How many coaches are too many?

[fencerontheline]

Many fencers are coached by more than one coach. Sometimes this breeds better results, as one coach will have insights that the other(s) do not, and sometimes the fencer will recieve conflicting messages from different coaches. soooooo.......

In your opinion- For a competitive fencer, how many coaches are too many coaches? Please explain why.



P.S. Asking questions like this... I feel like I'm back in high school... except it's a fencing themed school, and I'm the teacher asking essay questions this time....

[oiuyt]

Depends on the fencer and depends on the coaches. And is likely to change over time.

How much hotsauce should I add to my chili? Depends on the sauce, depends on the eater of the chili, there IS no "right" answer that will work in all situations.

-B :)

[noodle]

indeed, it totally depends on the situation.

on a separate note, if you feel you have too many coaches, feel free to send me one or two

[Julie]

It's certainly possible to have more than one coach and make it work, but I agree that it depends upon the fencer and the coaches.

In general it works best with a few ground rules: (1) all parties involved must know and approve of the situation. Sneaking behind the back of a coach to take lessons from another is not cool. (2) There should be no confusion about who is to strip coach at major tournaments and who gets listed as coach during any awards ceremony. (3) Students shouldn't use the instructions of one coach to argue with the methods of another, accept what you get from each as valuable in its own right. (4) The coaches (since they have willingly accepted sharing the student) should not pressure their students to think of their other coach as "wrong" and themselves as "right".

I know this is all obvious, but sometimes people forget the obvious.

[jBirch]

I have to disagree.

Two coaches is a recipe for disaster.

1 coach and many sub-coaches works. 1 Coach and no sub-coaches works too. For a competitive fencer, getting into the groove, stick with one coach, or an "approved" other coach. I've seen good competitive fencers spend a lot of time confused about how to hold a weapon since two different high level coaches have given them conflicting information. It's not that one way is superior, but that a coach has a system and certain techniques are emphasised within that system.

Getting information from outside that system, while good for general knowledge, doesn't help for competition. It takes a while to synthasise new info and ramping up for competition is not the time to do it. It is, however, valuable to spend time with another coach later on in your career. It must be emphasised that you must spend time *entirely* with that other coach, and you must spend enough time to really understand what they are trying to teach you. Bouncing between coaches or getting two different systems simulatenously is not smart, IMHO.

Hope this helps.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I have to disagree.

Two coaches is a recipe for disaster.

I will have to disagree with you. My club not here at school is run by two co-coaches whom compliment each other very, very well. I don't think I'd even be half the fencer I am with only one of the pair coaching me.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Its not about which one is too many, but if they collide. If there are two coaches you can learn from, and their ideas clash, then pick one. If their ideas work in harmony, then take both. Its not a question of numbers.

[glowstix]

hey, at least you have CHOICES!!! i'd say to go with the one you connect with better or whose teaching style fits you better. in time you should realize which one is better...but for now, take advantage of the fact that you have more than one!!

[ripits]

If you have two coaches, you must let them know. There is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is when you listen to both of them completely. You must take what you need to learn and what is most comfortable with you. If you do not want to do something they told you to do because you believe the other coache's way to do it is better, it is okay.

[Julie]

Ripits,
I didn’t mean you have to accept everything your coach(es) tell you wholeheartedly, after all there may be contradictions sometimes, just don’t throw one coach’s words in the face of the other if you want to keep healthy relationships with your coaches.

JBirch,
I can’t conceive of good coming from a “system” that is so specific learning outside of it is detrimental. After all, we’re all (hopefully) learning from our opponents, watching other fencers, trying stuff out, so how can there be much harm from extra coaching? But hey, to each his/her own, if it’s confusing for you, then stick to one. I personally have always had two coaches, not to mention taking clinics from other coaches as well, and have found every source of knowledge helpful.

