Article and image credited to Victoire Morier
For many years, fencing was the purview of the few in Singapore, a high-cost elite sport that entailed a Kevlar suit, specialized blades, an understanding of chivalry (showing good sportsmanship is still part of the rules), and more often than not , deep pockets.
As such, the mention of fencing might invoke the idea of wealthy elites in Singapore, and not necessarily equal opportunity.
Recently, though, there has been a push to introduce the sport to more people through a variety of channels, rather than just solely private schools, in order to create equal opportunity.
So, is there even the slightest chance fencing can become an egalitarian sport?
Theoretically speaking, it can. The moment knowledge of basic fencing footwork and blade work is disseminated outside of private schools, the sport has become egalitarian and accessible.
But what about in reality?
Truth is, fencing is a lot more complicated than just combining footwork and blade work. Mental agility, an in-depth knowledge of chess strategies and understanding of the human psyche is also needed.
For instance, some fencers would “give points away” at the start of the bout in order to read their opponent and adapt to their fencing habits. Others would adapt fencing strategies according to what their opponent is doing on the piste.
On top of all that, the physical movements of fencing are counterintuitive in nature.
None of those factors listed above can be mastered quickly. There’s a reason why fencing is considered a sport that can be learned relatively quickly but is hard to master, so practitioners must be willing to put in the effort and hours.
In a nutshell, fencing can be considered an egalitarian sport. The caveat is that it takes time to master, and support is needed during that time. To make use of that time as effectively as possible as well, it’s also best if practitioners start as early as possible.
