Intro

In an improvised scene from the 1981 classic Raiders of the Lost Ark, the hero Indiana Jones prepares to face a sword-wielding adversary. With his whip in his right arm, shoulders leaning in, a crowd clears and the two stare each other down. The swordsman begins to toss the sword left hand to right hand, laughing maniacally. The camera pans to his smiling face as he begins to twirl the sword with his right hand, then bring both hands together and continue his attempts to intimidate Indy before they engage in combat. After 12 seconds of these flashy macho theatrics, Indiana’s patience wears thin. He scowls, reaches into his holster on the right side of his hip, pulls out his revolver and shoots the swordsman dead (in one tempo).

This scene, in my opinion, is an allegory for the ongoing issues that exist in American Epee, and that is that we overcomplicate the preparation with the hand (instead of leading with the feet), we enter distance dangerously, and try to set up closing actions that are antiquated in idea and execution.

To illustrate this point, I conducted a “Five Why’s” analysis to dive into the root cause and understand the American gap. This analysis is based on a few points:

• All the data I’ve collected over the years and comparing it to other Fencing powerhouses
• Observing tactical behaviors at NAC’s and other American national events
• General qualitative observation from how we prepare and execute touches
• Input from international coaches, athletes, and domestic athletes

Let’s dive into this piece by piece:

The Problem: We Have not Won an Individual Olympic Medal in 100+ Years, and Captured one Individual World Championship Medal in that Same Timeframe

The United States has seen a 21^st century renaissance in its ascension at the international level. Gone are the days of us being the laughingstock of the global fencing world, as in Foil and Saber, the United States has captured golds, silvers, and bronzes at both the World Championship and Olympic level. In Epee however, we have not managed to catch up to our right of way peers.

In the 100+ years history of USA Fencing, just a smidge over 10% of the medals captured by the USA have come in the Epee discipline:

Weapon	Bronze	Gold	Silver	Grand Total
Epee	5	2	2	9
Foil	23	7	14	44
Saber	14	9	11	34

It hasn’t been all tears and agony for Epee. Some amazing highlights include:

• George Charles Calnan’s Bronze (Ind.) in the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics
• Courtney Hurley’s Bronze (Ind.) in the 2018 World Championships
• Team Epee Gold (Kelsey, Mattern, Bratton, Thompson) in the 2012 World Championships
• Team Epee Gold (Holmes, C. Hurley, K. Hurley, Sirico) in the 2018 World Championships
• Team Epee Silver (Kelsey, Mattern, Bratton, Ungar) in the 2010 World Championships
• Team Olympic Bronze (C. Hurley, K. Hurley, Lawrence, Scanlan) in the 2012 London Olympics

But compared to Foil and Saber, we don’t yet have the consistent dominance to hang our hat on. And the reason I have spent hundreds (if not a 1,000+) of hours researching, writing, and deep-diving into these data, is because I genuinely believe in our athletes to elevate us to a dominant power in Epee as we are in Foil and Saber.

The issues we face aren’t ones of attitude (save for one incident). I can tell you first-hand that the athletes I had the pleasure of working with in the last few years are among the most hardworking, positive, professionally minded people in this sport.

Nor are these issues ones of athleticism. The top athletes are freaks with the endurance of energizer bunnies who spend as much time in the gym and cross-training as they do on the piste.

These are issues of tactics, pedagogy, and a few other variables that are already on their way to being fixed.

While my thesis focused specifically on 2018 – 2024, there are several root causes to dive into to explore why this might be, and where our current gaps are.

Why #1: On the Surface – We Play a Multi-Tempo Game in a Single Tempo Meta

Maestro Pezza often warned me of my data: “you mustn’t reach syllogistic conclusions from these data.” And he’s right. A well-executed multi-tempo action is still a good action. Indeed, many Italians, Japanese, and Russians still thrive on playing a multi-tempo game. But playing such a game successfully requires convincing preparation (6 C’s), management of distance, and manipulative footwork.

• 16/24 American fencers studied were multi-tempo fencers (by contrast, only 1/14 French fencers studied were multi-tempo fencers, for instance).
• Americans average 1.61 tempos/touch
• 54% of touches against Americans occur in Attack in Preparation (compared to 44% across the weapon).

