Schools of fencing

[jspierre]

I know this thread has popped up several times, but having seen the OG's, you can really detect common styles by national team, if not "schools" of fencing, as such. What I mean is that when you watch, say, the Russian epee team, Tourchine, Katchokov and Kolobkov, they all fence in a style that is broadly similar, and maybe patterened after the strongest fencers style (in this case, Kolobkov). There's a lot of reliance on "active" fencing in their system, change in footwork and tempo, and fencing with absence of blade. In fact, Russian epee, if it can be called that, is beautiful to watch as it combines active tactical play with athletic execution.

In French epee, it seems to me that the two Jeannets are almost carbon copies, two guys that hv a highly athletic approach that relies on tempo, and physical advantages as much as pure tactics. Their footwork is also similar, and they take maximum advantage of reach, and mobility.

The Hungarians to me had a more deliberate, tactical style in epee. It was almost a undisguised stalking of their opponents that placed much more of an accent on a consciencous attempt to challenge on a tactical level. The footwork was plodding compared to the other schools.

Your thoughts.

[Victor]

Any time a topic like this shows up, I struggle along and try to pick up on the subtleties people are attempting to discuss. Because too many of the descriptors cross each other and leave the dialogue muddy. "Tactical" fencing, for example, means very little to me other than a sense that it's different from someone who fences without tactics -- all high-level fencers use tactics, after all, otherwise they wouldn't make it very far. Likewise when someone is described as "athletic" ... as opposed to, what? All the fencers at the top are athletes.

I can see the difference in more concrete elements such as distance -- an in-fighter vs. someone who thrives on stop-attacks -- or preferred blade position in prep -- absence of blade in two vs. a standard six, for example. Sometimes footwork *patterns* are noticeable, too -- small half-steps vs. a lot of advance-lunges -- but, again, it only confuses the issue if someone (anyone) suggests a fencer has "elaborate footwork" or somesuch nonsense. It's all pretty elaborate.

My point? I would love to read some discourse on the alleged national fencing style differences, but I hope our excellent contributors here strive for clarity and pick their words carefully. Otherwise the messages end up akin to, "The sky's sorta light blue today, eh?" and, "Nah. I'd say it's more of a robin's egg color."

[jspierre]

Any time a topic like this shows up, I struggle along and try to pick up on the subtleties people are attempting to discuss. Because too many of the descriptors cross each other and leave the dialogue muddy. "Tactical" fencing, for example, means very little to me other than a sense that it's different from someone who fences without tactics -- all high-level fencers use tactics, after all, otherwise they wouldn't make it very far. Likewise when someone is described as "athletic" ... as opposed to, what? All the fencers at the top are athletes.

I can see the difference in more concrete elements such as distance -- an in-fighter vs. someone who thrives on stop-attacks -- or preferred blade position in prep -- absence of blade in two vs. a standard six, for example. Sometimes footwork *patterns* are noticeable, too -- small half-steps vs. a lot of advance-lunges -- but, again, it only confuses the issue if someone (anyone) suggests a fencer has "elaborate footwork" or somesuch nonsense. It's all pretty elaborate.

My point? I would love to read some discourse on the alleged national fencing style differences, but I hope our excellent contributors here strive for clarity and pick their words carefully. Otherwise the messages end up akin to, "The sky's sorta light blue today, eh?" and, "Nah. I'd say it's more of a robin's egg color."

Look this was never meant to be science or put to a panel of Phd's as a dissertation. You're hanging on the words like a lawyer rather than trying to engage with the meaning: of course all fencers fence with tactics, but in terms of style, some fencers evidence an approach that looks like they will above all, in all circumstances, simply outwit their opponents, and others look to me like they have relative physical gifts that allow them to comparatively ignore highly tactical games and simply rely on speed or strength, well timed. The former types to me are analytical and tactical in their approach, and the latter are competiting more in the physical sphere.

It's not a case of one fencer being non-athletic, or another hving no sense of tactics, it's just that there are those that know they have relative speed or strength (to me, Jeannet is an example), and those that must fight speed with finely tuned smarts. The tactical guys, to me, spend more time on careful preparations: the fast/strong guys come at you full tilt, with less regard to "setting up the touch".

I think coaches see these differences, and coach to an individual's strengths. And, I think teams have away of taking on the character of their best players.

"I hope our excellent contributors here strive for clairity,"....vy patronizing.

