Coaching: Teaching Fencers to Think?

[Mr Epee]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by oso97

Fencers do not spring forth from the womb being able to think. They have to be taught how to think! Particularly in today's educational environment which actually discurages creative thought and problem solving - but that's another thread entirely.

This statement is untrue, and contradicts itself.

The cognitive process is extremely personal and beyond the range of abilities for which a coach is able to take credit.

And for the record, who is it that discurages [sic] creative thought?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

And for the record, who is it that discurages [sic] creative thought?

ignoring the rhetorical device;

coaches who demand their fencers exist within a rigid tactical framework?

[hpfencing]

Fencing is soooooooo different from most other sprots that I think it is important that each coach teach the tactical wheel and how it can vary but if they are to stuck to it all the actions at a club will be attack --> parry-repost BORING. THen they goto tournaments and lose becuase they don't understand the brainwork of it. Sazbos table does a better job with that.

[Mr Epee]

Ach,

S-Z-A-B-O. Pronounced Sah' - bow
and if you really want to be picky - László Szabó

Many sports, and video games for that matter, are just as complicated "tactically" as fencing...

And don't confuse the "tactical wheel," which is only an extremely crude theoretical option tree, with the process of thought, and competitive tactics.

It has no bearing on either.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

The tactical wheel might work for foil and sabre, but epee is too abstract to use it. Its like, you can translate english into german or french, but you cannot explain what a color looks like, and then translate it into french or german. Its just too abstract. Foil and sabre are languages, epee is the sensation of a color.

[keith]

So remembering my essential key phrases for a teaching portfolio;

Didactic teaching centers on the transmission of information not the skills required to assimilate and integrate knowledge in ways that allow it to be applied in diverse non-educational settings. A problem based approach where the student is required to volunteer and actively decide which information is required forces the student to develop both an understanding of the importance of and the selection of information relevant to the problem at hand and so they simulataneously acquire both the basic information required to understand a problem and skills required to solve it.*


*but all that actually matters is that the morons give you a good teaching assesment.

[oso97]

Hahahahahaha, excellent way to put it keith! Best laugh I've had all day.

[chiz]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

The cognitive process is extremely personal and beyond the range of abilities for which a coach is able to take credit.

I think your coach tickles your cognitive process, if it is there.

If your coach doesn’t teach you to think about fencing, who is going to? So the coach can take some credit, but not all. But then it is extremely personal, each student has to evolve beyond his coach to solve the problems differently, no credit to the coach. During the action as an observer, the coach can bring a loosing effort back to a win, some credit to the coach.

I find Beck’s simplified and codified epee system very interesting but in the end how well did it work? In review, was the failure of Beck the man the cause of a system failure or did the competition change, coaches that learn to defeat it?

In reality two minds here; the strength of the coach and the strength of the fencer, of two minds with one purpose.

Chiz

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The tactical wheel might work for foil and sabre, but epee is too abstract to use it. Its like, you can translate english into german or french, but you cannot explain what a color looks like, and then translate it into french or german. Its just too abstract. Foil and sabre are languages, epee is the sensation of a color.

When I am fencing, I don't really think about some mythical "tactical wheel". I know that it exists, and I understand that certain actions counteract other actions. However, if I see my opponent attack, I don't think, "Uh-oh, time to parry." I just do it. Seeing the attack and making the parry are near to instantaneous. If you think out there, you're dead.

[seak]

I think there is something to the idea of a coach teaching a fencer how to "think"

When you are explaining tactics you are basically teaching them how to think like a fencer. If you teach them the underlying reasons behind the tactics they are more likely to use them and be able to appropriately analyze a situation in a bout, as to when a tactic should be used.

While I would agree with the statement that parry's should come relatively instinctively, that is more likely to be the case if you have the proper tactical though process in your sub - conscious.

Also there is value in teaching a fencer how to think so they will be able to analyze actions better after they occur, and during the one minute break in DE's.

Just my humble opinion

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

When I am fencing, I don't really think about some mythical "tactical wheel". I know that it exists, and I understand that certain actions counteract other actions. However, if I see my opponent attack, I don't think, "Uh-oh, time to parry." I just do it. Seeing the attack and making the parry are near to instantaneous. If you think out there, you're dead.

Interesting. When I fence sabre or foil, I'm still in that kind of a "just fence, feel it out, hit the ****er" mentality, but its a little more methodical then when I'm fencing epee. I think this is because of the right of way. Like, after a touch, when I attacked and he parry riposted, I will think "Ok, I need to get a counter riposte, or I need to make him fall short on the riposte, or I need to change the tempo of the original attack". In epee, if someone got me on a parry riposte, I think "feel the action differently, get in a different flow". Maybe I'm in a different mindset.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

When I am fencing, I don't really think about some mythical "tactical wheel". I know that it exists, and I understand that certain actions counteract other actions. However, if I see my opponent attack, I don't think, "Uh-oh, time to parry." I just do it. Seeing the attack and making the parry are near to instantaneous. If you think out there, you're dead.

What do you do in between touches, though? In sabre, it's a bit too fast to go through entended planning during the fencing. But in the halts, you ought to be thinking about what's working and what isn't, and why.

[veeco]

The difference has to be made here between strategy and tactics.

