Coaching: How do you teach bouncing to epee fencers?

[Allen Evans]

There is a huge gap between "lazy" coaches and "bad" coaches. One does not always imply the other.

[seven6ty]

Indeed!

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

Because subtle body/blade position changes aren't really used in actual fencing, right???

I see where you're going.

What I'm trying to communicate is that there are advantages to the "walking forward" technique that are not available in the "full speed, proper footwork" school of thought. After all, even advanced fencers hit the target dummy and really, how many of the top fencers are "target dummies"?

The walking forward technique allows the coach to control the speed of the distance changes with a very fine grain without the distance pressure of fast, correct footwork. When you need to go slow, it really is the best way to change the distance smoothly IMHO. Proper footwork just gets jerky when slowed down.

I'm not saying that this is used solely (and I thought I conveyed that in my previous post) but rather has its place for specific training goals.

I would argue vehemenantly against having all lessons at full speed with a full tactical selection. The coach, in this circumstance, is really bouting with the student with the goal of finding, exploiting and then correcting tactical and technical flaws as they appear. This is called a "Tactical Lesson" and often serves to train the integration of tactics, tempo and technique in advanced fencers (or when a concept is better communicated by focusing on realistic tempo and timing). This lesson has its place, absolutely, but is not the backbone of the training regime at all levels IMHO.

I disagree with the premise that all lessons must have tactical and technical elements. Some very good lessons can be (and should be) done isolating one or the other.

And I never said anything about "beating" a student, like I said, it just makes it more realistic and better prepares a student for a real fencing bout...

I disagree. As the lesson wears on, the coach starts making less then ideal blade presentation and so starts to train the student, not in a technically correct way, but rather in a way that takes advantage of the coach's technical flaws. If the coach is not absolutely pristine in their technique, the student is disadvantaged. Sure, the student is being continually presented with a "realistic" scenario (at least so far as the coach is able to mimic the myriad of different fencers the student is likely to face) but they are not encouraged to be correct (which, admittedly, is not the purpose of a tactical lesson).

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm envisioning teaching and some tune up to technique in the whole spectrum of fencers. I'm not thinking elite lessons to fencers who have high mastery over the technical aspects of their actions solely. To these fencers, high speed and proper footwork are the main tools used. For them, you are absolutely correct and I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, though I disagree that other tools are not equally useful.

I think this mentality also kind of feeds into the "robot coach" thing as well. Coaches who steadily advance at their students with robot-like timing and just expecting them to go over the same routine again and again, without thinking at all. The type who sit there and don't seem to think at all, nor to react in a realistic manner. They believe any feint the student throws at them and allow themselves to be parried without any real resistance, but... Now I'm talking about stuff completely unrelated to the topic at hand, oopsie!

Again, different lesson goals.

With the "robot" technique, what you're doing is ingraining muscle memory and training reflex. Nothing more. No creativity, no fine distance control, just reflex. This has its place, absolutely, and depending on the level of the student, can actually form 90% or more of the fencer's training regime for a while. For advanced students, this can be an important tune up of their "soft hand" for example.

I think you're missing the various stages of a fencers development and instead advocating an "always do X" dogmatic approach. Each of the walking, robot and tactical lessons (plus a couple of other types of lesson) has its place and at various stages of the student's development, can even have preeminance in the training regime. The key is knowing which lesson type to apply at which times and in which manners to help your students reach their training goals as efficiently as possible.

Hope this helps.

James.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Most coaches "walk" because that is how their coach coached them, and because it is the way they have seen most other coaches coaching.

Try not to rationalize too hard.

[keith]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Try not to rationalize too hard.

so speaks youth,

await the day when all you have left is alcohol and rationalisation.....

[dramamine]

I don't see how it would be physically possible for a coach to keep up any semblance of "fencing footwork" for more than a lesson or two. If your fencer is pretty good then it goes without saying that the fencers you are training him for also have good footwork. My 60 year old coach, despite being in good shape, cannot mimic the footwork that my 20 year old A rated competition has. He just can't. So if your argument is about realism, then I would contend that it is equally pointless to have a coach doing crappy footwork for 30 minute lessons compared to walking.

Most good fencers sit really low, change direction often, make lots of body feints/half steps, changes in speeds, etc. How is a coach expected to sit in a deep engarde for 6 lessons a night, when one of his 20 year old A rated students couldn't even do that?

My coach doesn't walk, but just has sort of sloppy footwork for the initial part of the action but ends it with a real lunge or fleche. I think this is fine. If my footwork gets sloppy my coach tells me to sit low and clean it up.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by keith

so speaks youth,

await the day when all you have left is alcohol and rationalisation.....

