Elements of Fencing

[Mr Epee]

Ok - I've noticed that there are currently several threads discussing the elements of fencing (Bladework vs. Footwork, etc) and their various levels of import. I started to reply to one of them, and thought of this article I wrote a couple of years ago, when I was trying to decide if I wanted to teach fencing.

It may look familiar to a few of the older posters here, because it was originally posted in 2003. I published it under the name of Johann Dieter. I was interested in what the reactions would be and whether, or not it would stand up to scrutiny without me sticking around to defend it.

Hopefully you don't mind taking a look at it again. It's not perfect, but it might provide a interesting perspective.

I'll stick around to discuss this time.
--------------------------------------------------

ELEMENTS OF FENCING

The success or potential for achievement, of a fencer can be separated into four (4) distinct elements and grouped into two (2) categories.

I. Tangible Elements

a) Physical Attributes - Somatotype, muscle composition, strength, flexibility, explosiveness, recovery time, reflex speed.
Note: although reflex speed is often considered a fcn of intelligence, it belongs in this category due to its ability to be objectively measured and quantified.

b) Technical internalization - The ability to physically realize the specific movements necessary for executing both offensive and defensive fencing actions instinctively, with little or no mental construct before execution.

II. Intangible Elements
a) Creativity - The ability to recognize aspects of a specific fencing environment, and prepare an appropriate strategy. Creativity also consists of not just the "what", but the "when" of action (tempo). Creativity is the "knowing how to win" element in fencing.

b) Psychological Stability - Essentially this is the ability to focus and maintain mental confidence during a bout. This includes the ability to block out distractions surrounding the encounter like fear of losing, looking stupid, who is watching, dislike of ones opponent, money, job, school, family, etc.

An effective training program must include specific attention to each of these elements, in order to consistently produce successful students. A successful student is one who is able to combine these elements to the best of their ability, and develop a better understanding of them through practice.

Tangible Elements

Both Physical Specialists and Fencing Instructors have said much about Physical development programs. Depending on the specific needs of the students a program can be developed using this information. The most important factors though are constancy within the training program and the ability for individual students to measure their own personal development. Quantification is a powerful motivator and should not be over looked by Coaches attempting to bring the best out of their students. "Did we work harder than last time? Can you do more of X? Are you less tired now, than last time?" An affirmative answer in to any of these type of questions, provides a platform of accomplishment and confidence that the student can build on, and in the end they will use as justification to stay involved.

Technical Internalization is probably the most difficult task facing any coach or student. Fortunately, there are a finite number of movements in any fencer’s repertoire that can be explained with relative ease. The difficulty lies in developing a student’s physical awareness and muscle memory capacities that enable the fencer to execute actions properly with as little intellectual preparation as possible. Traditionally the repetition required for this type of development was performed almost entirely in the confines of extensive individual lessons with an instructor. Modern experience and science has shown that there are many other possibilities for developing Technical Internalization. Although the individual lesson is still an integral part of that development, the lessons have become substantially shorter with frequency oscillating depending on variables like work-loading, training focus, and competition scheduling.

Technical Internalization also needs to address the problem of "body-learning." It is an interesting phenomenon that a student can often feel that they are doing an action properly, when in actuality they are doing something quite different. Mirrors are useful in addressing this problem, as they allow for self-correction, and expose the student to less out-side criticism.

Intangible Elements

Unfortunately, many coaches focus exclusively on the development of the Tangible Elements, and ignore the Intangible Elements. For many years it was assumed that the Creative and Psychological Elements would develop themselves. Often this is true over the course of many years of training, but this narrow approach allows many students to fall between the cracks during their development process. Even a natural ability in the Intangible aspects, can be honed or at least brought to the forefront of a students awareness.

Because of the inherent difficulty of achieving Fencing's Technical Internalization, it may require several years of training before a student is capable of even beginning the process of developing their Creative Elements with any kind of helpful feedback from their fencing specific performances. Luckily, there are many activities that require a much simpler skill set that a Coach can use to help develop a student’s Creative/Strategic thinking.
These include a variety of games both fencing specific (footwork drills, controlled bouting and lessons involving decision making opportunities), and non-specific (other sports, puzzles, board games, etc). A Coach interested in well-rounded development should incorporate these activities into every practice, and encourage student participation in creative and competitive activities outside of training.

