Beck vs. The French or how to explore the history of fencing instruction?

[DarkAgeCat]

I'm more than a little interested in the development of the art of teaching fencing. People often allude to the German, French and Italian schools. What interests me is how these historic methods of instruction have come together to form the basis of modern American fencing education. Would any of the coaches and students out there like to start building a summary of what they the strengths and weaknesses of a given school of thought and where those elements came from?

-DAC

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

http://home.earthlink.net/~allenevans59/GERMANEPEE.HTML

Read it.

[DarkAgeCat]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

http://home.earthlink.net/~allenevans59/GERMANEPEE.HTML

Read it.

Already have. Its not the only system of thought out there.
In fact its not even the only one in Germany.

Originally Posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~allenevans59/GERMANEPEE.HTML

However, this is not the only method of teaching Epée used in Germany, and, in fact, is probably unique to Tauber and Tauber trained coaches.

-DAC

[Bryn Ralph]

Mr. William M. Gaugler appears at this moment to be the most knowledgeable source regarding historical development of fencing and its current status. I recommend that you go to the following web-site:
http://www.scherma.org/gaugler/weapo...nd_school.html
Mr. Gaugler is the head director the fencing program at San Jose State University, Fencing Masters Programme.

[jeff]

Gaugler's material is, in my opinion, too Italian-school centric and too dismissive of any fencing done after 1948 to be a good guide to the evolution of fencing instruction. I enjoyed the material in the 2nd paragraph of the document you link, about Italy's renewed adoption of the Italian grip. Funny that none of their international fencers do that.

A good alternative might be Richard Cohen's By The Sword. References and links in many places, including http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/d...969665&view=rg

[DarkAgeCat]

Thanks for the references, I'll look into the pulished one, at a quick read through the Gaugler is an iteresting piece on the historic and formal differences between the Italian and French Italiate schools of teaching. However he doesn't seem to support his conclusion very well, its seems a strech to say that the re-introduction of the Italian grip alone will force the execution of more efficent, elgant and safe swordplay. Also, the question still remains what of this school has become a guiding influence in American fencing? Certainly we consider Nadi well accomplished, but how much of Gaugler's work is truely derivative from that school and what depth of impact has it had on the current practice?

-DAC

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by DarkAgeCat

People often allude to the German, French and Italian schools. What interests me is how these historic methods of instruction have come together to form the basis of modern American fencing education.

Do they form the basis of modern American fencing education?

It's often been said (in person, if not on these boards) that the recent successes for the US fencers has been the influx of Eastern European coaches.

Many of our top fencers have a much more distinct 'russian influence' in their fencing than any of three schools you mentioned above.

So, I guess the first thing I have to ask is, what do you consider 'modern American Fencing education?' I mean, America is obviously a big diverse place, and yes, many coaches trained in certain schools, but our top coaches tend to not follow those schools...

[DarkAgeCat]

Basically I'm interested in the development of a formal practice of coaching. There are very few places teaching coaching in the US in a formal manner at this moment. Fewer still that offer something like a college equivelent degree such as you could obtain in Eastern Europe. That makes it very hard to pin down a given set of methods that are characteristic of something we might term an "Americian" school, and even harder to figure out which strategies for teaching are actually most effective!

It might be interesting to try and define the schools that some of the top coaches came from, and that some of the top fencers emerged from. Maybe we can see something similar in thier methods of teaching, or determine if the education of these select individuals results in a trickledown of stylistic similarity in the region where they compete. If not the question becomes different, why aren't the methods used to educate our top fencers more popular, when they should be adopted into the general practice of teaching?

-DAC

[Allen Evans]

The “formal practice of coaching” doesn’t exist as an integral part of American fencing. As far as I know there is no equivalent program in the United States that mirrors what is done in Europe: essentially a degree in sport with an emphasis in fencing. William Gaugler’s program, for instance, is being run through the History Department of his university, I believe.

There was a program in Ithaca, NY that was run by Jean-Jacques Gillet but this was probably 20 years ago. Several prominent American coaches, such as Buckie Leach (I believe) went through this program. Currently, the USFA Coaches College and the Pan American Fencing Academy are conducting seminars to train coaches, but these are currently far from being "formal programs", oriented towards a degree.