[jBirch]

JBirch,
I can’t conceive of good coming from a “system” that is so specific learning outside of it is detrimental. After all, we’re all (hopefully) learning from our opponents, watching other fencers, trying stuff out, so how can there be much harm from extra coaching? But hey, to each his/her own, if it’s confusing for you, then stick to one. I personally have always had two coaches, not to mention taking clinics from other coaches as well, and have found every source of knowledge helpful.

Heya Julie,

Here's a number of real world questions that clarify a couple of points:

1) What position is your hand supposed to be in when holding an orthopedic foil? 3 o'clock? 2 o'clock? 12 o'clock?

2) When you cut to head in sabre, is your hand in front of your face or outside it?

3) Do you pronate your hand in quarte or not?

4) Are you up on your toe with the rear foot or flat on the ground?

5) Do you parry a flick to back or change the distance?

6) French grip or ortho grip in Epee?

7) When you parry quinte in sabre, is your parry parrallel or angled? Is your hand forward, or neutral, or back?

It's not that "learning outside it is detrimental" it's that one system does things in one way and another in a different way. Doing things differently breaks some of the basis of that system, though those things may be valid on their own, and may even form the core ideas of a completely different system.

Yes, to an extent, ideas are great in a fencing arsenal. So too are trained (coached) responses. Sure, it's great when both coaches are on the same page and in that light, all you are getting is different perspectives on the same program (the one coach, many sub-coaches scenario above). This is a great thing as one coaches communication may work for some concepts, while another's for other concepts. It's when you have conflicting and contrasting ideas (and, even worse, ideologies) that you have trouble. That's what I was trying to communicate. I would also like to mention the difference between coaches and seminar speakers. In the first, you are getting individual, tailored training, in the other, you are getting ideas. Obviously you want to stick with the first that are homogenous and the second that are hetrogeneous.

Just my opinion however.

Take it easy.

[Julie]

Point taken. I’ve certainly known coaches who agree with you, and for that reason they refuse to coach people taking lessons elsewhere, and I can respect that. Just not been something that’s come up for me, and I’ve seen plenty of people getting great benefit from having 2 or even more coaches, sometimes from completely different schools of thought.

[sabreur]

I train at two different clubs and take lessons from two different masters, with very different styles.

Makes for some complexity at times--remembering "this coach" wants a beat-extension with the front foot, while "that coach" wants the beat with the front foot and the extension with the back foot.

However, it helps my focus, body control and timing. In my mind, you should be able to coordinate footwork and handwork the way a dancer coordinates hand and foot movements--it raises the game substantially when you start being able to play with the coordination.

MR

[Inquartata]

Makes for some complexity at times--remembering "this coach" wants a beat-extension with the front foot, while "that coach" wants the beat with the front foot and the extension with the back foot.

The question would be: Does that apply only during lessons, or do you also have to think which to do in bouting? I'd think that even a tiny hesitancy would be fatal in sabre...

[oso97]

Here's a number of real world questions that clarify a couple of points:

1) What position is your hand supposed to be in when holding an orthopedic foil? 3 o'clock? 2 o'clock? 12 o'clock?

2) When you cut to head in sabre, is your hand in front of your face or outside it?

3) Do you pronate your hand in quarte or not?

4) Are you up on your toe with the rear foot or flat on the ground?

5) Do you parry a flick to back or change the distance?

6) French grip or ortho grip in Epee?

7) When you parry quinte in sabre, is your parry parrallel or angled? Is your hand forward, or neutral, or back?

Speaking as someone who has assisted in a number of situations as a sub-coach and has been working for a couple of years now building up his own students, I think the correct answer to basically all of those questions is either "depends on the tactical situation" or "what does the student feel comfortable doing." I actually think that beginning fencers are the ones who need consistency more than competive ones. Build up the muscle memory (while being flexible to what their muscles are comfortable doing), and then let them take it from there.

