Which type of Coaching is the "best" for a beginner

[jBirch]

Wow, resurrecting an old thread is pretty interesting.

I've got some additional information to add to the mix. I started out saying that Traditional works best and I'm not sure I'm still of that opinion for the same reasons. Last year, I started a number of young kids on sabre as their first weapon. Mostly as an experiment, but also because the club got a grant to specifically improve sabre.

Interesting results:

First, the club is an epee club, starting beginners with epees and moving from there. With the beginners that were more interested in the social aspect, they tried sabre for a class or two then decided that epee was for them. The kids that got into sabre, developed an elitist attitude and thumbed their noses at "those silly thrusters".

In the sabre class we did a lot of footwork for class 1 & 2, did bladework for class 3 and then footwork, bladework and bouting therafter. What I found was that the kids would trade spots as winners each week with the winners from the week before being intelligently countered by the runners-up. The kids that consistently finished at the bottom of the group, started working harder and finishing better. Winning as motivation seemed to work.

The kids that went to competitions improved dramitically faster then their peers and were more keen on practicing the basics. The ones that went to the most competitions actually ended up being "cooler", scouted by olympic calibre coaches and generally received more positive feedback. They strike me as impassioned about fencing now.

Switching them to epee or foil as an experiment resulted in them being clueless, frustrated and longing for an edge.

They seemed to express the same interest in fencing as a totatility as any other beginner.

Hope this helps.

James.

[oso97]

And continuing this interesting discussion and wandering slightly afield (who EVER said that all threadjack was bad?)

I can see how a system focusing on defense first, last, and everything in between would not only lead to a different focus, but is totally at odds with the direction sport fencing is heading. I agree, the emphasis is totally on "get the touch." Defensive actions are taught and utlized in the context of offense. The concept of Taking Over The Attack is definitely something that flows from the offensively minded perspective.

As I tell my students, a parry with out a riposte pretty much useless, unless it serves some tactical intent (and it often can, if done properly).

Definitely though, those of us that follow the sport path are obligated to follow the changes and variations on the rules. But, for myself, I try to see these changes as opportunities. Okay, so the lockout rules for sabre are now favoring a fast remise over a correctly executed, yet slow riposte. Many people have complained about this (and I don't remember whom in this discussion said that the remise is useless in sabre, but they are totally off their rocker in that respect) and I don't want to rehash those arguments here, but...

I've found this one change opened up a completely new set of tactical options, with false attacks, and countertime actions, and all sorts of really neat things with timing and second intention parries... And they're being utlized by some of my really new fencers who have just started bouting.

Okay, now to come full circle and get back to the initial discussions, sport fencing is constantly evolving. That is the nature of the system. Successful fencers (and clubs) are going to be those who can recognize and adapt to the changes, in the most creative, skillful and rapid manner. So, starting beginners out with a system where they are constantly being challenged to think and develop is going to lead to more successful results.

Its STILL physical chess, but of a different nature. You can't just focus on how to get the touch being fenced right now, but how what you do in this action is going to set up the next two, three or even four actions.

Now, that being said, I don't hold up competitive success as the be-all and end-all of what makes fencing enjoyable. As my promotional material states, "Get into shape with fencing! The timeless sport of fencing develops physical fitness, critical thinking skills, independence and self-reliance but most importantly, is a fun-filled pursuit that can be enjoyed by people of all ages!"

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Why pick one? If you choose to teach purely classical, and exclude everything from outside, just for the sake of being classical, then you are too closed minded. A narrow approach works for a narrow variety of people, and the best way to teach is the best way that the student will learn. Choosing a single method of teaching is as stupid as choosing a fencing style, and then excluding everything that does not conform to said style.

[VELISARIOS]

Traditional. It takes more time but it is better way.

[Tiwaz]

You don't coach beginers you teach them.

[oso97]

You don't coach beginers you teach them.

The correllary to this rediculous statement being, "you don't teach competitors, you coach them?" If you'll pardon my bluntness, what a load of bull...

Coaching and teaching are not two ends of a spectrum. They are tightly interwoven, overlapping modalities that it is often fairly difficult to figure out where one ends and the other begins.

