99 percent perspiration

[sabreur]

The August Scientific American has a very interesting article, titled "The Expert Mind." The crux is that people who attain true mastery of a field do so more through "effortful study" than through innate talent. Individuals in a pursuit who exerted themselves in the study of the pursuit were able to identify and exploit patterns that neophytes or less serious participants were not able to see.

According to the article, chess has provided the best arena for studies of mastery, because the chess rating system is highly reliable (evidently, if my rating is 200 points higher than yours, I will beat you 3 out 4 games that we play). What has been found in research on chess players is that grand masters do not in fact "see" more moves in advance, but are much better able to look at a particular position and identify the best move. (The authors quote the great master Capablanca, who said, "I only see one move in advance, but it is always the right move.")

There has also been research into mastery in professions (notably, surgery) and in sports--for instance, a study of soccer professionals in Germany, Japan and Brazil found that birthdays in the first quarter of the year (Jan-Mar) were greatly over-represented, compared to the populations as a whole. The authors attribute this discrepancy to the fact that children born in the first quarter would be the oldest in age-group soccer teams, with considerable advantages in strength and coordination over other kids born later in the same year (children develop amazing quickly). Because of these advantages, they would get more opportunities to play, and so would develop their skills more fully.

Another key to achieving mastery, evidently, along with effortful study, is continually trying to overcome challenges that are just slightly beyond one's capabilities. According to the authors of the article, these two things--effortful study and constantly pushing (or being pushed) to perform just beyond one's capabilities--are the things that not only lead to mastery, but allow relative newcomers to an activity to quickly surpass others who may have pursued the activity for years, but always within their comfort zone, and without expending too much effort.

The authors don't discount the importance of natural talent (I think almost everyone who has taught fencing has run into someone who has absolutely no sense of tempo--regardless of how athletic, quick, etc. they are, they just aren't going to go far as fencers--and they probably will never be able to dance, either ), but find that effortful study and constantly trying to go beyond one's limits trump natural ability, or at least provide a major advantage if you have two students of roughly equal physical ability, one of whom studies the sport and constantly tries to exceed his/her limits.

I draw the following implications for fencing training:

1. Students need to be constantly pressured to analyze what they are doing, and what good fencers do, both while bouting/competiting, and when not fencing (i.e., by viewing and analyzing video of themselves, and of high-level fencers).

2. Providing students with a structure for analysis (read: the tactical wheel) is fundamental to their development.

3. Boutlike drills (for sabre, the Nellya "drive" drill and drills based on simultaneous/near simultaneous situations) can contribute significantly to the student learning to analyze situations.

4. Fencers need to constantly be presented with situations (in lessons, drills, bouting and competition) that are just beyond their capability/comfort zone. Obviously, the two places where this can be best controlled are lessons and drills...

[Mr Epee]

Sabreur,

First, let me congratulate you for providing such an interesting topic. I haven't read the article, but I've marked down for review next time I'm at the library.

I was having a very similar conversation with myself recently while driving, so it's interesting that something would be brought up here.

It all boils down to the concept that the more exposures an individual has to a particular problem, the greater the chance that the individual will process will correctly evaluate and react effectively to the problem, when faced with the problem for the nth time.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your analysis of the application to fencing (particularly #2), but hopefully we will see some interesting discussion on the subject.

Also, to a certain extent... there is a certain natural disposition for being the sort of person that sticks around to work on things with the intent of significant improvement. Maybe it's just a different understanding of what constitutes "natural talent"

[MyraTrue]

Sabreur,

I am curious to see the article now. It actually seems to describe a lot of the things I have thought to be true in fencing and about fencers. I've noticed the best fencers in a beginners class tend to be the ones who are interested in fencing not because they are a natural athlete (though I have seen some that excelled wonderfully), but because it is a challenge. These fencers usually need to understand the "why" of something before they can perform the action. In a parry, why is the tip in this location in relation to their blade? Why move my hand here? Why does my wrist move this way, instead of that? If you can give a clear explanation (a definite challenge), both tactical, and physical, they pick up quickly. I think some of us who "think too much" must understand reasons before actions, but it makes for solid fencing. Running on instinct has its drawbacks.

I've also seen the students who stagnate because they are left with the attitude of, "I'm doing this for fun, so why should I do anything that is uncomfortable/work/hard?" So would this imply that tournament situations are a good form of pushing a fencer further? I'm sure at some level, there may no longer be a direct challange from the fencers (ie, the A '06 in an E and under event). But, could we say that fencing others in a competitive situation can push us to excell- one point more, one touch less against us, one good parry reposte against the C rated fencer... so on?

[chefencer]

I'd suggest we define natural talent as the genetic predisposition of a body to successfully perform fencing actions in tempo. Work ethic, enthusiasm, receptive attitude are elements of a sucessful character and while probably somewhat genetically based, reside in the personality. Let's seperate kinesthetics from the cognition. What we're talking about is the little engine that could.