Of the current National Coaches, you'll see that most of them are not orginally trained in the United States. Micheal Marx - after a successful fencing career - studied in Poland and earned his degree there. Gary Copeland and Paul Soter might be the only "home grown" coaches on the list, though, of course, both of them have travelled extensively overseas.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by DarkAgeCat

Basically I'm interested in the development of a formal practice of coaching. There are very few places teaching coaching in the US in a formal manner at this moment. Fewer still that offer something like a college equivelent degree such as you could obtain in Eastern Europe. That makes it very hard to pin down a given set of methods that are characteristic of something we might term an "Americian" school, and even harder to figure out which strategies for teaching are actually most effective!

It might be interesting to try and define the schools that some of the top coaches came from, and that some of the top fencers emerged from. Maybe we can see something similar in thier methods of teaching, or determine if the education of these select individuals results in a trickledown of stylistic similarity in the region where they compete. If not the question becomes different, why aren't the methods used to educate our top fencers more popular, when they should be adopted into the general practice of teaching?

-DAC

First off, you need to define what a school is. A past thread discussed this issue, and Istvan Lukovich had a great detailed definition that I posted in that thread. A search should reveal the thread, but keep in mind that there is a difference between school and style.

For example, at the time, Lukovich didn't feel that Hungary had a specific school. He felt that there three schools, French, Italian, and Russian.

[DarkAgeCat]

I'll go searching. Thanks for the pointer. The problem with those three schools is that it doesn't allow for the teaching differences between say Nadi and Gaugler. So perhaps a school isn't granular enough. Is a technical program or tactical progression a better concept to consider when looking at educational systems?

-DAC

[Allen Evans]

It sounds more like you are searching for underlying concepts of coaching pedagogy, rather than “schools”.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by DarkAgeCat

I'll go searching. Thanks for the pointer. The problem with those three schools is that it doesn't allow for the teaching differences between say Nadi and Gaugler. So perhaps a school isn't granular enough. Is a technical program or tactical progression a better concept to consider when looking at educational systems?

-DAC

Unfortunately, I'll have to leave this discussion at this point. I'm but a simple fencer who hits the guy opposite me. Philosophical and coaching discussions like this are a bit...beyond me.

There are some people on this board, however who are great at this...

I'll be interested in reading the discussion for sure...

[DarkAgeCat]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

The “formal practice of coaching” doesn’t exist as an integral part of American fencing.
...
Of the current National Coaches, you'll see that most of them are not orginally trained in the United States.
...

I don't know it seems to me the US always been a melting-pot, is it unreasonable to look for some amalgam of training techniques developing among these top coaches, or to at least look among the teirs below that seek to emulate the best?

Recently we have begun to see renewed success for our top fencers in the international arena and a general increase in participation in the sport. Without a formal practice into which to indoctriate an aspiring educator how are we going to be able to scale the number of educators and maintain those top level sucesses?

-DAC

[DarkAgeCat]

Originally Posted by keith

this is probably the relevant distinction. The most significant disagreements I've seen have been over how you teach a fencer to do a given action properly/effectively. While coaches from different schools (and even within them) will often argue over the technical nuances of an action these tend to drift more towards an agree to disagree conclusion.

This combined with Allen's clarification, make for a very astute observation. I'm more than willing to accept that there can be a multiplicity of correct actions, each drawn from a different school of practice. However I will point out that something needs to be passed on beyond the simple mechanics of instruction.

Often when we attempt to distil the teaching method in order to pass it on to the next generation of coach we end up with a relatively poor rote training manual. There seems to be a core set of experiences that are essential to the training of an effective coach that is lacking in the text, and thus is also lacking in a discussion confined to the pedagogy of the mechanics of instruction.

Maybe what is lacking is the encapsulation of the reasoning about why an action functions and the reasoning about when it is important to teach or retrain a given student in a certian technique?

-DAC

[Durando]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

http://home.earthlink.net/~allenevans59/GERMANEPEE.HTML

Read it.

Thanks so much for posting this! I had similar notes from years ago. I know I'm showing my age, but I remember working these sequences very hard after my coach went to the first clinic given on this style. Have since studied under Russians, which is a whole different deal. But the part about integrating bladework, footwork, and tactics in the Beck system is absolutely true in my case. These sequences where the ones that made the lightbulb (however dimly it might burn) go on.