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

[grotto]

Which do you think provides a beginning fencer the better experience and tools to become competitive.

Traditional-- Foil first with emphisis on traditional 4,6,7,8 hand positions only after learning this is a competition weapon selected.

Specialist-- Pick a weapon and begin with that as the entire scope of training.

A-la-carte-- Allow beginner to sample all weapons during lesson (e.g. Epee this week Sabre next week etc.)

Athletic-- Foil first but with more emphisis bouting and "getting the touch" rather than form. (e.g. proper leg work, hand position, etc.)

Other-- I know there is infinite variety what's yours.

[dunastor]

I hold the believe that the traditionalist way forms the best basis for one's fencing carriere.

Myself I started with a short course in epee (the main cq only weapon practised in our (students)club) after which I chose to practise sabre fencing, which i train specifically at from then on...

I can't help but think what could've been with a traditionalist training...
although I guess specialist wouldn't hurt either.

[ShadowHuntr]

i think that everything should branch out from foil. i could be wrong, but the way i see it unless you ONLY do sabre and only sabre foil will help. in a way, foil is a combination of epee and saber. Foil you pretty much got to be rounded in every aspect of your game, or atleast have so familarity with it. If you start out doing only epee, you arent going to have as good of judge towards VALID target. If you start sabre you have clue about point control. That is my reasoning behind it. anyone want to rebuke?

[DangerMouse]

I believe that it really doesn't matter which weapon you start with. Let the student choose. After all, in a sport where you can't make a living, it should be fun! Starting beginners with foil in a primarily epee or saber club won't be as much fun or as instructive. It all depends on the club, the coach, and the student

[bynadutch]

I think that a traditionalist method is best for beginners, teaching the basic movement and attack and defence positions is easiest with the foil, there are fewer target areas to worry about, but I also believe that al a carte is nice too, it gives everyone a chance to choose their Specialization by trying out all the different weapons in a structured atmosphere of training (usually )
I help teach the beginning and intermediate course at the local university, and we start off everyone with the traditional.
Of course in the University Fencing Club they seem to go with the 'specialization' but nearly everyone who is in club came out of my class.
*shrug*
I guess I am other... but I feel Traditionalist is most important.

[vegan]

Hi,
So, my old coach used to think that sabre was the way to start kids- because the learn to move the feet fast and correct- and then don't have to worry about the point (depressing the buttton), but the distance is about the same as epee (because the arms are target) and the timing and right of way transfers to foil pretty well.
He also thought that older then about 16 should all start with epee (it was a strong epee club- with some sabre and foil), as its goal is just to hit first (tell a batch of 16 year old athletes about right of way- it doesn't really go over all that well!).
In the high school where I coach now, we start people from all three weapons (specialist approach); but then some of our varsity people get forced to fence other weapons from time to time (foil only comps, for instance) which leads to a lot of confusion.
Cheers,
B.

[westcoastsabre]

If the fencer is certain that he will fence a specific weapon, then I would agree with the specialit approach. However, if the fencer may switch from one weapon to another, then I think that the traditional approach is best.

[RebelFencer]

I would say that the Traditionalist approach is best. Even though I am a foilist so I'm a bit biased, it just translates so well to the other weapons. I'm a good Epeeist...at least I like to think I am ...and I almost never practice, foil just helps out with all weapons. I'm even halfway decent with Sabre, even though I only fence it to help my footwork. But I'm not a coach, so what do I know?

[sabreur]

I like the idea of starting with a particular weapon--I started with sabre and don't think it hurt my game at all.

At the same time, I think a classic approach that stresses good footwork coordinated with good handwork is the best way to teach any weapon.

Also, following Fencing and the Master , I think it is often best (and most efficient) to teach beginners in group lessons/drills, rather than moving straight to one-on-one lessons with a coach/maestro.

Regards, MR

[rory]

I'm going to go with a hyper-traditionalist approach, which seems to work admirably for the Hungarians, French et al.

Start them young, eg 7 or 8 - but not with real fencing. Just games, stretching, coordination, and footwork. For about two years. Lots of running about, playing tag, doing handstands - general athletic play.

Once they get to about 9 or ten, let them start with foil, mainly in group lessons. After another amount of time (a year?) you let them pick a weapon and start with individual lessons.

