99 percent perspiration

[HDG]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Often times, talent in fencing is just a by-product of lack of talent in other areas.

Agreed; I routinely have to explain to my girlfriend that fencing skill is inversely proportionate to dancing ability when I shake it like a white boy.

[Mo]

Education is not filling a bucket but lighting a fire.
William B. Yeats, poet

Substitute "Learning to fence" for "education."
This quote is quite true for anything learning.
The MOMster

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Often times, talent in fencing is just a by-product of lack of talent in other areas.

This is simply not true.

In fact, the opposite is often quite true.

DFP... if you would like an explaination, please PM me and don't muddy up this thread.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by eac

There are two kinds of thinking: thinking on the fly when it matters (e.g. in a tournament) and thinking during practice and lessons. The former is bad, generally speaking, while the latter is good.

Excuse me?

Source please...

If you wish to speak from personal experience, then please do so, but please don't foist your life as truth.

[keropie]

Thinking is bad if it inhibits action at the critical juncture in time and space. And even then it's not so much that the thinking was bad, but rather the inhibition.

And I suppose thinking is bad if it ends up confusing the one thinking, but again because that tends to inhibit (correct) action.

Thinking on strip is far from bad, unless it leads to one of the above failures. This is why saber fencers are often told 'think less.' If one is thinking 'hmmm, I think a fifth parry would go well right about now,' generally speaking the correct time for a fifth parry was about .2 seconds ago, and you've already been hit. But it's not so much that the thought was bad, but the lack of action (in this case, a fifth parry).

[Inquartata]

How would this perspective account for the 'salle fencer' phenomenon---the fencer who is strong in practice but achieves little in competitions?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

How would this perspective account for the 'salle fencer' phenomenon---the fencer who is strong in practice but achieves little in competitions?

Because competitions are something you absolutely must practice at in order to be able to perform well at.

[sabreur]

What Telk said.

I think a "salle fencer" is often the equivalent of the golfer who may play frequently, but only on one course, always with the same foursome. They may be quite good within that limited environment, but don't have the mental frameworks needed to cope with other courses and other playing partners.

This assumes the "salle fencer" generally choses not to enter tournaments. There are also people who just have a hard time with the pressure of competition--they may perform brilliantly in the relatively low-stress environment of the salle, but tie up mentally when faced with the stress of a tournament.

To return to the discussion as a whole--I think Peach makes a very important point--a lot of mastery in fencing involves non-verbal perception and cognition. In sabre, for instance, changing lines in reaction to an opponent's parry or sensing the correct moment to launch an attack in preparation are non-verbal skills that you can learn through drills and bouting. In sabre in any case, during a point, I think non-verbal perception and cognition have to be the primary mode of thought. Between points, you have to be able to engage a more verbal style of analysis to try to figure out what is going on at the higher tactical/strategic levels--although even then, for me, visualizing actions is more helpful than trying to describe them verbally.

[Inquartata]

Absolutely, although I'm not comfortable with the "verbal" characterization. It DOES involve two different modes, but I don't really believe that I think "verbally" at any point in a bout.

Certainly, though, to think, ie to deliberate, during an action is death. Too often it leads to the unfortunate phenomenon my coach refers to as "changing your mind" in the middle of an action. Waugh. Been there.

[cmedalis]

Link from Scientific American to full text article (gotta love that they post this stuff online, no PDF's either )

Scientific American: The Expert Mind [ PSYCHOLOGY AND BRAIN SCIENCE ]

Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well

[MyraTrue]

Originally Posted by eac

There are two kinds of thinking: thinking on the fly when it matters (e.g. in a tournament) and thinking during practice and lessons. The former is bad, generally speaking, while the latter is good.

I do not actually see these as two different kinds of thinking. Perhaps different quantities, but not different kinds. I've been told by coaches (and I disagree) that all your thinking happens before the bout starts, and none should occur durring. After each touch, I think we all evaluate what just happened, especially if the touch is against us. "She parries circle six," "she holds a low guard," "she parries, but does not reposte." Where do we actually think these things, but on the strip? When things do not work, in particular, or when the scores are riding close, we think, because simply reacting is not always enough. We depend on those reactions, but we are also in control of them, and should be able to chose them.

I think the difference in practice and tournament are that you have less time to only be "thinking." Your thinking should be spaced around your reactions to things practiced in the salle. But thinking has as valid a place on the strip as anywhere else, and I believe is part of what makes a good fencer. But perhaps we also consider different things "thinking." I consider strategizing and analyzing to be thinking. And as most "thinkers" can admit, I've been caught planning something great... and realized I needed to think less, and do more.

[RITFencing]

Looking at a few posts on here, I'm starting to see a bit of a pattern. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like not only a dedication to practicing, but also a skill at practicing or learning is very useful here. Allen talked about succesful fencers adapting quickly; it seems like someone that assimilates new information that well would get more out of the same amount of practice. This may also make practice more tolerable for them, because it changes and becomes a bit less tedious.

So, maybe it's not just time spent practicing, but learning how to practice as well.