At the most basic, fundemental level, (and with respect to our sport), teaching is about presenting information. Coaching is about applications of that information. For example, how to move the foot and hand together to perform an advance-lunge would be teaching. Getting the student to perform that action after an opponents attack falls short would be coaching. Presenting the student with information on hydration and nutrition would be teaching. Showing the student how to use that information to increase performance at the salle or in competition would be coaching.

But such distinctions are arbitrary, meaningless and without any fundemental use to a fencing instructor (coach, maitre, master, whatever term you wish to use). The very basis and essence of our sport is about the precise application of a techincal action in the proper context and time. It is critical that students learn, appreciate and practice this duality from the very beginning. Even the most hidebound of traditionalists recognize this truth and form their instruction around it.

One may teach beginners and competitors different things, but that doesn't mean one is teaching one and not the other. One may coach beginners and competitors on different aspects, but that doesn't mean one is coaching one and not the other.

The term "coaching" could also cover instruction in ethics, sports psychology, nutrition, general physical fitness, historical aspects, "life skills" and a veritable host of other concepts that good purveyors of fencing knoweldge attempt to pass on their students.

And note, if you will, it's the United States Fencing Coaches Association and the USFA Coaches College.

[cfaustus]

Ok, being a 'hide bound traditionalist', I must respectfully disagree. Or perhaps, more correctly, posit a different semantical view.

Personally, the things you discuss as being coaching vs teaching, I mostly just lump under instructing. It is the job of an instructor to teach the fundamentals AND develop their application in the student. This is all part of the classical Trivium (see: http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...ost151607.html) As a professor I teach my students fundamentals and their application. I don't think any other professor I know considers this 'coaching'.

Coaching to me is a more narrow endeavor. A Coach teaches athletes to win a competition. In other words, a coach is concerned with turning out Champions. As such, depending on the vagaries of the sport, a coach will teach only "high percentage" actions and their application - but the high percentage is calculated on the scale of scoring the most hits, which as I mentioned above, is not the traditional focus of fencing. Coaching effects the training of fundamentals as well as their application. To remain true to the original topic of this thread, I think that a good Coach now a days would choose the a la carte method of instruction.

In my mind, an Instructor is more concerned with the subject, and the students. A fencing instructor may also coach, but that is only a limited focus of their position. An instructor of fencing wants all of his or her students to succeed. Success, however, is then not limited to winning. In fencing it can be something more. For instance, fencing can teach one a great deal about dealing with conflict, politics, discipline, ego, character, etc, etc. For the most part, these are only peripheral to a coaches goal... they will only be tapped in so far as they help achieve the goal of a developed champion. An instructor works with all of these, with every student, all the time. Again, focusing on the topic of this thread, an instructor is more likely to chose the traditional approach.

And what of the Champion who has passed their prime. What good is a Coach (by my definition) then? This question is of course rhetorical hyperbole. I think there are a great number of "Coaches" out there (in BOTH SF and TF) who are doing so much more than coaching. To call them "Coach" is actually an insult to their work.

And personally, even though I am certified by the USFCA, I hate that they use the word 'Coach', however, it does reflect the true nature of their focus. Consider instead the IMAF (International Master at Arms Federation) - http://www.scherma-tradizionale.org/ or even the AAI which uses neither moniker.

[oso97]

In my mind, an Instructor is more concerned with the subject, and the students. A fencing instructor may also coach, but that is only a limited focus of their position. An instructor of fencing wants all of his or her students to succeed. Success, however, is then not limited to winning. In fencing it can be something more. For instance, fencing can teach one a great deal about dealing with conflict, politics, discipline, ego, character, etc, etc. For the most part, these are only peripheral to a coaches goal... they will only be tapped in so far as they help achieve the goal of a developed champion. An instructor works with all of these, with every student, all the time. Again, focusing on the topic of this thread, an instructor is more likely to chose the traditional approach.

You say tomato, I say tomatoe...

According to your standard, I would consider myself a Fencing "Instructor." According to my own, I'm a "Coach" (According to the USFCA, I'm something else, and by USFA Coaches College something different - the specifics of education and accreditation are a different topic entirely). However, as I've pointed out, I use fencing to teach the aspects of personal development and physical fitness that you just mentioned, and do my best to prepare students for whatever they are driven to do with the skills that I teach them. Weather that is to attempt to compete at a high level or personal development as a person of good character or have fun in training at the salle.