You don’t make a switch to single tempo fencing with a simple flip of a switch. Transitioning to the modern Epee game starts with preparation, and preparation starts in the feet.

Why #2: Sub-Causes, Hart Truths, Status Quo – Footwork and Over Reliance on the Hand

The fundamental blocker to international success is one of footwork, and in turn, how we manage and enter distance.

As I’ve beaten like a dead horse, there is no footwork more important to distance manipulation than half advances/half retreats, and in general, preparation is ideally created in the feet first.

Through the course of this project, I studied 24 different American fencers and found that four used a half advance as a predominate part of their preparation (in fairness, this is a subjective measurement based on observation, as preparation was not quantified as part of this project). Coincidentally, those four fencers were among the best results earners from the past quad.

We tend to enter the Krieg with a full advance, skipping over manipulation in Zufechten, and the result is a lot of attacks in the preparation.

Further, this sudden entry into distance leaves our offensive attacks (push + attack) unconvincing and yielding low success. American fencers are close to the mean in nearly every archetype, but out .76 success ratio in pushing and attacking (compared to 1.27 for everyone else) leaves opportunity in our approach to the global fencing game.

As part of this project, I interviewed elite level fencers and coaches to gain their qualitative perspective. Much of it complemented my own quantitative observations.

Said one multi-time world champion: “I did not see a big game basis in American epee. It’s more good looking skills like flick in the back. You need a big footwork improvement to level up.”

One coach was particularly fixated on American’s focus to begin everything with a flick followed by immediate continuation to the body. “You flick, you flick, you flick, and then we go right into the preparation,” he said, followed by using a colorful pejorative to describe a particular group of fencers’ tactical approach to a bout.

Another coach rued the American reliance on passive defense, making a quote that can only be read in the voice of Ivan Drago: “You think your parries will save you. They will not.”

This was an area bolstered by the data. I aggregated responsive defensive actions per bout, and found that Americans were significant outliers when it came to reactiveness:

The predictability and lack of creativity was another area called out by an Olympic Champion: “As I see it, Americans are a bit too predictable. They have their ‘thing’ that they do, but if the feeling is not 100%, trouble starts. There’s not so much creativity or playfulness to it. It looks like they are in the box of what they have been taught, but there’s so much more to it. You’re much easier studied when you don’t vary your game.”

This individual saw differences between men’s and women’s, stating, “[American] men are more creative, but I see a lot of confusion in them when something doesn’t work or go as planned…there is a lot of gesturing and leaning on the coach.” Finally, this fencer also saw a need for more physical emphasis: “Maybe not very nice of me to say, but there are many American fencers who are quite unathletic. It even looks unhealthy to the body…physical training is getting more and more important.”

Why #3: We are Focused on NCAA Fencing and not Long-Term Growth

When I was growing up, my parents didn’t once mention the prospect of NCAA Fencing to me until I was a senior in HS. For them, fencing was something I liked, and they wanted to finance it because it brought me joy. I suspect that’s a large part of the reason I’m 38 years old and still at it (though much more recreationally), because the pressure was never on material rewards like college, but on the intrinsic motivation like fencing for the joy of fencing.

I think one of the things we don’t like to talk about is the fact that Fencing has become increasingly proselytized. When I referee youth events, I see far more youth aged fencers having panic attacks following losses, driven to perform and deliver results with little emphasis on fun and growth.

I would speculate this proselytization is one of many reasons why we see a brutal drop-off among our higher rated fencers following college graduation.

This drop-off is further compounded when you look at the elite of the elite pipeline.

I looked at all American Cadet and Junior teams going back to 2014, and found that in Men’s, there have been 49 athletes on the cadet and junior national teams. 26 remain on the senior points standings, and 12 of those individuals are still fencing post college and on the senior standings.

In women’s, the diminishing funnel is even more drastic. 43 different women have been on cadet/junior teams, 19 remain on the senior points standings, and of those 19, 6 are still on the points standings following college graduation.

