 3, 4, 6 Symmetry • Four positions in low line • 2, 5, 7, 8 Symmetry • Four positions in supination (palm up) • 4, 7, 6, 8 Symmetry • Four positions in pronation (palm down) • 1, 2, 5, 3 Motions • Lateral • Circular (or Counter) • Semi-Circular • Diagonal • Yielding • Tac-au-Tac (or Beat) • Barrage (dam) Examples of Nomenclature • Motion: Lateral Parry Position: Quarte • Motion: Counter Parry Position: Sixte • Motion: Semi-Circular Parry Position: Octave Common to All Parries 1. Use the strong part of your blade against the weak part of your opponent’s blade 2. Parry at the correct time 1. Rule of “thumb (foot?)”: parry when the front foot moves in your opponent’s lunge 3. Followed by a riposte (an offensive action) 1. Use the strong part of your blade against the weak part of your opponent’s blade • Uses leverage • Doesn’t require strength 2. Parry at the correct time • If you parry too soon, your opponent will see the parry and attempt to go around it • If you parry too late, you get hit! • Therefore, parry at the last possible moment that you can execute the parry successfully • Rule of “thumb (foot?)”: parry when the front foot moves in your opponent’s lunge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maccabiah Games, Captain's Report by Albert Axelrod
    \ United States Fencing Association, 1984-86 ; President: Lewis W. Siegel Executive Vice-President: Carl Borack Vice President: George G. Masin Vice President: Colleen Olney Secretary: Fred G. Rhodes, D.D.S. Treasurer: William J. Latzko Counsel: Stephen B. Sobel Official Publication of the United States Fencing Association, Inc. May/June 1986 Dedicated to the memory of CONTENTS Volume 37, Number 5 JOSE R. deCAPRILES, 1912-1969 MIGUEL A. deCAPRILES, 1906-1981 Editorial ............................................................. 4 Editor: Mary T. Huddleson Art Director: Beverly Johnston Santell Remembered ................................................... 5 Business Manager: Anne Whiting The Maccabiah Games, Captain's Report by Albert Axelrod . .................................................. 7 AMERICAN FENCING magazine (ISSN 0002-8436) is published bi-monthly by the Using the Tape Recorder United States Fencing Association, Inc. 1750 By Randi & Thomas McKenzie . ....................................... 8 East Boulder Street, Colorado Springs, CO High School Competition 80909. Subscription for non-members of the by Ted Li . ......................................................... 9 U.S.F.A. is $12.00 in the U.S. and $18.00 elsewhere. Single copies $2.00. Members of the College Fencing and the USFA, Part II U.S. F.A. subscribe through their dues. Address by Edwin Hurst . ................................................... 11 ( jail correspondence concerning membership to Do We Really Need a JO Program? I the U.S.F.A. office in Colorado Springs, CO. by Michael DAsaro ................................................ 12 Second class postage paid at Colorado Springs, CO and additional mailing offices. Junior Notes: Bob Cottingham by Scott Knies . .................................................... 14 Opinions expressed in signed articles do not Technical Talks: The Strip necessarily reflect the view of American Fenc­ by Joe Byrnes ..................................................... 15 ing or the U.S.F.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrestlers Climax Perfect Season Tech's Matmen Virtually Time; and (5) a Tic in the Old Re- Rewrote the Record Books As Cord of Five Pins in One Match
    Wrestlers Climax Perfect Season Tech's matmen virtually time; and (5) A tic in the old re- rewrote the record books as cord of five pins in one match. Coach Fuller. who did such a they wound up their first un- magnificent job with his wres- defeated, untied wrestling tlers, had nothing but praise for season with a thorough white- his team. In his words: "Example washing of the University of of an achievement that can only Buffalo team recently at the UB occur by hard work and diligent gym. training plus the courage and Each match brought excited determination to win regardless spectators to their feet time and of the odds." again as the UB contenders fell John Radocha, RIT's only sen- one after another to a much super- ior, closed his wrestling career at ior team as the 36-0 score was Tech with a brilliant 4-1 decision tallied. This gives the squad a over Buffalo's captain Don Worth. record of being the only unbeaten In three years of wrestling for his wrestling team in upstate New alma ma ter John has an enviable York. record of 20 wins with only four Five new team records were set losses and one tie: by the squad with the Buffalo win: Doug Keeler won five points for (1) First time for 14 consecutive himself and the team by forfeit in wins in any two-year period; (2) the second match of the afternoon. First unbeaten untied year with He wrestled an exhibition match 10 straight wins for the season; anyhow aand won by a decision.
    [Show full text]