The most important Psychological Element is confidence. Confidence takes years to build and can be destroyed in an instant. A coach’s most important task is maintaining a general program that a student can take pride in being a participant.

Having confidence in a training program enables a student to progress their development without doubt. This is one of the reasons that coaches working together should not debate, or correct each other, in front of students. This is also the reason that coaches working together should have assigned tasks and that divisions of expertise be observed at all times with students. This means working only with your designated students and trusting other coaching staff.

One coach should never "hover" over another coach’s lesson. This distracts the student and will cause performance anxiety. Individual lessons should be considered constructive confidence building opportunities between an instructor and a pupil with a desire to learn. Individual lessons are not performance opportunities for the coach or the student.

Never forget that the Psychological Element is the co-efficient that effects all other elements. There are many sources of professional information on this subject. Don’t be afraid to use them.

Enjoy your sport

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I was interested in what the reactions would be and whether, or not it would stand up to scrutiny without me sticking around to defend it.

This is fine, but there are already more than enough of this sort of article around. Oscillating frequency this and somato-industrial complex that, and it all nets out to "use games" and "confidence counts"? It needs a bigger payoff, or something risky.

I see you getting much more mileage out of your natural-language postings here on the board. This article sounds more like an introduction, a preface to your findings and advice about how to get things done better(TM). Only there is little advice, so the article is safe.

Using this article as your internal foundation, you can (and should) develop lots of pieces about games, internalizing technique, &etc. They should be written in colloquial or at least friendly English so they'll be read. And then they should go out on an edge, and offer claims and theories, so the borders of the topic are extended.

This site, for example, can always use more articles, and it's always on the lookout for people to step up and make a lasting contribution to fencing. (Because, there is so little writing, whatever is published will have a magna carta-like affect on the future.) I think you'd be good at the writing.

To all, I'd recommend looking at Kogler's "One Touch at a Time"; if the reader brings a very forgiving attitude to the typesetting and layout there is a big payoff. In it, Kogler takes Mr Epee's approach above, but also extends it with interesting anecdotes and results from sports-science studies.

[jm_f]

Could you expound on how exactly can Kogler's book help? I'm afraid all I've heard about it seems something of an infomercial "I was like this before, but after reading/buying/whatever I'm now better bla bla bla."

Don't get me wrong, I'm rather inclined to buy it. I just don't know if it'll really help me so I'm waiting till someone convincing enough can tell if it's worth it or not.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by jm_f

Could you expound on how exactly can Kogler's book help?

Sure, but not as a thread-jack. There might be a book review of it coming out in a few weeks.

The book takes Mr Epee's approach to the intangible elements, and adds some quantifying w/ statistics & research findings. With each subtopic he offers procedures about how to improve the areas. And then it's all mixed up in a blender, so you have to dig through it.

[parrythis]

Interesting treatise. There is always room for another view. You never know what will bubble up that hasn't been covered before.

Under tangible elements, I would add "endurance". As a not-so-young fencer, it is an important part of my training. It becomes a critical factor when facing the younger fencers. (That's almost all of them.)

Under intangible elements, I would add "the will/desire/passion to win". While an indifferent fencer can beat an opponent that is less skilled, if you pit two equally skilled fencers against each other (i.e. all-other-things-being-equal) the fencer with the greater will to win has the edge. This is not true just in fencing, but in all sports.

[Mr Epee]

I said I was going to stick around and discuss, etc... and then left for the weekend - total Epee move.

OK, - Replying to Walter -

First, your original comment from 2003.

Originally Posted by wflaschka in 2003

What... no replies yet? I love this post, though it's a little out of the blue. What prompted it? Who is being taught??

Please consider writing a simple, user-friendly version for WhatIsFencing.com.

Flash to today.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

This is fine, but there are already more than enough of this sort of article around. Oscillating frequency this and somato-industrial complex that, and it all nets out to "use games" and "confidence counts"? It needs a bigger payoff, or something risky.