Beyond burnout, there are several reasons why fencers might quit following college, including, but not limited to:

Fencers are Really Smart: Most of our elite fencers are going to elite academic institutions, getting high level technical degrees, and understandably choosing careers and professional development over fencing upon graduating from college. If you finish with an Ivy League degree magna cum laude, you’re a professional racehorse waiting to burst out of the gate. It’s understandable many of these exceptional graduates call it quits to focus on life.

Fencing is Expensive: Between travel, lessons, club dues, and tournament fees, pursuing a national team can cost close to $100,000/year. For parents that close the bank account to their kids post-graduation, self-financing an Olympic dream with an entry level salary is a near impossible endeavor (especially for those who live in New York, the epicenter of American fencing). Further, the lack of institutionalized training in the United States (compared to global fencing powerhouses like Italy, France, Russia, and Hungary) severely limits the ability for fencers to continue in the sport post-college.

Very few NCAA Programs have the Budget to Invest in Fencing in the way it Deserves, Resulting in Stagnation During a Critical Development Window: USA Fencing CEO Phil Andrews once said that “if tomorrow the IOC dropped Fencing as an Olympic sport, we could survive. But if the NCAA dropped Fencing, we’d be on life support as a sport.” NCAA is the lifeblood of American Fencing, but Fencing is not the lifeblood of the NCAA. Fencing often remains a “red-headed stepchild” with NCAA schools, rarely receiving substantial budgets and the support needed to hire elite Head Coaches, let alone elite weapon-specific assistants.

When you take elite fencers away from their elite personal coaches for much of a four-year period and place them into NCAA programs, the majority will stagnate in development, and for the small minority who have access to elite coaches, they’re able to progress.

Much of the success of the Notre Dame Fencing program is predicated on the fact that the athletic department is willing to invest in Fencing. Gia Kvaratskhelia is given the resources to bring (and pay) elite tier assistant coaches and give scholarships to several top-tier athletes. It’s no wonder that their fencers not only progress and grow through college, but age into the senior division and continue to get outstanding results post-college. The fencing facilities are also fit for kings and queens, serving as the gold standard for what every athletic department should invest in Fencing.

Most schools aren’t so lucky. Many Division I program’s Head Coaches aren’t even compensated as full time employees, and several assistant coaches are paid four figures for part time work.

Because NCAA Fencing often receives inadequate resources, this results in a potential period of stagnation for our most promising athletes. Said one international coach: “The main problem with American fencers is they fence the same as they did when they were in cadets.” When I asked him to expand on that idea, he talked about the necessity to reduce the prep and simplify, which he saw as a huge delta with Americans at the senior international level.

Solutions

The American Epee renaissance isn’t going to happen overnight, and will require a “team effort” between USA Fencing, the United States Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA), personal coaches, club owners, NCAA program (and their alumni), and the United States Fencing Foundation (USFF).

Most of the solutions I present here are structural. I do not have the credibility nor concrete solutions to make pedagogical recommendations, and I lean on those that do to read this research to make changes as they see appropriate. It would be inappropriate for me to tell you how to do your job, in the same way that I wouldn’t backseat drive a surgeon as someone that played Dr. Mario.

I also recognize that many of the solutions here (particularly those in the prohibitive cost/high complexity bucket) are unrealistic and aspirational. The goal is to get a conversation started and throw a bunch of ideas at a wall to see what sticks.

High Cost/High Complexity

Importing Coaches

The last renaissance in American Fencing came when a few ex-Soviet powerhouse coaches immigrated to the United States, infusing their style and influence into the DNA of our Fencing. Those coaches included folks like Emik Kaidanov, Kornel Udvarhelyi, Andrey Geva, Yury Gelman, Arkady Burdan, Ed Korfanty, Aladar Kogler, Semyon Pinkhasov, etc. These individuals’ contributions helped to shape our results and turn the USA into a global fencing powerhouse.

In Epee, however, we haven’t had our Buckie Leach moment yet, aka an American coach who develops their own system to bring the weapon to elite senior results.

Importing the best in the world is one solution, albeit one that comes at a price.