[Victor]

Oh, do stop being so self-centeredly(?) defensive. I wasn't attacking YOU, fer pity's sake. Nor was I patronizing. Just trying to address the difficulty of a topic like this. Words can only convey the writer's intended meaning if they're chosen carefully (to help the reader's otherwise fallable telepathic abilities; we can't read minds). This was a reminder to everyone in general to try to be VERY PICKY about describing fencing "styles."

Now brush the last few chips off your shoulder already and let's move on with an otherwise-delightful topic. I want to see what our truly excellent contributors have to say.

[fluidfencer]

Our coaches are from China. I remember specifically observing their stance when fencing foil or on guard. They knees are bent more than what you see in other countries, and the Chinese seemed to lean forward just a little more. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I saw my first videos that included the Chinese team and I had a huge AH HAH! moment.

Now I can see it in some of our students (coaches have been here five years), but it is not so uniform as I saw on the Chinese team. I guess that is part of what is becoming an American style, although I haven't quite figured that out yet. Many of the people on fencing.net have seen a lot more international fencing than I.

I sometimes wondered if their stance had something a general difference in height, but that might be stereotyping because I don't have stats on heights of fencers. I believe I have seen a similar stance with the Koreans as well. Am I seeing this correctly?

This is a very specific example, but I think it fits this thread nicely.

[reposte]

The Chinese in foil fence like that probably because they have (and bravo for that) one of the last schools that has tempo sensetivity embedded into it.
Sadly, most refs don't catch on - there is nothing more dissatisfying for me to watch sanzo make a pris de fer on a Chinese opponent, do nothing for a stance, the Chinese taking the initiative, Sanzo flicking at the advancing chinese and the point is called "attack pris de fer Sanzo".
Happened at both 2003 team WC and the Olympic finals.

Tactical fencing is mainly fencing which gives out nothing, shows very little of tecnique or contact and the fencer in question wll nly engage in a manner which he finds certain will benefit him without taking much of a chance.
Ususally very scarce non interesting fencing.

[The0ne]

In men's foil, you can definitely see different styles that more than one fencer fall into.

on the Italian team, Sanzo and Cassara fence very much the same. A lot of beat attacks, one tempo attacks, sloppy footwork. . . Their primary aid is their timing, which is very, very good. Cassara also abuses his height and monster flicks. Vanni fences very differently, he has much stronger footwork, while he still keeps the strong innovative Italian timing.

This is compared to the chinese which is basically a solid distance game, opposed to the Italians timing game. In my opinion, the chinese have the best footwork in the game right now. The chinese make actions with perfect distance (simple parry repost, simple attack), while the Italians often make actions on the fly--while attacking with a cross-over lunge, or running attack.

The Russian team, from what I saw in the Olympics used a lot of distance actions, much like the chinese. I especially like Podzniakov's (the foilist, not the sabrist) fencing, such a solid control of distance, and beautiful timing on the preperation attack.

That's some stuff that I noticed.

[wflaschka]

The Chinese in foil fence like that probably because they have (and bravo for that) one of the last schools that has tempo sensetivity embedded into it. ... Tactical fencing is mainly fencing which gives out nothing, shows very little of tecnique or contact and the fencer in question wll nly engage in a manner which he finds certain will benefit him without taking much of a chance. Ususally very scarce non interesting fencing.

I'd say, strategic fencing is the one that's hard to see. Tactical is the realization of action-level goals, and is actually very visible.

I don't see anything particularly wonderful about Chinese technique, except, of course, that they're very strong. The Chinese have their actions down; it's as if someone told them "do this 400 times a day or we'll disappear your family."

But their tempo is nonexistent as such, which is precisely why Italy was able to chase them down with stop-n-start marches in 2003. After that debacle, they went home and some People's Committee of coaches thought about it for a long time. They made a much stronger challenge to the Italians at the Olympics, and next year, I figure they'll beat them.

But it's not the sort of fencing where the fencer goes, "Oh, they're doing so-and-so to me, let me answer with such-and-such." Compared to some other nations it's not holistic or particularly deep fencing; the foil at least is markedly the product of a centralized fencing "production facility." Given two equal opponents, the Chinese fencer will fence the opponent, or the Chinese fencer will get creamed by the opponent -- but it depends on the opponent rather than the Chinese fencer.

