Important Coaching Qualities

[oso97]

From a conversation this weekend with a collegue:

What are the most important coaching qualities for someone involved in coaching competitive fencers at the sub-world cup level? The kind of fencers who would regularly attend NACs lets say, but without the desire or financial resources to compete on an international scale.

[Mr Epee]

Apparently a majority of people find the ability to communicate more important than the substance of what is being communicated. Interesting.

People who do not have experience usually underestimate its importance.

[remise]

I agree, however, if a coach can not convey to his/her student what they want them to do or how they want them to do it, stop right there. The student will never take the next step in the learning process: applying what is being taught.

[Schiavona]

I voted before I read Oso's conditions. I also voted on the basis of some negative experiences I had as a college student. I once had a math prof who was recruited by the University I went to because he was a genius in math, and he was! He just couldn't teach his way out of a paper bag. So his genius was of no damn use to me.

If I had read Oso's post first I would have voted for the international championships or wealth of competitive knowlege.

[OROD]

If you want to get results, then what you need is a coach that has proven he can get results. Communication skills are nice, if he's got stuff to communicate that will help you. On the other hand, maybe he's got lots of personal experience or a certification but cant communicate anything.

As far as "Capacity for close relationship with students"... uhmm, would you send your kids to train with Michael Jackson? I'm sure he's got quite the capacity for a "close relationship".


.

[sabreur]

Someone who is certified as a Master by the Italian, French or Hungarian associations has received a great deal of instruction in pedagogy--in general, they know how to communicate and teach, as well as having specific knowledge of teaching fencing.

[LUDICROUS]

Mr epee: Most people probably voted on that assuming that their coach would have the experience to coach.

[Style]

Ability to teach combined with knowledge or the material is best.

And yes, experienced teachers are good, but you cannot teach experience.

A teacher can only teach so much. Honestly there isn't that much to learn in fencing (as far as technical stuff). The rest is gained from personal experience.

For example. Take two brand new fencers. Fencer A will train with the greatest fencer/teacher/trainer/whatever for one year (without fencing an actual bout).
Fencer B will train with an average fencing master and participate in 1 competition per month for a year as well as fence against club members multiple times per week.

I'm willing to bet that fencer B will defeat fencer A in a bout.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by LUDICROUS

Mr epee: Most people probably voted on that assuming that their coach would have the experience to coach.

Ah yes! My old friend assumption.

It is only after knowledge/experience has been assumed, that the ability to communicate becomes an issue.

So knowledge is the most important underlying attribute?

[Fencergrl]

There lies the problem my friend.
If you have knowledge but can't communicate it effectively, is it not just as bad as having no knowledge at all?

So let me be the first to say... this poll is flawed.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Style

I'm willing to bet that fencer B will defeat fencer A in a bout.

yes, but who will win the second time?

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Apparently a majority of people find the ability to communicate more important than the substance of what is being communicated. Interesting.

People who do not have experience usually underestimate its importance.

if the ability to communicate was important at all, then such a high percentage of the best coaches in this country wouldn't speak broken english.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by keith

yes, but who will win the second time?

depends on how soon after the second bout will take place.

this past year, i've had to choose between coaching and strong practice NOT both...i chose strong practice.

[glowstix]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

if the ability to communicate was important at all, then such a high percentage of the best coaches in this country wouldn't speak broken english.

that's actually very true.. i've gone up against fencers whose coach is chinese and i could barely understand what he would scream to his fencers (ask fluidfencer ). he produces some incredible foil fencers in ridiculously short periods of time.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

if the ability to communicate was important at all, then such a high percentage of the best coaches in this country wouldn't speak broken english.

If you need your coach to explain everything in english either change coaches or sport.

[keith]

Originally Posted by glowstix

depends on how soon after the second bout will take place.

this past year, i've had to choose between coaching and strong practice NOT both...i chose strong practice.

.....but sooner or later you need the other. Just strong practice or just coaching is not enough.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

if the ability to communicate was important at all, then such a high percentage of the best coaches in this country wouldn't speak broken english.

Broken English doesn't mean they are not effective communicators. Some very articulate people cannot teach or get their point across.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I voted, but I'd rather vote none/all of the above.

The most important thing in a coach is that he wants to help his fencers become the best they can. I've seen firsthand the effect of a coach who just slides around and does not take action to teach the student. Any coach who is content with how their student is fencing should die. With fencers, they are either getting better or worse, there is no stagnation, no "staying in place". A coach should be hungry for success, and active. After all, what good is the best coach in the world if he never coaches?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Broken English doesn't mean they are not effective communicators. Some very articulate people cannot teach or get their point across.

And conversely, a few phrases in broken English combined with a quick thrust or cut of the coach's weapon at the offending body part communicates volumes.

[Allen Evans]

Most coaches in my experience are adequate at teaching fencing “things” (this is a “lunge”, this is a “flick”, this is a “parry”). Most of them fail at communicating to their students what fencing really is: the application of technique and tactics in the bout. The ability to enable the student to translate training into combat seems very illusive. I struggle with it, and I know other coaches do, too. But some seem to have a gift for it.

Does this come from their “ability to communicate concepts”? Or is it because of their “championships or results”? Or is it their “certification from an experienced entity”? I know coaches with qualifications in all these areas that fail in their primary task: teaching students to fence. In fact, I know coaches with these attributes I wouldn’t take a lesson from, even if it was free. I also know coaches who lack some (or almost all) of these attributes that are great coaches.

So how does it happen that someone is a good coach, or a bad coach? I think it takes more than a simple poll to decide that.