Look at Academy of Fencing Masters (AFM). In the last few years, AFM has taken a globalized approach to building their program, importing the likes of:

• Carmine Carpenito (Italy)
• Sergey Bida (Russia)
• Zhanna Bikkina (Russia)
• Vivien Maya (France)
• Jean-Michel Lucenay (France)
• Sam Gallagher-Pelletier (Canada)

I suspect, if you read this article three to five years down the road, many of AFM’s younger fencers will have aged into seniors and fencing at an elite level, mostly because of the infusion of modern global epee and the interchange of ideas occurring between their coaches.

Bringing in coaches costs a lot of money between sponsoring visas and green cards, not to mention providing enticing salaries to lure coaches over.

Institutionalized Training

To be sure, this is a pipedream that is about as realistic as expecting us to build Jurassic Park. Institutionalized, fully funded training with pay for athletes is the kind of endeavor that would require a donor with Usmanov-level wealth, or a Trump administration deciding to roll the USOPC under the federal government.  

The only parallel I can think of here is John DuPont funding Foxcatcher for the USA Wrestling team and while that is a bad example given the outcome of that endeavor, it’s the only example I can think of.

State-sponsored programs, as seen in countries like Russia, Italy, France, China, and Hungary, offer a compelling model. These programs provide not just financial backing but also a comprehensive support system that nurtures athletes from a young age. They cover living expenses, coaching fees, travel costs, and even provide salaries, allowing athletes to focus solely on training and competition. This level of support is a significant factor in their international fencing success.

The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) operates on a private funding model. This means it relies heavily on donations, sponsorships, and revenue from events like the Olympics. While the USOPC does provide funding to athletes, it is often not enough to cover all their expenses, especially in a sport like fencing that requires significant financial investment.

The United States Fencing Foundation (USFF) plays a vital role in supporting American fencers. As the philanthropic arm of USA Fencing, the USFF raises funds to support athletes, coaches, and programs. While it cannot yet provide the level of support seen in state-sponsored programs, it does help to alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by American fencers.  

As the USFF continues to grow and attract more donors, there is hope that it can provide even greater support to American fencers. This could include increased funding for training, travel, and equipment, as well as stipends to help athletes cover their living expenses. While fully funded training with salaries may remain a distant goal, the USFF is working to bridge the gap and provide American fencers with the resources they need to compete at the highest level.  

Training Abroad (as Athletes and Coaches)

A high-level French fencer told me about how he observed Romain Cannone’s transformation coming from the United States to France on his path to becoming Olympic champion. “He [Cannone] told me a good example. He learned the music and notes and the attitude in the USA but he learned how to play a symphony in France.” USA Fencing Hall of Famer Justin Tausig believes his results began to pop off after he began training abroad in France.

Several of the top athletes train abroad. Jesus Lugones (ARG) has trained in Hungary. John Edison Rodriguez (COL), Yulen Pereira (ESP), have trained in France. For a lengthy period of time, the Limardo’s trained in Poland before returning to their native Venezuela.

Similarly, in our coaching ranks, we’ve seen success among coaches who spent time abroad learning in foreign systems (e.g., Michael Marx studied in France). Depending on life circumstances, it’s not realistic to simply drop your life in America and go abroad to apprentice and train. But for the few who can, it’s an option to consider.

NCAA Resourcing

Surely, there is a correlation between NCAA Fencing budgets and results. This year, Stanford finally invested in a full-time head coach role, and enabled Alex Massialas to hire top tier, high quality assistants. Scholarships were also expanded. This investment will pay dividends in the next few years and elevate Stanford to a competitive program.

As it turns out, you need to invest in and empower athletes to help them grow, and when you give coaches like Zhanna Bikkina the opportunity to work with promising college athletes daily, it’s likely those athletes will age into Seniors and come out stronger than when they entered college.

For a non-revenue sport like Fencing, it’s hard to convince an athletic department to give a team the resources it needs, but as athletes age into seniors and become Olympians, it will hopefully give these athletic departments the positive reinforcement needed to invest.

Alumni should also consider regular donations to their team, which helps to bolster programs.

Sports Psychology

One high-level American Men’s Epeeist told me that few to none of the team utilizes sports psychology resources to improve performance. This is a huge, missed opportunity, especially when you consider that INSEP and several other institutionalized programs make this a regular part of the training cycle.