I know the Chinese are highly regarded, but I don't see why. I want to see them winning more, but I'll really enjoy watching them when they bring more improvisation and creativity to the game. Right now it sometimes looks too "paint by numbers."

[S. Hunter]

Honestly, coming from a student of the old italian and french school, these things are not styles in the old sense of the old french, italian, or spanish but rather just different tactical elements that can be applied to any style. All of the things cited are very minor differences that can probably be traced back to one fencing coach or famous fencer from each of those countries that is being mimicked. These just seem too shallow for me to consider any of these things a style.

[telkanuru]

I haven't seen much of the high level stuff (the OG files are still being transferred to my computer), so I'm in no way an expert in this stuff, but here's my $.02, based off the WE Bronze team bout (France v. Canada), which I would broadly classify as 'the same school'.

First, it should be noted that at least in epee, the women's school should be in no way compared to the men's school, even if both are the same 'school' to begin with. For example, the men's game that I've seen typically involves about 20 seconds of making your opponent bored and complacent and then fleching or hitting them on the foot. The womens game I saw was *very* different. There was a tremendous amount of 2nd intention hits (or 3rd, or 4th), which reminded me very much of foil contortionists. The primary attack seemed almost ment to close and get the opponent where they were not comfortable, and then hit them. This was, in the majority, the french tactic, while the canadians attempted to keep them at arm/sword's reach. This seemed to shut down any real creativity in the match (when the french fencer [I forget who, the one with blue shoes] attempted to play distance and do funky things like a half-lunge leaning en-guarde, she got schooled, and promptly returned to infighting). All in all, I found both styles much more interesting to watch then the mens.

[reposte]

But their tempo is nonexistent as such

Either we have different definitions of tempo, or we're seeing two different things.
I think it;s the first one because I have no idea what you mean when you apply the words "wonderful timing" to the Italians.

Vanni is rather different to them but all Italians use an excelerated finish after a slow supporific entrance to a phrase (except maybe Cassara who does nothing and still winns) yet that's not particularly Italian.

[achilleus]

Honestly, coming from a student of the old italian and french school, these things are not styles in the old sense of the old french, italian, or spanish but rather just different tactical elements that can be applied to any style. All of the things cited are very minor differences that can probably be traced back to one fencing coach or famous fencer from each of those countries that is being mimicked. These just seem too shallow for me to consider any of these things a style.

In Electric Foil Fencing, by Lukovich he discusses the different systems or schools of foil fencing.

He discusses 3. French, Italian, and the newly developed Soviet system.

"Today, Soviet foil fencing possesses all the charateristics that are considered the criteria of a serparate system:

1. The technical material of foil fencing has been made into a special system.
2. The Soviet conception about and position on questions involving method and training theory are specific and different from the previous ones.
3. They have a school of their own in which instruction in tactics and techniqueis of the same importance.
4. The Soviet fencers have a distinct and characteristic style that can immediately be told from another.
5. Their tactical apporach also distinguishes them from competitors operating according to any other conception.
6. They have classic competitors who are associated with this kind of fencing.
7. They recognize and prefer the revolver grip which has so far not been accepted by any other foil systems."

That was written in 1971. The chapter talks about how people thought the Hungarians had a separate school, but this was not the case...

Upon reading the above, if people were to agree on the neccessary criteria, I'm not sure how many systems/schools we would actually see.

In this day and age, with the so much interaction going on between fencers, it's hard to see definitive schools or systems. There is definitely some sense of nationalistic fencing identity however. Maybe not with the US, but with many countries.

[fluidfencer]

I want to disagree with you, but will be careful in doing so because I might not have the international experience (direct or by viewing) that you have. I can only tell you what I know. Please provide some additional details or examples.

Our coaches were two members of the Chinese national team about six years ago, through the Tianjin Fencing Association. They were responsible for training some of the people now (and then) in world competition.

You paint a picture of the Chinese fencer being somewhat two-dimentional and training by rote/repetition. Based on what they have done over the last five years, I could not disagree more.

Our coaches are very improvisational. They spend alot of time just talking about strategy. The only repetition I see is within the context of a lesson when they are working on a specific skill. We do not even have footwork classes of any kind.

