1912 Olympic Games Official Report Part 2

minative of the proper carrying out of competitions in the branch ofsport in question, and also of its healthy development.It need hardly be said that the drafting of the said rules involvedno very little labour; and the difficulties met with in giving definiteform to the various details of an international competition so comprehensiveas the one now in question, became still greater as, on theone hand, it was necessary to endeavour to bring into agreement thediscordant principles existing between various schools and nations,and, at the same time, to pay due consideration to the peculiaritiesand demands distinguishing their conflicting views. A short accountof some of the details of the task of drawing up the rules will,therefore, probably not be altogether without interest.The first question that came to the fore was that of the amateurdefinition. With a knowledge of the difficulties to which this questionhad given rise within Sweden alone, the problem was solved in theonly possible practical way by stating the rule as follows: that anyonewho was an amateur according to the rules of his own country wouldbe recognized as such; the Olympic Committees of the respective nations,however, were made responsible for the validity of the statementsin this regard made by their competitors for the fencing competitions.The satisfactory formulation of some of the rules of the competitionwas a far more intricate matter. One might think that, consideringthe long time the art of fencing has taken to develop itsprinciples, these rules now ought to be such as are accepted everywhere,but this is by no means the case. The fully justifiable, butsomewhat brutal appearance in the field, of épée fencing, with itsattempts to undervalue and supplant the more classic art of foil-fencing,has given birth to quite a number of new points of view respectingthe holding and judging of fencing competitions — pointsof view which have not obtained general adoption as yet, and whichcannot be considered as being altogether correct.The desire that competitions and the regulations governing themshould remain as constant as possible, and should not be altered beforefresh conditions make such a step absolutely necessary, is quite anatural one. While warmly acknowledging the merits of the Englishfencing rules and regulations for the Olympic Games of London in 1908,and the assistance they have been in drawing up those for the Swedishcompetitions of 1912, it must be stated that there were some rules,one, at least, of which was considered as being incorrect in principle, whileothers dealt with questions which had come to a head since 1908, andnow required to be formulated anew to be able to obtain legitimacy.Fencing with foils had been eliminated from the English programme,and had been replaced in London with a display (in contrast to whathad been the case at the Games of Athens, in 1906); this step wasexplained in the English Official Report of the Games of 1908 bythe statement that fencing with foils is not a form of athletic sportsuitable for competitions. The Swedish Committee, however, couldby no means share this view, and allowed fencing with foils to456