 Sports psychology enables athletes to develop more focus, manage anxiety, help with goal setting and visualization, mental toughness, and motivation[1].

Some insurance providers cover sports psychology. For those that don’t, it’s a resource that should be considered for aspiring high-level athletes and elite ones as well.

High Cost/Low Complexity

Membership and Tournament Fee Waivers for ex Cadet/Junior National Team Members

This solution assumes that cost is a primary inhibitor for continued participation after college. Under the current state, USA Fencing offers an Olympian/Paralympian Life Membership designation for those who have reached the pinnacle of the sport.

With the massive drop-off we see in Cadet/Junior team members post-college, USA Fencing should consider incentives to keep these elite athletes involved going into the Senior division. Granting Cadet/Junior national team members life membership status is an option to explore.

USA Fencing might also consider giving a five-year waiver for former national team athletes post-college on national tournament entry fees. This would also help to ease some of the financial burden.

High Complexity/Low Cost

Make the United States Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA) and Certification more Appealing

In its mission statement, the USFCA seeks to empower “…coaches to advance the sport of fencing through professional development, certification, and leadership.”

The USFCA currently has 696 active members, 383 of whom possess certification. This represents a small fraction of the 2,200+ registered coaches in USA Fencing. Professional development, coach education, and idea sharing are critical to ending our long epee drought. USFCA is the only game in town when it comes to domestic coaching education, and yet its aging membership and appealability make certification a “nice to have” when it should strive to be a “need to have.”

Fencing coaches understandably protect their lessons and intellectual property with the guardedness of Smaug on a mountain of gold. There is hesitancy to join the organization and certify, and as you look at the average Maître age in each weapon, this indicates a reluctance of millennials and Gen Z to be a part of the organization.

In conversations with peers, much of this is about the who of the USFCA. Absent from its membership are the likes of most of the national coaches and other elite coaches, who really don’t have a compelling interest to join (or share their knowledge). USFCA must think creatively here and consider ways to entice more elite coaches into the organization and host clinics. While the creation of the National Coaching Development Program (NCDP) represents a step in the right direction towards simplifying an organization historically known for its gatekeeping ways, without an infusion of more elite coaching talent running clinics, it may struggle to grow without incentivizing elite and contemporary coaches/coach developers to join its ranks.

Taking Advantage of NAC’s to Host Coaching Clinics

Five years ago, Sergey Danilov put on a mind-blowingly great coaching seminar at a NAC. This got me thinking: “why is it we have the best coaching minds in the United States in the same city once a month, and don’t take advantage of this to share ideas?”

At NAC’s, we already rent convention center space to host these events, but then there’s an innate understanding we’re all just going to head to the bar and get shellacked to prepare ourselves for the next day.

If say, an Andrey Geva, Greg Massialas, Sarah Vicenzin, or Natalie Dostert hosted a seminar at a NAC, wouldn’t you join? I certainly would. Such seminars need not be limited to coaching and should be open for referee and athlete development. The USA Fencing and USFCA strategic partnership has gone quiet. Maybe it’s time to light the fires again.

Focus Groups and “Exit Interviews” with Retiring Athletes

As established, we have a massive drop-off in members post-college with our elite pipeline. While I’ve speculated on the reasons why this might be, it would be good for USA Fencing to interview retired high level athletes and conduct a more thorough root-cause analysis establishing the themes behind their reasoning to retire.

Indeed, we (the Board) have established a KPI in our 2024-2028 Strategic Plan to reduce NCAA athlete attrition by 10%, but to fulfill that goal, it’s important to hear from our ex-athletes the reasons behind their retirement, and develop solutions to retain from there.

Tournament Structure Overhaul

This effort is already underway by USA Fencing’s Tournament Committee, but as demand for Fencing balloons in the United States (especially in the Epee discipline), a shift is necessary to accommodate the demand while also remaining fair and competitive.

Given the lack of referees and tournament space, it’s impractical to mirror the two-day system of international events unless we ultimately transition to weapon-specific NAC’s. It’s also unsustainable and grueling to continue with the two pool/two rounds of elimination format, which results in regular injury/cramping.

Instead, the approach to bifurcate the senior division will help to somewhat model the French competitive system and increase the level of competitiveness.