[eac]

Originally Posted by MyraTrue

I do not actually see these as two different kinds of thinking. Perhaps different quantities, but not different kinds. I've been told by coaches (and I disagree) that all your thinking happens before the bout starts, and none should occur durring. After each touch, I think we all evaluate what just happened, especially if the touch is against us. "She parries circle six," "she holds a low guard," "she parries, but does not reposte." Where do we actually think these things, but on the strip? When things do not work, in particular, or when the scores are riding close, we think, because simply reacting is not always enough. We depend on those reactions, but we are also in control of them, and should be able to chose them.

My phrasing was bad. As several others have commented, by "on the fly" I meant during the actual phrase, like between the second and third ripostes, where conscious thought will make the third parry 0.2 seconds too late. I agree that you should think some between points about high-level tactics, like that your opponent is vulnerable to remises, or that he thinks you're going to parry four. The kind of thought I think is bad is seeing in real time that they're parrying six and thinking "Oh, better disengage counterclockwise... too late."

[Wise-Epeeist]

I perspire a lot.

[Kenji]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Looking at a few posts on here, I'm starting to see a bit of a pattern. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like not only a dedication to practicing, but also a skill at practicing or learning is very useful here. Allen talked about succesful fencers adapting quickly; it seems like someone that assimilates new information that well would get more out of the same amount of practice. This may also make practice more tolerable for them, because it changes and becomes a bit less tedious.

So, maybe it's not just time spent practicing, but learning how to practice as well.

As far adapting quickly is concerned, that reminded me of something I think Ivan Lee said in one of the interview or something on fencing pictures. He as talking about Podznyakov <sp?>, and he was saying how he is capable of changing up his game very dramatically. The way he fences now is very different than like, say, 6 years ago or something. So, clearly, it would seem that being able to adapt to new tactics, and learn new skills and sets of skills, play an important role in being a top-notch fencer.

I also remember, looking at Pozdyakov's website, that he practiced like 3 hours a day, every day, when he was a kid. I imagine all that practice helped a lot.

[chefencer]

Actually, the article was saying that regardless of the level of practice it seems the real building towards expertise is only done under those 'effortful' conditions. If you're not pushing yourself, but merely maintaining then that's what you get, no matter how many hours. I'd say that's the real barrier between layman and expert, because it's not just a time commitment, but constant striving, constant stretch goals. It's hard enough to make time for any avocation, but how much harder is it to push yourself to your limit, mentally and physically, every time you do it. Newton's first law is just as relevant to the human psyche and overcoming not only the tendency to stay at rest, but pushing the mental rock up the hill as hard as you can every single time is a task of mythological proportions. Whenever I manage to have an 'A-Ha!' moment I'd almost swear I can feel the new neural pathway being layed down...

[Bryn Ralph]

The ontological and teleological implications for "the expert mind" predisposes the notion of natural law and unintended consequences.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Bryn Ralph

The ontological and teleological implications for "the expert mind" predisposes the notion of natural law and unintended consequences.

Implications predispose, not "predisposes."

Your statement is a load of post-modern crap.

Warning: what follows is essentially a tedious repetition of the sentence immediately above this one.

I believe that what you are actually saying is that the concept of "the expert mind" indicates a hidden belief in "natural law" with associated assumptions about ontology (the nature of knowledge) and teleology (the concept that reality moves toward predetermined ends). I.e., that the expert mind actually inappropriately inscribes meaning, based on a belief that reality has purpose and ends. I'm guessing you just threw in the phrase "unintended consequences" because you heard it in class or read it somewhere.

In fact, a person who has engaged in the effortful study and constantly attempting to exceed their own capabilities gains insights into actual structures in reality, and through that insight is better able to control outcomes. You can argue that the whole concept of outcomes is an inappropriate inscribing of meaning, but essentially what you are saying is that "winning" in chess or fencing is an artificially defined concept, that is based in some sort of underlying belief in God, male dominance, etc. To which I reply, yes, and you can redefine "winning" to mean, for instance: turning over the chess board rather than playing the game. So what?

In fact, the investigation into "the expert mind" was conducted on a pretty careful scientific basis and the results have a fairly significant statistical validity. You might not like it, but your statement would have been equally valid had you written:

"The ontological and teleological implications for "the law of gravity" predisposes [sic] the notion of natural law and unintended consequences."

Now crawl back into your hole and let those of us who are actually interested in becoming expert in fencing continue our misguided efforts in that direction...

Sheesh.

MR

[rory]

On a (somewhat) related note, the belief that competition is "bad" because there has to be a loser seems to be becoming pervasive.

There are a large number of schools, particularly primary schools, in the Uk that are dropping all traditional sport in favour of non-competitive activities - the justification is apparently that losing damages self esteem, and this way the kiddies will all feel good about themselves.

This is the worst form of idiocy: life is competitive.
Anyone who thinks that they're not in competition with their workmates for promotion, with potential suitors for the wo/man they fancy, in so many other areas of life - is, by definition, a loser.

And, goddammit, WINNING IS FUN.
Why bother if you're not playing to win?

Rant over.