The thing about their own style of fencing, although they generally do not compete, is their sometimes surreal sense of tempo. They can glide in a way that takes away the visual cues you get as someone is moving toward you. It looks like slow motion. Of course, that's only one of many tactics they use. Like I said earlier, I could spot the style IMMEDIATELY the first time I saw a video that included the chinese team, before I knew it was the Chinese, but that had more to do with their stance than their tactics.

If what you said was true, our coaches would be producing fencers that looked the same, or at least fenced the same. That couldn't be further from the truth. While their circle-six-parry-riposte-to-shoulder might look similar from one student to the next, not much else does. A lot of variation in stance as well. I think the reason why their circle-six-etc. looks the same relates more to the fact that it is very effective.

Interesting point as I think about it. I mentioned earlier that I thought the stance might have something to do with height. Two fencers (one YMF14, one YWF12, both highly ranked nationally) are shorter and have that exact same low stance. I see it in some very young fencers as well, like age 10 or 11. It is really quite elegant and very distinctive. Fencers that are over 6' do not do that at all.

I would appreciate any thoughts

I'd say, strategic fencing is the one that's hard to see. Tactical is the realization of action-level goals, and is actually very visible.

I don't see anything particularly wonderful about Chinese technique, except, of course, that they're very strong. The Chinese have their actions down; it's as if someone told them "do this 400 times a day or we'll disappear your family."

But their tempo is nonexistent as such, which is precisely why Italy was able to chase them down with stop-n-start marches in 2003. After that debacle, they went home and some People's Committee of coaches thought about it for a long time. They made a much stronger challenge to the Italians at the Olympics, and next year, I figure they'll beat them.

But it's not the sort of fencing where the fencer goes, "Oh, they're doing so-and-so to me, let me answer with such-and-such." Compared to some other nations it's not holistic or particularly deep fencing; the foil at least is markedly the product of a centralized fencing "production facility." Given two equal opponents, the Chinese fencer will fence the opponent, or the Chinese fencer will get creamed by the opponent -- but it depends on the opponent rather than the Chinese fencer.

I know the Chinese are highly regarded, but I don't see why. I want to see them winning more, but I'll really enjoy watching them when they bring more improvisation and creativity to the game. Right now it sometimes looks too "paint by numbers."

[HillBilly]

I'd say, strategic fencing is the one that's hard to see. Tactical is the realization of action-level goals, and is actually very visible.

I don't see anything particularly wonderful about Chinese technique, except, of course, that they're very strong. The Chinese have their actions down; it's as if someone told them "do this 400 times a day or we'll disappear your family."

But their tempo is nonexistent as such, which is precisely why Italy was able to chase them down with stop-n-start marches in 2003. After that debacle, they went home and some People's Committee of coaches thought about it for a long time. They made a much stronger challenge to the Italians at the Olympics, and next year, I figure they'll beat them.

But it's not the sort of fencing where the fencer goes, "Oh, they're doing so-and-so to me, let me answer with such-and-such." Compared to some other nations it's not holistic or particularly deep fencing; the foil at least is markedly the product of a centralized fencing "production facility." Given two equal opponents, the Chinese fencer will fence the opponent, or the Chinese fencer will get creamed by the opponent -- but it depends on the opponent rather than the Chinese fencer.

I know the Chinese are highly regarded, but I don't see why. I want to see them winning more, but I'll really enjoy watching them when they bring more improvisation and creativity to the game. Right now it sometimes looks too "paint by numbers."

I don't think that it was that the chinese didn't have any timing in that bout (2003 WC's), I just think the Italian timing was so new, and effective, that no-one was used to it, and they killed everyone. Watching the Chinese nearly beat the Italians, and Guyart beating sanzo and cassara, it seems that the rest of the world is getting used to the italians timing, and the superior footwork of these other fencers is coming into effect.

[The0ne]

I don't think that it was that the chinese didn't have any timing in that bout (2003 WC's), I just think the Italian timing was so new, and effective, that no-one was used to it, and they killed everyone. Watching the Chinese nearly beat the Italians, and Guyart beating sanzo and cassara, it seems that the rest of the world is getting used to the italians timing, and the superior footwork of these other fencers is coming into effect.

It is true that the chinese are less innovative than many other fencers, but they are percise. They place their actions at such good distance. . . That's the strength of their game.

[wflaschka]

I want to disagree with you, but will be careful in doing so because I might not have the international experience (direct or by viewing) that you have. I can only tell you what I know. Please provide some additional details or examples.