Team Events More Frequently

Team events are the single most important part of Olympic qualification. Yet under our current competitive structure, we hold team events at Junior Olympics and Nationals. It is understandable why this is: team events take an hour per round and require multiple referees per bout and multiple strips. When individual events take as long as they do (14+ hours sometimes), it is difficult to fathom how implementing this would be possible when NAC’s are crammed into four days.

As USA Fencing’s infrastructure scales up, we must consider ways to make team events a bigger part of our competitive DNA. Doing this would help build team tactics at all levels and allow for trial by fire in real life competitive situations and conceivably better prepare our athletes for Olympic qualification.

Ratings Degradation

The biggest hot take I will present among these solutions is the prospect of a faster rating degradation in Epee than the four-year window that currently exists.

In theory, ratings are supposed to be a relative indicator of fencer skill, and in Foil and Sabre where the results are more consistent, they fulfill that objective.

In Epee, however, there are a significantly larger % of A and B fencers compared to the right of way weapons, mostly due to the predictable inconsistency that is inherent to the weapon.

As one friend aptly put it: “In Foil and Sabre, it means a lot if you have your A. In Epee, it means a lot if you don’t have it.”

If we were to implement a 2-year decay, the distribution in Epee looks significantly better and a more accurate indicator of skill at a given point in time.

Ratings decay would also help to strengthen Division II and Division III into more competitively viable divisions and buttress the regional and local levels more. At the minimum, it is worth a discussion.

Continuing and Evolving the Data & Analytics Program

To my knowledge, the only national team that employs a full-time resource in data and analytics are the Japanese. This was a position that could have been a full-time job for me. There is a lot of rigor that goes into film analysis, scouting reports, and being on call during events to rapidly relay information to coaches and athletes.

Because this was not a full-time position, there were numerous times that athletes would approach me and say: “Hey, I’m fencing this random guy tomorrow outside of the top 30. Do you have any data on him?” And the answer was always “no.” Knowledge is power, and if we want to continue getting athletes up to date, relevant information in the field, this is a position that sport performance must consider creating.

The program has a chance to evolve too. As mentioned previously, much of my documentation began in Excel before moving to Dartfish. And while Dartfish created a ton of efficiencies, it was still a manual process to tag actions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) requires training and upstart costs and time. If we can get to a point where this process becomes more automated, it may streamline the process that a full-time resource would not be needed.

Further, preparation was not quantified as part of my analytics because of the sheer manual effort in doing so. Documenting fields such as:

• Front foot movements per attack
• How often the prep happens au fer
• How often the prep is occurring with the tip
• Preferred distance to attack

Might help to build a more complete profile of a fencer than what the LEF includes.

Where do we go from Here?

The status quo in American Epee fencing is unsustainable. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. We are, by that definition, insane. In a community that historically resists change and finds comfort in predictability, there’s a desperate need to step back, look in the mirror, and acknowledge the need for major structural and pedagogical shifts to elevate our Epee fencers to the level of our right-of-way weapons.  

While implementing all the suggestions outlined may be impractical and unrealistic due to financial and logistical constraints, continuing down the current path without change will only hold us back from achieving the success we deserve.  

Beyond the structural solutions proposed, a pedagogical shift is equally, if not more, important. Our over-reliance on hand actions, responsive defensive actions (RDAs), and entering the ‘Krieg’ (final phase of the attack) with a full advance (and sometimes a flick with immediate continuation) is an antiquated tactical approach that will continue to hinder us at higher levels of competition, outside the NAC circuit.  

Furthermore, addressing the massive attrition issue, where many elite fencers quit after college, is crucial. We must find more enticing pathways to keep these athletes involved in the sport. This could include providing more post-college training opportunities, creating mentorship programs, or offering incentives for continued participation.  

The American Epee revolution will come. By embracing change, adopting innovative solutions, and fostering a new mindset, we can get out of our decades long hole. I genuinely believe the sun will soon rise for American Epee. But goddammit, sometimes the night is darkest before the dawn.

---

[1] https://www.faulkner.edu/news/6-ways-sports-psychology-can-improve-athletic-performance/