And concentrate on the feet at all times.

[Inquartata]

I can't really vote, because the question implies that there is one approach which works best with all beginners. But each beginner is different.

I, for example, chafed dreadfully under the foil-first method, and if I were just starting out today I would not abide it, I'd find another coach who would let me do sabre from the outset, as I always knew that's what I wanted to fence. At the same time, I recognize that others might derive a real benefit from any of the other methods. So I think you have to tailor the method to the new fencer's needs and wishes, not try to hammer them all into the same round hole.

I realize it's easier for a coach to homogenize his teaching style. But easiest is not always best.

[veeco]

I am surprised there are so few votes for a-la-carte. I think the best method to introduce someone to fencing is to let them try all weapons over the course of year, and then let them choose.

It is also possible to use one specific weapon to introduce specific technical points that "make more sense" in one weapon than for the other.

It should also alleviate the drop out rate as people won't be doing always the same things, thus making the initial technical learning not as boring as it is when learning only one weapon.

[Grey]

Perhaps "traditional" for a short period of time before "a-la-carte" would make a good balance? At least enough to drill the fundamental basics in?

[veeco]

Why is it necessary to have a traditional teaching method to "drill the fundamental basics in?"

Most modern pedagogic treaties emphasize the "learning experience" as much as the repetition and mindless learning. Someone will learn the fundamental basics easier and faster if you carefully guide them into discovering them on their own rather than just telling them that that's the way it's being done, not giving any reason why, and have them repeat endless series of moves.

Of course, this approach requires more work on the coach's side, so perhaps it is easier for the coach to just follow what has been done forever, that is "line up the students, and have them do lunges and extension and parries for 1 hour every day".

[germanguy]

.....

[DanInMI]

Somewhere between "traditional" and "athletic." The aspect of "traditional" coaching that I don't care for is the practice of not allowing beginner students to actually bout until they have spent weeks doing drills.

I know that it is possible that if they begin bouting early that they can develop some bad habits to iron out. But that is preferable to having NO bad habits to work out because they didn't have any fun and didn't come back.

Little Brazillian kids don't become such great soccer players because they do drills, they become great soccer players because they love the game and play as much as they can.

Don't get me wrong, drills have thier place, but first make them love the game and they will be all the more motivated to do the drills.

[Chris]

Which do you think provides a beginning fencer the better experience and tools to become competitive.

Traditional-- Foil first with emphisis on traditional 4,6,7,8 hand positions only after learning this is a competition weapon selected.

Specialist-- Pick a weapon and begin with that as the entire scope of training.

A-la-carte-- Allow beginner to sample all weapons during lesson (e.g. Epee this week Sabre next week etc.)

Athletic-- Foil first but with more emphisis bouting and "getting the touch" rather than form. (e.g. proper leg work, hand position, etc.)

Other-- I know there is infinite variety what's yours.

Well, one must remember your question put the emphasis on 'to become competitive', so that really should kind of skew the answers right there.
(even though there IS a lot of room for opinion on what 'competitive' is...)

In general, I am inclined to recommend a traditional approach, ramping to a moderately quick competitive debut (after say ~50 hours; 100 at most), followed by phases of sampling*/reevaluation after 100-200 hours.

Too much training can lead to unrealistic expectations when first competing, which can be demotivating.

* (Sample different handles as well as weapons.)

I think a couple important things to consider (that are sometimes overlooked) are actually 3 more situation-specific issues of

A. what sort of person a student might be, and whether their personality might factor into what they can more easily learn, and do, as well as how they might more easily learn, and do it;

B. What sort of coaching/teaching situation exists for them; what does coach have to offer?

C. What sort of competitive environment/talent pool they are looking at operating in: e.g. If there's really no one fencing sabre in your division, you might do better to compete in foil as well.

Since I appear to be advocating the 'athletic' approach, let me clarify:

A. I feel that in the training, and instruction, form should be demonstrated, and discussed, however, it should also be remembered that the purpose of form is to make you more effective, NOT to conform to some fantastic idea of what someone thinks it should look like!

B. Many of the beginners I have seen in my day have worried about form so much, for so long, they have trained themselves to be slow! They looked nice, especially when I hit them!