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by MyraTrue

I've noticed the best fencers in a beginners class tend to be the ones who are interested in fencing not because they are a natural athlete (though I have seen some that excelled wonderfully), but because it is a challenge. These fencers usually need to understand the "why" of something before they can perform the action. In a parry, why is the tip in this location in relation to their blade? Why move my hand here? Why does my wrist move this way, instead of that? If you can give a clear explanation (a definite challenge), both tactical, and physical, they pick up quickly. I think some of us who "think too much" must understand reasons before actions, but it makes for solid fencing. Running on instinct has its drawbacks.

I absolutely agree. I was once told by another, better fencer that I was "thinking too much" about the mechanics of my touches and choices of parries/ripostes/counters/feints and I needed to stop it and just run on instinct. I haven't fenced him in awhile, and I get the suspicion that if I did, I'd win. I'm the kind of person that asks "why, why why?" and I think it has helped my fencing. Coaches need to encourage that.

[MyraTrue]

TrainingDummy- I've never thought about how the "why?" people work, other than that I was one and needed to know. Would it be fair to say that (at least some of) the "why" fencers need to understand the mechanics and purpose before something can become body memory and instinct? We have to have each action right in our heads before we can convince our body to follow suit?

Do we, on the other hand, lose the interest of a purely athletic fencer, who wants to be shown, and to do, but does not feel any need to know why? Do you go out of your way to try to teach them "Why" as well as "how?"

[Peach]

My favorite statement on the subject:

There have now been many studies of elite performers--international violinists, chess grand masters, professional ice-skaters, mathematicians, and so forth--and the biggest difference researchers find between them and lesser performers is the cumulative amount of deliberate practice they've had. Indeed, the most important talent may be the talent for practice itself. K. Anders Ericsson, a cognitive psychologist and expert on performance, notes that the most important way in which innate factors play a role may be in one's willingness to engage in sustained training. He's found, for example, that top performers dislike practicing just as much as others do. (That's why, for example, athletes and musicians usually quit practicing when they retire.) But more than others, they have the will to keep at it anyway.

From Gawande, Atul. Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p. 20 (emphasis in original)

[Allen Evans]

One of the things that I've learned about students who do not succeed in fencing is that they often do not bring previous fencing information to solving a current problem. For instance, a beat in 4, disengage lunge is, for them, an entirely different action than a beat in 6, disengage, lunge (this is a trival, and not exactly true to life example, but not far from some of the cases I have run into). They fail to put fencing actions in context, and fail to link actions together into classes or similar situations. Every action -- or combination of actions -- is a unique "move" that they have to be taught seperately. This is not because they are stupid people, but because -- in general -- they don't put much effort into the intellectual process of fencing.

On a similar note, I see students take lessons constantly, but never try to bring the lesson to the strip, they don't engage in what might be call "effortful study". My first coach called it "fencing with attention".

[DLEE]

What is the "Nellya Drive Drill"?

[Ordway]

There's a lot to be said for the idea of effortful practice. I would attribute some of my recent improvement as a fencer to my improved awareness of the way that I learn best, with a corresponding attention to putting that knowledge into practice. (i.e. having realized that writing something down makes me remember it better, I now make notes after lessons; having realized that I understand better through kinesthetic learning than auditory learning, I let my coach know that, so he would know that things like physically drawing my hand through the motion of an action is very helpful to me.)

I think it is also essential to be able to say "I don't understand." When I am taking a lesson, I would much rather say "I don't get it" half a dozen times than nod my head to indicate I understood something that I didn't really understand, thus misleading my coach into thinking he could build on that. I think many people find it difficult to admit not understanding; I understand that feeling and sometimes I feel a bit foolish or clueless in asking (sometimes for the fifty gazilliionth time) about something. But I would rather ask, and learn, and be a better fencer for it, than momentarily get to gloss over that feeling of foolishness, and not progress as a fencer.

In that respect, it helps immensely to have a coach who never, ever, ever makes me feel inadequate or wrong for asking questions or having trouble.

[jeff]

Excellent thread - sabreur, thanks for starting it.

To Peach's observation and quote: that also reflects on the tendency for students to write off another student's superior results as "because they're smart" rather than because they worked harder; they think they aren't 'born smart' and then don't try, and consequently do poorly (and meet only their lowered expectations). Do you see that in your teaching?

Related topic: This weekend I saw an article in NYT relating a study showing that much of intelligence (as measured by IQ tests, blah) has a genetic component, as expected, but that environmental factors can cause just as much variation of result as heredity. This apparently refutes the "Bell Curve" book of a few years ago, which basically said that minorities were genetically, irrevocably stupid and therefore there was no point in spending public money to make them smart.