Thanks for being so delicate about me being totally wrong. Please do feel free to disagree with me about anything, anytime; I'm in this to learn, too. While it's fun to spout theories, it's even better to pick up new and useful info.

Our coaches were two members of the Chinese national team about six years ago, through the Tianjin Fencing Association. They were responsible for training some of the people now (and then) in world competition.

Are you speaking of the Birmingham coaches? If so, I've heard nothing but good things about them, and I hold them in high regard. I've encouraged my fencers to make the (3 hour) trip to take lessons from them, and one of my students has gone many times for lessons with Sun. Wang Yuanjing doesn't give lessons to women...--!?

They've developed some good fencers quickly (sent a B-rated fencer to U-14 Nationals, iirc), which I like, and apparently they've built a strong sense of team in the salle, which I hope to emulate. I haven't seen them give lessons, but I have video of some of their fencers (and also Wang screaming unremittingly from the side of the strip in a wall of noise), and the fencers are shaping up to be good marchers. I've also heard reports that the fencers will kill themselves to finish with a flick to the back -- borne out by the video, where completely open chest target is ignored.

You paint a picture of the Chinese fencer being somewhat two-dimentional and training by rote/repetition. Based on what they have done over the last five years, I could not disagree more. ... Our coaches are very improvisational. They spend alot of time just talking about strategy. The only repetition I see is within the context of a lesson when they are working on a specific skill. We do not even have footwork classes of any kind.

These are also coaches who are now outside of the structure of Chinese fencing. If the coaches aren't themselves calling the shots, they were being dictated to by a central authority or committee about what the training program would be and what actions to train, how many times a day. Descriptions of the Korean training program can be found in other threads; I'd imagine it would be even more regimented in a nondemocratic society. I did look for info on the Chinese program, without luck, but you can take a look at more-available information about their gymnastics and chinese-sword programs. It is evocative of the scariest "Romanian gymnast concentraining camp" stories.

Your coach will know best -- it would be wonderful to hear about what the Chinese program is really like. These two coaches are now running their own program, and it sounds like it's flourishing. I hope they're enjoying themselves; it's not like they would have ever been uncomfortable in China given their accomplishments.

The thing about their own style of fencing, although they generally do not compete, is their sometimes surreal sense of tempo. They can glide in a way that takes away the visual cues you get as someone is moving toward you. It looks like slow motion. Of course, that's only one of many tactics they use. Like I said earlier, I could spot the style IMMEDIATELY the first time I saw a video that included the chinese team, before I knew it was the Chinese, but that had more to do with their stance than their tactics.

Sun recently walked into the finals at the Crescent City, iirc. When you fenced at her level, everything else will seem easy.

I'm not saying the Chinese are unrecognizable. The Chinese (well, eastern) style used to be even more tangible. As other posters have written, very heavy on the thighs. The fencers would keep a loooow guard, knees very bent, and bounce up and down with the thigh muscles. This made for some galumphing movement -- see 1997 Young Ho Kim (Korea) in Golubitsky's Golden Bouts, where Kim used the identical footwork for every single attack (I know, people love Kim in that bout). Today's Chinese fencers seem to maintain a higher center of gravity, but still move with what I've heard called a "Triplette shuffle" (I'll check on that) -- a sort of short-jump forward instead of advance.

Still speaking very broadly, they don't make large hand movements. If the hand isn't rigidly kept in six, it's rigidly in eight, but mostly pointed towards the opponent. This is great for most fencers, but at an international level you should be able to leave that behind so that your blade vocabulary is larger.

If what you said was true, our coaches would be producing fencers that looked the same, or at least fenced the same. That couldn't be further from the truth. While their circle-six-parry-riposte-to-shoulder might look similar from one student to the next, not much else does. A lot of variation in stance as well. I think the reason why their circle-six-etc. looks the same relates more to the fact that it is very effective.

Essentially, it's okay if fencers look the same a lot of the time -- especially if they're made from scratch by the same coach. I'm not claiming Chinese maestros are deficient, I'm talking about the structure of the Chinese fencing program. I'm saying that Chinese fencing bears the marks of being developed in a centralized fashion, and I base this on how China loses.

- Easily recognizable. I don't even know the individual fencers, but I know who they fence for. Compare to other nationalities. The Germans especially seem to be the products of different theories of {german} fencing -- Joppich, Wessels, Bissdorf look as different as night and day to me. China is a dozen times bigger than Germany, with less variety.