If some element of 'form' can not be shown to affect effectiveness one way or the other, then it should be ignored, accordingly.

Unless there is some solid reason for someone to start in sabre, or epee, I nudge them towards foil first; I think it's really easier to

A. start with a weapon that has priority, and ignore it later, even if it DIDN'T confuse you; and

B. Start with a point weapon and go to edge, rather than starting with edge, and THEN try to learn to use the point.

Once they have a foundation, some sampling is appropriate, even IF they really intend to stick with just foil - it can really be an eye opener!

Have Fun!

[jBirch]

Veeco,

I've tried the specialist route after letting them pick a la carte and it didn't work for anything but foil. There always seems to be holes in their game if you start in the other two weapons that don't appear when you start em in foil. Maybe it's my coaching, but it seems too consistent across the province. Those kids that start with foil tend to be the ones that rise to the top in the other weapons too. The problem with specialist most manifests itself when the student changes weapons or encounters an opponent who does something different/advanced.

For example, I find that epeeists have a hard time acting without some preparation on the blade, be it beat, prise de fer or whatever. They also judge their distance by the nearest target, in this case, the forearm. If you take those away from them, by fencing in absence for instance, then their whole notion of distance and tactics goes right out the window. Further, epee footwork tends to be trained as high and slow, in order to guard the knee, thigh and pinky toe. The situations where a good long low lunge is needed is something that they only encounter in drills, and forget about when they get on the piste until later on in their career. Then they have to untrain a bunch of bad habits.

Sabreurs have exactly the opposite problem. Forget about preparations on the blade, just move into range first and attack. If you miss, parry and attack again. Fine in situations where your opponent isn't changing distance on you, but problematic when you need to set them up for a stop cut. And forget about teaching remises. What a waste of time those are. Until, of course, some epee convert forgets that sabre is a ROW weapon and remises until there's only one light. Further, sabre parries teach one to parry wide and hard and pretty much to eschew the point. Disengages tend to be applied only at the higher levels, not at the lower ones, even if they are taught and drilled early. It's one of the reasons why sabre thrusts can be so effective.

Foilist beginners just seem to have a better starting point. Competition seems to ingrain better habits then competing in the other weapons and the habits that are learned usually add an advantage to fencing the other two.

To further add ire to the fire, in Alberta it's really hard to find clubs specialising in sabre or epee as their starting weapon. That means that kids that start in them have no one to fence against until much later in their career. The lack of competitive challenge (or over abundance of it if they fence the higher age groups) leads to significant disadvantage. In some of our competitions, we find that we can do a U11 group for foil and need to go with U15 for epee and usually open for sabre. How fair is that to an 11 year old who wants to learn to fence?

At any rate, when the student is at the point of learning flicks, teach them sabre. When the student is at the point of learning stop hits, teach them epee. When the student is just learning, teach them foil. Seems to produce the best fencers.

Just my two cents.

Take it easy.

[The0ne]

as DaninMI said, a mix between traditional and athletic is best. Really, really work the legs, tons of footwork and strength training etc. But when you work with the blade make sure your students don't pick up bad parries like the massive circle 6 that covers everything, and therefore becomes the only parry a fencer uses. So I would say athletic with the legs, traditional with the arm.

[Chris]

Veeco,

I've tried the specialist route after letting them pick a la carte and it didn't work for anything but foil. There always seems to be holes in their game if you start in the other two weapons that don't appear when you start em in foil.

Some people get holes in their game, no matter what you do!

Sabreurs have exactly the opposite problem. Forget about preparations on the blade, just move into range first and attack. If you miss, parry and attack again.

How is that any different from foil?

To further add ire to the fire, in Alberta it's really hard to find clubs specialising in sabre or epee as their starting weapon. That means that kids that start in them have no one to fence against until much later in their career. The lack of competitive challenge (or over abundance of it if they fence the higher age groups) leads to significant disadvantage. In some of our competitions, we find that we can do a U11 group for foil and need to go with U15 for epee and usually open for sabre. How fair is that to an 11 year old who wants to learn to fence?

Seriously, sorry to here that, I know it's tough to deal with a situation like that!