Oh, man, I'm in trouble. I'm only 23, and I'm already done with the latter... thank god for the former.

"Beer is proof that God exists, and that he loves man." - Ben Franklin

[jBirch]

"Beer is proof that God exists, and that he loves man." - Ben Franklin

No, no, Mr. 100-Teens-In-A-Fencing-Class...

The proper quote is:

"Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." -Homer Simpson

James.

[RITFencing]

With 100 teens in a fencing class, I need all the beer I can get, thank you very much.

[TiKiWi]

I'm a foilist and I bounce.. that okay?

[AaronK]

At the risk of hijacking a thread...
I would make a few comments about the last few posts about coaches using footwork rather than the "coach-walk" durring a lesson. I have done both.
I have done both while doing 30+ lessons a week, and the lessons are 20-30 minutes. I can say that doing footwork in a lesson is physically demanding.
Will I be moving as fast when I am 50? I doubt it, but the guy I used to work for is 47 and he does footwork in every lesson he gives (at least 30+ a week for a half hour, sometimes longer) and he is working with athletes that are on National teams as well as beginners. Does he expect to do this at 60? I don't know, I know he anticipates slowing down, but he also sees his role as a coach changing at that age.
As for me, I don't walk anymore in lessons. When I first started giving lessons I did footwork because "I didn't know any other way". When I had coaching instruction I stopped using footwork because the mentor/instructor coaches kept yelling at me saying "DO YOU EXPECT TO LUNGE WHEN YOU ARE MY AGE?"...In my case, yes I do. Maybe not as many, but I don't think that I am going to be giving 30+ lessons a week in my 60's. So after seening older [and far more experienced] coaches who where using footwork, I didn't see any reason for me NOT to.
There are far too many reasons to be using footwork in a lesson for me to go back to being a walking backstop...but that's for another thread.

As to coaching bouncing...
It's really an organic thing, so the only thing I made sure was that if I had a student who liked to bounce while fencing I made sure that:
1. They changed the rhythm and size of their bouncing.
2. They were able to move their front foot and back foot independantly when bouncing (epee fencers who bounce need to be able to move their foot out of the way of toe touches, while still being able to maintain distance- just like a non-bouncer).
3. That they were able to make advances, retreats, lunges and fleches normally. (that they could change back and forth from bouncing to non-bouncing)
4. That their mind was not concentrating on their bouncing [or that it was more natural, rather than something they thought about]. If someone was doing it consciously they are MORE likely to get caught flat footed (note the pun).

Lastly: You are a foilist who wants to bounce? Well if you can come up with more reasons why you would benefit from bouncing as opposed to not-bouncing then do it- I would argue that in that case you would be foolish to be outright opposed to the idea. I can argue the case either way and I don't know how you fence, so I would be foolish to TELL you if you should or shouldn't.

[sabreur]

I think all of my coaches over the years used the walking approach to lessons....

As to the question of how you teach epeeists to bounce...

First you electrify a section of the strip with a rapidly alternating on-off current.

Then you have the epeeist do footwork on it barefoot.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by sabreur

As to the question of how you teach epeeists to bounce...

First you electrify a section of the strip with a rapidly alternating on-off current.

Then you have the epeeist do footwork on it barefoot.

Funnily this is exactly the method my coach uses!

[KD5MDK]

Pretty soon you have epeeists working at 50 or 60Hz...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by AaronK

As for me, I don't walk anymore in lessons. When I first started giving lessons I did footwork because "I didn't know any other way". When I had coaching instruction I stopped using footwork because the mentor/instructor coaches kept yelling at me saying "DO YOU EXPECT TO LUNGE WHEN YOU ARE MY AGE?"...In my case, yes I do. Maybe not as many, but I don't think that I am going to be giving 30+ lessons a week in my 60's. So after seening older [and far more experienced] coaches who where using footwork, I didn't see any reason for me NOT to.
There are far too many reasons to be using footwork in a lesson for me to go back to being a walking backstop...but that's for another thread.

Aaron's post sums up my experiences and sentiments extremely well (although I less used the justification of what older/experienced coaches were doing and more a combination of what made sense to me as best for my students and the fact that currently I don't have any problem with doing footwork in lessons and expect that IF such a problem eventually develops that I'll be able to notice it in time to also develop other habits (perhaps including walking) before it becomes a major issue).

This is one of the points of Coaches College instruction that I took it, tried in my lessons, and have since discarded.

-B

[Farfetnoogen]

Originally Posted by gtmac

Have you tried whacking them on their calves with an epee while screaming "BOUNCE, DAMN YOU!"?

That *points to quote*, or your could have them fence over hot coals. They'd probably pick up bouncing and get the timing right rather quickly.