Allen Evan's observation seems to describe a failure to make an abstraction - to see a common pattern among similar actions. It must really be difficult to gain skill as a fencer (or anything else) if every move (or every piece of knowledge) is adrift without logical connection, and thus must be learned separately.

Interesting stuff - nice to see such a good topic.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jeff

To Peach's observation and quote: that also reflects on the tendency for students to write off another student's superior results as "because they're smart" rather than because they worked harder; they think they aren't 'born smart' and then don't try, and consequently do poorly (and meet only their lowered expectations). Do you see that in your teaching?

Yup--and there's a whole branch of educational psychology devoted to "attribution theory" -- that is, what you attribute success to and how that affects your learning.

When one of my students says of another, "He's a genius, that's why he does so well," I treat it almost as if it was an insult. "Excuse me," I say, "He happens to work very very hard indeed."

[Peach]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

One of the things that I've learned about students who do not succeed in fencing is that they often do not bring previous fencing information to solving a current problem.

In education, we call that the problem of transfer, and it is remarkably intractable. Many students not only do not transfer knowledge between different subjects ("What do you mean I have to write in complete sentences? This is science, not English."), they do not transfer knowledge from one task to another or from one teacher to another. Which is why my colleagues sometimes think I don't teach any grammar. Any time you have to transform knowledge by applying it in a different context, it seems to take on an entirely unfamiliar shape to these students.

[jrgunn]

Originally Posted by sabreur

2. Providing students with a structure for analysis (read: the tactical wheel) is fundamental to their development.

3. Boutlike drills (for sabre, the Nellya "drive" drill and drills based on simultaneous/near simultaneous situations) can contribute significantly to the student learning to analyze situations.

O.k. Please excuse my ignorance, but what is "the tactical wheel" and what is the Nellya drive drill?
Thanks

[Fencing Mom]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

On a similar note, I see students take lessons constantly, but never try to bring the lesson to the strip, they don't engage in what might be call "effortful study". My first coach called it "fencing with attention".

I’ve never experienced teaching or learning fencing, but part of what you are talking about - application - is smack in the middle of an educational theory which I have experienced. As I’m sure any of the teachers on this board will remember, one of the major tenets of teacher education is “Bloom’s Taxonomy (or Hierarchy).” A teacher writes educational objectives, - or a coach may give lessons, or a fencer my learn to fence - first at the bottom of the hierarchy. Theoretically, as a student or fencer becomes more proficient, the objectives, lessons, and hopefully the fencing skills, climb the hierarchy:

Bloom’s Taxonomy
1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4. Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. Evaluation

[eac]

Originally Posted by TrainingDummy

I absolutely agree. I was once told by another, better fencer that I was "thinking too much" about the mechanics of my touches and choices of parries/ripostes/counters/feints and I needed to stop it and just run on instinct. I haven't fenced him in awhile, and I get the suspicion that if I did, I'd win. I'm the kind of person that asks "why, why why?" and I think it has helped my fencing. Coaches need to encourage that.

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. As previously noted, thinking during practice is useful because you understand why actions are there, what they're for, etc. You also prevent missing the forest for the trees this way.

However, thinking on the fly in competition limits your effectiveness. Up to a certain level, thinking is fast enough and the action is slow enough that it can help you choose the right action next. However, to get above that level, you need to let go of conscious choice of action and let your brain unconsciously rely on training and practice. Ask any top competitor, and (s)he'll say that he just sort of lets it happen-- one example was in fencingpictures's interview with Emily Cross. The guy asked her about her victory over Vezzali, what was going on then, what she was thinking; she said that she really had no idea, it just sort of happened.
Obviously, you can think between phrases about how to approach, whether to be defensive or offensive, what actions to bias yourself towards, but that has to go out the window during the phrase.

I personally have gone through something like this myself, in which the fencers better than me and my coaches were all telling me that I think too much while fencing, and the problem was that I was thinking too much during the action-- I was trying to consciously see which way to disengage, rather than just feeling and letting it happen.

Hope that helps.

[Peach]

Also keep in mind that we tend to think of "thinking" as meaning "thinking in words." What you do during the bout is thinking--it's just often nonverbal thought, thought-in-action.

[OROD]

Great thread, I have to check out this article.

I just wanted to add that I was very happy to see them site Capablanca. I'm sure probably few or no one here knows who he was, but he was a Cuban chess player. One of the greatest ever. So, being Cuban myself and remembering hearing about Capablanca many times growing up from my dad, I take some pride.

Now back to your regularly scheduled fencing discussion.

.

[prototoast]

Hate to play the skeptic here, but I'm not convinced by that (certainly not by what is presented in this thread). Primary issue I see is:

The crux is that people who attain true mastery of a field do so more through "effortful study" than through innate talent.

Is it effortful study overcoming innate talent, or does innate talent lead to effortful study. Furthermore, who is to say that effortful study is not an innate talent?