A. I'm not sure how you decide there are "already more than enough" like this, and if you happen to have access to a cache readily available, in English, than I would appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I am aware of several quality Hungarian texts and quite a few in German, but I don't know if any good translations exists

Comments about style and language are appreciated, but it would be better to deal with content. Like I said in the intro to the post, I wrote it primarily for myself - and the style matches the target audience (me) perfectly.

It's not supposed to be sensational, so I'm not sure why you think that there should be a "bigger payoff, or something risky".

Originally Posted by WFlaschka

I see you getting much more mileage out of your natural-language postings here on the board. This article sounds more like an introduction, a preface to your findings and advice about how to get things done better(TM). Only there is little advice, so the article is safe.

Again, please reference target audience - It's obviously not targeted at new fencers, and quite frankly doesn't really contain information that would be particularly useful for new fencers.

And yes, it is an introduction.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Using this article as your internal foundation, you can (and should) develop lots of pieces about games, internalizing technique, &etc. They should be written in colloquial or at least friendly English so they'll be read. And then they should go out on an edge, and offer claims and theories, so the borders of the topic are extended.

Here's my thought. - Trust professionals.

There are many many quality sources available for this information.

Should I be giving tips for psychological stability, or should I say - Go see a sports psychologist, or if that's not feasible try reading a book on the subject?

I happen to have a great talent for making up games on the fly, BUT there are also many quality sources available... not every game/exercise is suitible for every student. Any local library should have several books of various games suitible for teaching physical skills.

I have no interest in producing a manifesto that teaches people to fence without a coach. Most great fencing coaches have never writen a book about fencing, and in fact Italo Santelli maintained that it was not possible to write a book teaching people to fence, so he declined despite many requests.

There is no step-by-step to fencing well, but if the elements can be generally identified, it might become easier to focus on the individuals weaker areas.

Too often, and especially within this discussion group, fencers identify the wrong problem and misapply their focus.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

This site, for example, can always use more articles, and it's always on the lookout for people to step up and make a lasting contribution to fencing. (Because, there is so little writing, whatever is published will have a magna carta-like affect on the future.) I think you'd be good at the writing.

I see a HUGE difference between us on this subject.

I am very aware of my position in the sport, and do not believe that I should be going around TRYING to have a "MagnaCarta-esque" affect on the future of fencing. That's a pompous attitude that I would like to avoid.

I do my best to serve my sport, and work very hard to do so whether it be competing/organizing/teaching/coaching/reffing/rain making - etc. BUT it's not all about me. My big concern at the end of the day isn't whether people will sit around thinking - "Thank God for Mr Epee - He really changed fencing".

Originally Posted by wflaschka

To all, I'd recommend looking at Kogler's "One Touch at a Time"; if the reader brings a very forgiving attitude to the typesetting and layout there is a big payoff. In it, Kogler takes Mr Epee's approach above, but also extends it with interesting anecdotes and results from sports-science studies.

I must admit that I haven't read this book, but I'm sure it's worth the read. I am a fan of Dr. Kogler, and am always impressed with his insight.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by parrythis

Interesting treatise. There is always room for another view. You never know what will bubble up that hasn't been covered before.

Under tangible elements, I would add "endurance". As a not-so-young fencer, it is an important part of my training. It becomes a critical factor when facing the younger fencers. (That's almost all of them.)

Under intangible elements, I would add "the will/desire/passion to win". While an indifferent fencer can beat an opponent that is less skilled, if you pit two equally skilled fencers against each other (i.e. all-other-things-being-equal) the fencer with the greater will to win has the edge. This is not true just in fencing, but in all sports.

Thanks for the feedback.

Adding endurance?
Yes, I think your right should be there - I probably thought it was covered by "recovery time" but your right they are different things.

The will/desire to win?
That gets interesting - you're right, it can't be assumed to exist, but it doesn't fit cleanly into Creativity or Stability... Might need a third category.

Let me think about that for a bit.

