In fencing in any period, guard positions are a combination of the body position and the blade position adopted by a fencer as the basis for offense and defense. At the beginning of the classical period (1880-1939 CE), the two main fencing schools (the French and the Italian) had adopted standard guard positions. The French school taught a system of eight guards and the Italian of four guards. These guards served as the basis for engagement, parries, and invitations, the three key categories of blade action.

In foil fencing in the classical period, some fencers, at least in the French school, chose to employ a Middle Guard. For example, the Portuguese fencing master Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins (1895) portrays the Middle Guard with the arm of the weapon moved through the fencer’s torso to a central position as seen by the opponent. The weapon guard (bell) is equidistant from the top and bottom and right and left margins of the target. The blade is usually parallel to the fencing line (the line formed by the heel of the rear foot, the heel of the front foot, the front toe, and the opponent) with the toe raised to aim at the opponent’s target at the height of shoulders. The aluminum grip is held in the hand of the weapon in a thumb-up position.

Pinto Martins claims that this guard is brought out of lunge distance to allow the fencer to study the opponent while positioned to react to any surprises. To get closer to throwing distance, the shooter takes a small step forward, passing the blade under the opponent’s blade and closing the line laterally with a hook. This is essentially a squeeze, a movement that draws the opponent’s sword through the target.

The apparent advantages of the Middle Guard were significant and, upon initial consideration, appear to be compelling:

• The center position means that the shooter adopting the Middle Guard can respond to all four lines (outside high, inside high, inside low and outside low) when a threat is presented on any of those lines.

• Because the sheet is positioned in the center, the response to each line is theoretically equally fast.

• As a result, the fencer’s weapon provides the same degree of protection on each line.

However, the advantages of the Middle Guard are outweighed by their disadvantages, leading to their eventual abandonment of this tactical position:

• The Middle Guard does not close a single line: 100 percent of the target has some degree of vulnerability. Closing a line in the guard position protects 25 percent of the target with only minimal requirements for blade position adjustment. Furthermore, closing a line in a guard position complicates the opponent’s tactical problem as it eliminates the opportunity to threaten that line. This forces the opponent to attack on a different line or to make an effort in preparation to open the closed line.

• As a result, if the shooter is suddenly and unexpectedly at medium distance (lunge), the openings in all four lines greatly complicate the defense problem.

• The step required forward with the contraction to close the line as the distance decreases becomes a predictable action. With this comes increased vulnerability.

The Middle Guard represents one of the many variations in guard positions found during the history of the classical period. In the hands of a fencer experienced in its use, it could well have been an effective tool to deny an opponent information about the eventual confrontation until the distance was closed. However, their vulnerability eventually turned the Middle Guard into an evolutionary dead end as they increased the speed and mobility of footwork and the ability of opponents to quickly close the gap.