- Same flaws. In 2003 World Champs, every fencer on the Chinese team was killed by a slow, stop-n-start march to the end of the strip. Common flaws indicate a shallow gene pool -- limitations that don't show up until you take your game on the road and fence outside your salle. I have video of Sun in the 1988 Olympics, where she was also slow to adapt to her German opponent; she started scoring at the end, throwing caution out the window.

- Same reflexes. This points especially to an incestuous training atmosphere. In the 2003 World Champs China was extremely capable with behind-the-head remises -- something you only get (prior to the recent should-reversal rule change) from heavy bouting against people who close distance in a way you expect. Post-rule-change, this should be a common drill for everybody again.

I'm only taking a stab at quantifying the Chinese look. I'll have to review my video for real examples or information. (But lately I've been obsessed with the Italians.) I hope this all clarifies where I'm coming from.

[wflaschka]

Either we have different definitions of tempo, or we're seeing two different things.
I think it;s the first one because I have no idea what you mean when you apply the words "wonderful timing" to the Italians.

Vanni is rather different to them but all Italians use an excelerated finish after a slow supporific entrance to a phrase (except maybe Cassara who does nothing and still winns) yet that's not particularly Italian.

Tempo is change in speed, it's done to generate a "feeling of surprise" in the opponent. Italy excels at this; I have video where they completely own an action based on how they execute it. If I had done the action, lacking their tempo sense, it would have been called the other way.

Being quick, decisive, precise with the footwork -- this isn't timing. If I step in front of a speeding train, I will be dead, but I won't be surprised... In fact, I could probably gauge the train's speed and step out of the way again. But if the train looked like it was going fast, but turned out to be going slow so I waited -- and then it suddenly went fast and killed me... that is a train with tempo. That is a train you want to watch out for.

I'm still figuring out the Italian game, but slow-fast is indeed part of it -- and I agree that's not just an Italian thing.

[glowstix]

Are you speaking of the Birmingham coaches? If so, I've heard nothing but good things about them, and I hold them in high regard. I've encouraged my fencers to make the (3 hour) trip to take lessons from them, and one of my students has gone many times for lessons with Sun. Wang Yuanjing doesn't give lessons to women...--!?

i've met them and he actually invited me to one of his week long camps but unfortunately i couldn't go...

They've developed some good fencers quickly (sent a B-rated fencer to U-14 Nationals, iirc), which I like, and apparently they've built a strong sense of team in the salle, which I hope to emulate. I haven't seen them give lessons, but I have video of some of their fencers (and also Wang screaming unremittingly from the side of the strip in a wall of noise), and the fencers are shaping up to be good marchers. I've also heard reports that the fencers will kill themselves to finish with a flick to the back -- borne out by the video, where completely open chest target is ignored.

this is sooooo true!! and i must disagree with the previous poster..most of the students styles seem similar and they DO LOVE TO FLICK. they inspired me to start flicking..hehehehe now its working for me. by the way, i did fence that 14 yr old kid..wasn't a good experience..hehehe

[fencingguy]

Is the birmingham coach the one who stands on the side of the strip and screams "YES!" after every action? Even when his fencer didn't hit? I directed for his student at nationals, and she got killed, with him screaming right in my ear for about 8 touches before I asked him to please move over.

On a different chinese coaching note, a good example of chinese coaching success would be Mr. Ma in South Jersey. He has been producing some excellent sabre fencers recently who should be doing very well over the next few years. From everything I've seen they're all intelligent fencers with a strong grasp of tactics and technique. He's done a great job.

[reposte]

I knew we had different notions of Tempo walter, for me it's the sense of the actions in terms of when an action is an attack or an isulated action in the wider context of the bout.
You (I think, or apply this notion in my mind) are referring to one aspect of tempo which is the way the Italians are building a compound attack. let me try and illustrate
a SANZO action:

beat..............beat....beat............beat-FLICK to chest or shoulder

A VANNI action:

closing in....sloooow.......slooooow......sloow....slow - deception-flick to under right side or belly or straight to six

O.K that was a little bit idiotic but that's Italian tempo for you...

Now if I hear one more word on Italian tempo I swear.... you have such a wonderful school in America why go look for something else which isn't better?
Simply learn to attack with a varying speed - I was tought - and still am tought to do it and so should everybody. It's not Italian....