What weapon I chose to instruct my students has absolutely no bearing on this.

[slain4sooth]

at the outset, (at advance-lunge distance or greater), the respective ability of opponents to move economically will dictate whether the beginning of the phrase will also be the end of the phrase. i've become of the opinion that foil is valuable not quite for its purport of allowing only the targets most likely to be lethal, (because that consideration is sort of obsolete), but because the restricted targets occupy fewer degrees of an arc, and perhaps in effect, the target can actually be viewed as a dimensionless point on the line of attack. this model is useful to optimize economy of motion.

the additional degrees of freedom in sabre and epee might be crucial considerations in a real combat situation, but i think that to present a novice immediately with with either edged attacks --all of which must take place at such a distance that the opportunity for a point attack has already been lost, or with fairly mobile arm targets, or the full body target, will lead to tactically unsound conceptualizations.

incidentally, the first time i tried sabre, the coach, (a sabre specialist), was so unready for good point attacks that it just wasn't funny....

[oso97]

the additional degrees of freedom in sabre and epee might be crucial considerations in a real combat situation, but i think that to present a novice immediately with with either edged attacks --all of which must take place at such a distance that the opportunity for a point attack has already been lost, or with fairly mobile arm targets, or the full body target, will lead to tactically unsound conceptualizations.

Define a "tactically unsound conceptualization"?

Sabre and Epee fencing are loaded with tactical concepts. Attack-in-preparation, Counter-time, Fient-in-time ... sabre fencers in particular live in the highly tactical side of the wheel. Epeeists use counterattacks and fient-in-time actions along with opposition and prise-de-fer all the time. Both are a far cry from the "march down the strip and try to whip your blade over your opponents head" and "contort my body to prevent your point from registering" tactics of foil.

[slain4sooth]

(except that sabre hasn't got a real touch )

> "march down the strip and try to whip your blade over your opponents
> head"

well, i never liked flicking...

> Define a "tactically unsound conceptualization"?

... admittedly, I should probably have said 'strategically unsound'.

i see foil as a game based on the first, best opportunities, which historically makes perfect sense. i agree that typical foil tactics make no sense in certain situations, which points to the fact that foil rules had to no small extent been informed by dogma --circumstances just have a way of deviating progressively further, as we continue to observe them, from the controlled ones that we know how to predict.

all the same, foil rules represent the most definitive effort to prioritize fencing actions such that one could logically always take, if not the first, best opportunty, then the next best opportunity; a fairly effective way to sort rules from exceptions with respect to efficacy. unfortunately for some critically-minded fencers, foil might be said to ignore important 'exceptions', but that's a hazard of any system whatsoever.

of the two following options, which would you rather tell a beginner?

1. 'here are the most efficient attacks we have; show a preference for them; always show a preference for the 'staightest line', so to speak.'

2. 'anything can happen.'

we may be on different 'wavelengths' here... things like attack-in-prep. and second-intention counter-counterattacks are discretionary.

[Inquartata]

#2, of course. What's more boring than "efficiency"?

Another difference between the way foilists and sabre fencers view the world, I guess.

[Linkthealmighty]

When I started I was told one year of foil and then see what you want to move to. Now, at college in the middle of nowhere, I'll take whatever kind of coaching I can get

[slain4sooth]

... agree to disagree... i should like to see a bout, preferably recorded in video, that exemplifies the conflict of game theory vs. intuition

[HilandDoug]

Sabreur has made some great comments, especially in his first post to this string. I also like the line above, "teaching is about presenting information. Coaching is about applications of that information." Very true.

I've been teaching beginners for 20 years now, and have found the traditional group lesson to be quite successful. I'm not saying its the best, just that I've had a lot of success with it. It allows me to transfer my enthusiasm for the sport to a large group via group lessons. If a student wants more attention, I refer him or her to a better coach than myself (and there are many in South-eastern Michigan/Detroit area), and they do quite well. There are many competitive fencers in this area that began in my beginner class that I referred to another coach or club. While I don't take credit for their success, I feel I might be able to take credit for keeping their enthusiasm level high during their "formative" fencing years.

BTW, just began my largest classes in my coaching carreer. 35 Beginner students, 31 Advanced-beginners!

Cheers,

Doug