Beginner coaching method (Di Rossa?)

[Neil]

I remember reading somewhere, possibly on fencing.net, about a method of coaching that encourages beginners to discover for themselves the best way to attack, parry, lunge and so on.

For example, as part of teaching the advance and retreat, you ask the student to find the fastest way to move up and down in a line, while being able to change direction quickly and maintain balance. Or when teaching parries, you ask the student to deflect an attacking blade in whatever way seems natural that will let them quickly riposte.

While doing a quick search I saw that Achilleus mentioned Di Rossa as a coach who might have come up with this method: Which type of Coaching is the "best" for a beginner

Does anyone know any more about this method - where I might have read about it before, or if there are any articles or books about it?

[keith]

there are notes in Italian on coaching courses Di Rossa gave in Italy. I have/used to have a translation of one of these on coaching beginners - Perhaps we could offer Gladius a reward for tracking down and translating others.

So based on what I know (from the translation and a friend who fenced on occassion at mestre);

The principle is that the student should see/feel the opening for the correct action rather than be told;
'perform action X, good now perform action Y, now action X followed by Z etc'

If the student sees the opening correctly and reacts to it correctly then they are allowed to hit the coach (as they would hit an opponent in a bout). If they do not; they move to slowly, they perform inappropriate footwork, attack the wrong target area the coach avoids the hit (parry/step back etc).

So this means that;

1. Most actions are very simple.
2. There is alot of footwork and movement (a consequence of 1. and a requirement for 3.).
3. Coaches have to be very skilled at offering the right opening.

What matters most is that the student sees/reacts correctly. Only after that has happened does the coach start to refine technique - and it is refined, you are not attempting to produce a student who is using timing/athletic ability to mask technical deficiency. But again the emphasis is on; if you come on guard here like this with the fingers hand like this, the action is easier to make.

[Neil]

The article I remember reading was specifically on teaching a group of beginners, and after reading your post I think that might not have been based on Di Rossa's coaching after all.

Thanks for the description, though. I've been told that a characteristic of Italian coaching is to initially emphasize the right time to do an action over the technique. Other coaching systems, e.g. French, emphasize technique first. Both aim for the same final product of good technique and timing, but they differ at the beginning. Di Rossa's coaching style seems to fit in with this idea.

[RoninX]

I don't know who originated it but the Canadian fencing organization (or maybe it is more of a theoretical school?) that propounds starting with the "mini-epee" (epee rules, sabre target, foil blade) also supports using the "student discovery" method you outline in your original post. I remember reading a PDF of their whole training methodology not too long ago (2 months or so) via PDF online so maybe a couple of web searchs could dredge it up for you. They may have citations.

I believe my search string was something like "epee theory"

[Neil]

I don't know who originated it but the Canadian fencing organization (or maybe it is more of a theoretical school?) that propounds starting with the "mini-epee" (epee rules, sabre target, foil blade) also supports using the "student discovery" method you outline in your original post. I remember reading a PDF of their whole training methodology not too long ago (2 months or so) via PDF online so maybe a couple of web searchs could dredge it up for you. They may have citations.

I believe my search string was something like "epee theory"

They do have a bit on coaching theory in the end sections of their level 2 manual, but that wasn't what I remember reading. I don't think they give any citations, and I couldn't find anything else on the website. Thanks, though.

Maybe I'll just try it out using some beginners as guinea pigs and see how it goes.

[achilleus]

Maybe I'll just try it out using some beginners as guinea pigs and see how it goes.

Having worked and talked with a variety of coaches, I just have to say beware. It's difficult to wing it while teaching, and this method doesn't work for everyone.

For older beginners, it's very difficult.

Kids, for obvious reasons, pick it up very quickly.

[Adler]

I'd have to agree with achilleus having also experienced a coach who uses this method. In general the fencer who have been trained this way tend never to progress much beyond very basic technique and simplistic tactics.

[Neil]

The context for this question is that I am currently teaching a beginners class for university age students. I've been talking with some other club members about how to make the course more interesting and engaging for the students - the aim is not only to teach them how to fence, but for them to enjoy the course and feel like they've achieved something, so hopefully a few will stay on and keep fencing with the club.

I thought the above approach could be something different to try (not necessarily for teaching every fencing action) that involves the student a bit more than "This is a lunge, now you copy what I do." I know that when I learn things I always want to know why you must do something a certain way, and this method seems a good starting point for such an explanation. I probably won't use it for the current group since I've already got a program worked out, but it might be useful for future classes.

Thanks for the advice/help. You all rock.

[Mr Epee]

The context for this question is that I am currently teaching a beginners class for university age students. I've been talking with some other club members about how to make the course more interesting and engaging for the students - the aim is not only to teach them how to fence, but for them to enjoy the course and feel like they've achieved something, so hopefully a few will stay on and keep fencing with the club.

I thought the above approach could be something different to try (not necessarily for teaching every fencing action) that involves the student a bit more than "This is a lunge, now you copy what I do." I know that when I learn things I always want to know why you must do something a certain way, and this method seems a good starting point for such an explanation. I probably won't use it for the current group since I've already got a program worked out, but it might be useful for future classes.

Thanks for the advice/help. You all rock.

Unfortunately, the movement and vocabulary of fencing is awkward and can be difficult to learn correctly, if it comes too fast. Your best bet is to start with activities that the student is comfrortable with including a variety of exercises that work agility/reaction/etc and then gradually introduce fencing elements (advance/retreat/lunge/etc). Keep it all mixed together, so you don't have an overload of new fencing specific work.

It's good that you want to keep things interesting. Keep in mind that not being able to fence doesn't mean incapable of complicated physical activity.

Working with university age students you will have more difficulty pulling a fast one in terms of developing new approaches/instructional methods. However, working with younger kids you can pretty much experiment at will. I say that with the following caveat - you must know the material very well yourself prior to "experimenting" in the classroom.

All the best.

[RITFencing]

I say that with the following caveat - you must know the material very well yourself prior to "experimenting" in the classroom.

I can just hear Nat Goodhartz saying "Technical excellence is the antecedant to tactical creativity." She's right, too (and so is Mr. E.) Make sure you really know the stuff before trying to develop your own style of coaching. Existing pedogical methods have lasted a long time for a reason: they tend to work. When you really understand why things work, then you can play around. However, if you feel confident that you do understand teaching and want to experiment, then good luck and please share the results!