[wflaschka]

Since you put it online, I thought the target audience was something other than "yourself." If you're just trying to please yourself, then it looks like a very fine article indeed.

If you're trying to communicate something new, or give a viewpoint about fencing -- then it could use some work. I agree with you on most counts: it's not targeted to new fencers, it shows no interest in producing something to teach people, it won't have any affect on fencing.

I still think it's a decent jumping off point for discussion that gets more specific and detailed, e.g., useful. I do hope you produce some articles.

As for name-dropping Santelli -- there are so many other maestros who believe writing is a good way to communicate knowledge, even about fencing: Vass, Szabo, Lukovich, &etc &etc. If Kogler is "worth a read" for his insight, then perhaps that extends to other writers?

"Why writing about fencing is important" is worth a thread of its own. The thread would probably read a lot like a "Why writing about _______ is important" thread... fill in the blank: politics, gender issues, economics, love.

If you speak to any fencer, they invariably have something interesting to say -- which is why this board is so nice because people share ideas. The cool and useful things about this bboard don't end when the writing becomes an article.

So in a perfect world, fencers who share their viewpoints would be encouraged or challenged, rather than getting pissed on (as in this post).

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Horrible ... F

No wait... your conclusion comes close... ok - F+

My attempt to humor myself aside.

Really, does that sound like someone who is worried about avoiding a "pompous attitude?" And it's just one of many.

Originally Posted by wflaschka2003

I love this post, though it's a little out of the blue. What prompted it? Who is being taught??

Please consider writing a simple, user-friendly version for WhatIsFencing.com.

Is a bit more encouraging. You have to remember -- between then and now, you've called me a racist, a back-country hick, Evangelista (!!), and everything inbetween. So I might be a bit jaded. [EDIT: Jaded = Less interested about being effusive with something you produce, when I know it's you.]

So anyhow, thanks for sharing, and for putting your neck on the block.

[Morion]

Hmmmm..... Elements of fencing? There would be Iron (Fe) and Aluminum (Al) in the various metal parts. There would also be Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H), Nitrogen (N) and Oxygen (O) in various synthetic parts. Also, let's not forget Silicon (Si) in the chips inside the boxes. Enough ot this foolishness, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread!

[Mr Epee]

Oh dear Walter,

You should have read some of the things I've written and deleted, because I thought them rude. btw... when you cut and pasted my comment from the other thread, you accidently missed the part where I took the time to give good advice. I assume this was your mistake.

When I say most great fencing coaches did not write books, I mean most. I didn't say all... so yes there are a few examples of good coaches who have written books - but that's hardly cause for everyone following suit. Nick Evangelista writes books about fencing - (I'll let everyone work the rest of that thought out for themselves.)

Although, I don't see where you got the idea, that I think writing about fencing is bad? Like anything else it can be good, and it can be bad.

I like Kogler's books not because they are about fencing (only very small parts of them are about fencing). But because they are a good books written by a hyper-qualified individual that include mental concepts that I have successfully used in my own fencing. He is a great resource.

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Is a bit more encouraging. You have to remember -- between then and now, you've called me a racist, a back-country hick, Evangelista (!!), and everything inbetween. So I might be a bit jaded. [EDIT: Jaded = Less interested about being effusive with something you produce, when I know it's you.

Yes, I haven't forgotten about you, and your "ideas".

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

You should have read some of the things I've written and deleted, because I thought them rude.

I suppose we should all thank you for the new approach. Though generally being civil is really the least requirement for communicating online. I know I would be more than happy to not receive any more personal attacks, or to deal with straw-men. /end sarcasm

To boil down your last two posts on fencing writing: you're pro-stuff if it's good, and anti-stuff if it's bad. I think you occupy a very solid position there.

If a person truly feels like they can't advocate a good approach over a bad approach, and want to leave everything in the hands of "professionals", then that's their priviledge.

Apparently my critique rankled too much -- I didn't intend it that way. So I'll leave it to others to convince you to generate some writing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is interested in seeing more from you, or at least more fencing-writing in general.


Self-quoting sig: "tbfbyasvibomnpfmetlhgtlwadwrtmt!"