One experienced high level coach I used to work with would actually have me work occationally with some of his top level students, specifically because I have a different style from him and emphasize different things in a lesson. Part of training a competitor is to get them to be able to constantly adapt to different tactical conditions, right? Okay, sure, if you're teaching them "how to make a good parry 5" yes, thats a muscle memory thing, and that needs to be drilled until their hand gets it the way the coach wants it. But then there is no reason that the student can't learn a slightly different parry 5 and then try and figure out for when to use each one (either on his own or with the help of the coach).

Hand position on parry 5 in sabre can vary a lot depending on how its being used tactically. Are you stepping forward with it or retreating? Are you waiting for the final tropment of the blade or interrupting the attack? And which of those you do depends what your opponent is doing...

[sabreur]

The question would be: Does that apply only during lessons, or do you also have to think which to do in bouting? I'd think that even a tiny hesitancy would be fatal in sabre...

Of course I don't think that way when I'm bouting--but taking lessons that way gives you more patterns to work with (subconsciously) when you bout. You're not locked into one particular way of doing things.

As a minor experiment, fool around with retreating with the front foot moving first...and think about what options it might give you in a bout....

MR

[MikeHarm]

I saw a collision a few years back, one of the coaches visited a salle and saw his student training with another coach behind his back and got in his face about it gesturing and talking about her being his student and not his.

I noticed she stopped competing pretty soon after the ruckus and such.

[Inquartata]

Of course I don't think that way when I'm bouting

But are you sure? Not even subconsciously?

Learning multiple ways of doing the same actions would seem to me to be a way to instill indecision in a fencer.

As a minor experiment, fool around with retreating with the front foot moving first...and think about what options it might give you in a bout....

MR

That's different. Experimenting with different techniques is not the same things as training them into muscle memory or automatizing them...which seems to be what a lot of sabre coaches aim to do.

[sabreur]

But are you sure? Not even subconsciously?

Learning multiple ways of doing the same actions would seem to me to be a way to instill indecision in a fencer.




That's different. Experimenting with different techniques is not the same things as training them into muscle memory or automatizing them...which seems to be what a lot of sabre coaches aim to do.

You never do let go of something, do you?

My experience with two coaches is still only about four months old, and one of them is making me do a lot of things differently (shortening my lunge is the most significant). So I am, at age 46, going through that lovely stage of awkwardness that you always go through when you change your game. However, my general feeling is that I am extending my repertoire, and increasing my capabilities, even though it does cause me moments of awkwardness.

Also, if you read my journal, you will note that both of my coaches lay a great deal of weight on observing in preparation and chosing the correct reaction--we don't do simple stimulus-response drills, but rather quite complex sequences with multiple possiblilities two and three levels deep.

To go back to the dance comparison, and to Grasshopper's notes on tempo, which I thought were very acute, I think if you learn multiple timings for an action, you increase the range of possibilities or answers that you can bring to bear on different opponents. One of my coaches used to like to say that there is no free will in the attack. What he meant was that when you are attacking, you must always react to the opponent--the simplest example, which sabreurs do have ground into muscle memory, is that if the opponent takes a quinte parry, you cut flank or chest. The more options you have for responses, the more likely you will be able to choose one that is successful. I'm not going to come down on whether such responses are conscious or unconscious--in my mind, they start out conscious and move into the realm of unconscious through focus, training and adrenalin.

Of course, I and my coaches have the advantage that they are not training me to try to win World Cups, so perhaps we have the luxury of exploring more possibilities than a coach who is trying to develop a youngster for rapid success. However, my observations of the elite fencers of those nations that are consistently strong in sabre leads me to believe that they also have mastered a wide range of possibilities and options in their game (far more and far better than I have). In sabre, an attempt to systematize and reduce the game to a few winning elements (the huge flunges of Kothny and of the current American squad, for instance) may reap positive results in the short run, but in the long run, those fencers with a broad range of answers to draw on will find the correct one and negate the one-trick ponies...

MR

[Inquartata]

You never do let go of something, do you?

LOL, you've noticed that, have you?