Tactics are tools that you can use to achieve a certain strategy.

Tactics have to be taught, and you can divide the teaching of tactics in at least 2 components:

1- The technical component (how to do a certain action)
2- The contextual component (when to do a certain action).

It is then up to the student to find the right tool for the right job, keeping in mind her strategy. This is something that coaches have little control over, IMO. Some fencers start thinking one day, some don't.

I would add that the "thinking" part is the part that separates the men (seniors and some very good juniors) from the boys (most juniors and below).

Experience here is what turns the thinking switch on. Some people are more early than others, perhaps based on previous similar experiences in other sports or games, or just because their brain is wired the right way. But it cannot be "taught" per se. A coach can encourage creativity and try and get a fencer aware of the switch, but ultimately it is the fencer who has to make the conscious attempt at turning the switch on.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by veeco

The difference has to be made here between strategy and tactics.

Tactics are tools that you can use to achieve a certain strategy.

Tactics have to be taught, and you can divide the teaching of tactics in at least 2 components:

1- The technical component (how to do a certain action)
2- The contextual component (when to do a certain action).

It is then up to the student to find the right tool for the right job, keeping in mind her strategy. This is something that coaches have little control over, IMO. Some fencers start thinking one day, some don't.

I would add that the "thinking" part is the part that separates the men (seniors and some very good juniors) from the boys (most juniors and below).

Experience here is what turns the thinking switch on. Some people are more early than others, perhaps based on previous similar experiences in other sports or games, or just because their brain is wired the right way. But it cannot be "taught" per se. A coach can encourage creativity and try and get a fencer aware of the switch, but ultimately it is the fencer who has to make the conscious attempt at turning the switch on.

How do you know when the switch is "on" per se? I sort of have moments where I'm able to use my brain in a bout, but then other times I'm just a bumbling mess of actions and re-actions.

[rcmatthews]

Oh, of course I think in between touches. Usually its running a replay of what happend on the last action. I fence "eyes open", wherein I have an overall strategy, but don't predetermine what I am going to do before each point. I may think, "ok, I need to push him down the strip" or "my attacks aren't working, I need to change something up", but I won't think "I need to do a double advance lunge".

[Ordway]

I teach college writing, and a major part of that is teaching students how to think critically. So I certainly DO think that you can teach someone how to think - or rather, you can help someone learn how to think. You set up situations that push the limits of what the student already knows, or contradicts what the student *thinks* he knows, and give the student the tools to deal with it. Then you provide feedback on how he's doing. Then you do it again...

Any coach who encourages fencers to ask WHY (as in, why should I do this action now? why does this work better than that other thing? etc.) is teaching them how to think.

I can see this very clearly from my own experience. In "real life" I am an excellent critical thinker, but in fencing I am only now developing a genuine critical sense, after years of operating on intuition alone. Lots of "aha" moments.

[jBirch]

I used to firmly be in the "teach 'em to think" category but then I started to encounter a couple of ideas that made me pause in that blanket assessment.

First, all top athletes get "in the zone". A state of no-mind where the actions just flow from the stimulus. Of course, teaching this requires a very, very, very competent coach. Someone who can craft the proper response to the proper stimulus and can even craft the proper deeper responses. Tactics are then a trained "menu selection" response to the opponent's actions. Thinking slows you down.

Second, "Teach 'em to think" only helps *AFTER* the bout. When they have time to remember the action, reconstruct it, analyse it and build solutions from it. This is the coaching aspect of athletics. If you are building coaches then it's of immense value. If you are building competitors...I'm not sure. A good coach should be the one doing this type of off-piste thinking and training the response back into the competitor.

Third, no subject in school teaches anyone to think except rhetoric and art...and sometimes Statistics. Rhetoric is one of those rare classes that is often buried in the Philosophy department and almost never encountered in anything before second year university. With all due respect, College English don't teach no thinkin' skills. Mathematics doesn't teach it either. Nor do any of the Sciences or any of the Humanities.

Hope this helps.

James.

[rcmatthews]

Well, I very much disagree with you about your assessment of what college classes teach. English and Classics absolutely teach peole how to think. Interpretation of poetry for example, fosters creativity as well as critical THINKING. As does reading the classics, or translating them from Latin or Greek. Coming up with an accurate translation that stays true to the original language, yet still captures the meaning, is very difficult, and absolutely teaches people to THINK outside of the box. What of Philosophy? Surely you do not think that the "love of knowledge" teaches no thinking? Writing papers on philosophy, english, scientific, or almost any other branch of learning require constructing an argument, which is basically what a rhetorician does. Do you think that humans have an innate thinking ability that is not fostered or developed? I do not. This is the whole purpose of high school. Do you think that it really matters if most people canwork out complex calculus equations? No, it doesn't. But what it does do is teach people HOW to THINK.

[rcmatthews]

I also think that all fencers should be developed so that they are able to coach in the future. As I learned/am learning to fence virtually for free, I am a big believer in giving back to the sport and teaching others just aas I was taught. If a fencer does not understand what they are doing, are they really fencing? I don't think so. Perhaps it is because our port is more mental than most. However, I think most sports are this way. For instance, if a football player does not understand why plays work, or why different techniques work, they really aren't playing the game, they are just going through the motions.