Canada's Armband Program

[Jay83]

Hello,

I'm a fencer from Newfoundland, Canada. In my city, we only have a single fencing club (a university club) but we still have many community members.

Recently, the CFF (Canadian Fencing Federation) introduced the Armband program (If you actually want to read about it: http://www.fencing.ca/downloads/armband_program_eng.pdf )

The program is similar to the belt system in martial arts. Coaches evaluate fencers to demonstrate specific skills in the club environment and during an examination. To pass levels, fencers have to know about the role of the referees or the specific arm movements for judging, to direct/indirect ripostes.

My question to the parents is what do you think of this type of system? I will be introducing it to the club this summer. It seems to work well for most martial arts, but I'm afraid that the "examination" will scare off fencers especially where we've been mostly a recreational club. At the same time, fencers will be able to see that they are improving overall and becoming a better fencer with this program. How should I sell/pitch this to the young fencers and their parents?

[4qtrs]

Question, will you have the ref's wear armbands with a simular structure?

I ask because it seems to me that new and/or young fencers seem to think that the touch called against them is the fault of the ref.

it might help your concept if they understood the level of the ref they were dealing with.

Just a thought.

[RITFencing]

This was discussed a long while ago, but I'll chip in.

I'm of two minds about this...

There have been times in my coaching career when I would have killed for the ability to point to a belt or armband or whatever and say "This means I know more than you, so maybe you should LISTEN."

However, this could lead to the ability of other people to tell me "This means I know more than you, so maybe you should LISTEN."

The problem there is that not all of these people actually know more. When using an artificial system to track and categorize the skill development of fencers, there will be people who just become good at taking the tests, but not so great at actual fencing. There will also be large disparities between the skill levels of people evaluated by coach Y vs the people evaluated by coach X. Furthermore, the test does not actually seem to indicate actual bouting. The current rating system of fencers in the US is based on one thing: success on the strip. Sure, it is prone to wild variation and it isn't very accurate, but at least it is based on actual performance, not performance in a vacuum.

Finally, on a personal note, I dislike formality in my training environments. I realize that I am not joined by everyone in this, and that it is mostly a personal distaste, but I like to avoid things like rank hierarchies that can lead to more rigid, formal fencing clubs. I stuck with fencing over any eastern martial art I tried because I wasn't bowing to some dude's picture or the like.

[Jay83]

Refereeing and coaching skills are actually part of the same program. For example, in the first level (yellow) fencers should be able to corner judge. By the second level they should be able to referee a bout and by the thrid level they should be able to referee a bout with the correct hand signals.

The program breaks down different aspects of fencing for fencers to learn. The coaches and the more experienced fencers in the club seem to be onboard for this. I'm hoping that if the newer fencers wear the armbands, then it might entice the newer or younger fencers to do it.

[dcmdale]

I like it in theory. One of the things that I have noted at the clubs we have been at from a marketing perspective is that there is a significant gap between "Intro to Fencing" classes and being really ready for competitive fencing where there are not a lot of motivational goals presented to students.

Often, particularly with kids who aren't identified by the coach as hot talent, you see them come out of intro classes and flounder around for 6-9 months, then leave. I think that a large part of that is not having a sense of continued growth and development or an understanding of a competitive path forward. I think that the levels laid out here are pretty good at bridging that gap. Pride is a huge motivating force for most people.

I would present it to parents as a form of "National Recognition Program" to show the progress of fencers and that, as such, as the level of recognition goes up, so do the hurdles that need to be jumped.

[pokey]

Is this armband program mandatory for all fencers, or just the ones who want to coach/ref?

[kalivor]

The problem there is that not all of these people actually know more. When using an artificial system to track and categorize the skill development of fencers, there will be people who just become good at taking the tests, but not so great at actual fencing.

Well, of course there will. But the benefit is that they ought to know what various fencing actions are, and how they are to be performed -- even if they couldn't pull them off in a bout.

There will also be large disparities between the skill levels of people evaluated by coach Y vs the people evaluated by coach X.

Again, true. But this is - to some extent - accounted for in the need to have outside coaches evaluate the fencers as they progress through the levels. Not that this is perfect, either, but it prevents people from being "experts" with "high level armbands" being given out by a random coach somewhere.

Furthermore, the test does not actually seem to indicate actual bouting. The current rating system of fencers in the US is based on one thing: success on the strip. Sure, it is prone to wild variation and it isn't very accurate, but at least it is based on actual performance, not performance in a vacuum.

This is not how Canadian fencers are ranked, either. While I've heard some rumblings about requiring certain levels of armband to enter certain levels of competition, this has not come about. At least, not yet.

Canada has High Performance rankings, Domestic rankings and classifications, all of which are 100% based on results in competition. Having an armband of a particular colour might indicate being able to corner judge, or perform an octave parry in controlled conditions to an acceptable level of competency. It doesn't pretend to note an ability to win.

[kalivor]

Refereeing and coaching skills are actually part of the same program. For example, in the first level (yellow) fencers should be able to corner judge. By the second level they should be able to referee a bout and by the thrid level they should be able to referee a bout with the correct hand signals.

This isn't entirely accurate. As part of the armband program, students are expected to learn to referee -- but this is more about learning the rules and hand-gestures, and following the phrase, than it is about actually being a qualified referee. The top armband level has the student earning the lowest level referee credential available.

There might be some hope that this will help in developing future referees, but its purpose is to create more well-rounded (hence, more successful) fencers.

Training as a referee in Canada is done independently from the armband program.

[kalivor]

Is this armband program mandatory for all fencers, or just the ones who want to coach/ref?

It's not mandatory at all. If you want to be a coach in the Canadian system, you need to understand, and be able to teach, the armband program. If you're a fencer, and your coach teaches using it -- then it's mandatory.

But you don't need to go through the program to either referee or coach. In fact, I'd be surprised if there was a single referee or coach currently in Canada who has gone through it -- it's too new.

[Jay83]

Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself in my reply. Yes officiating is a separate program, but the skills to corner judge or referee are started with this program.

The whole point of this program is to create well rounded fencers in terms of fencing, coaching, refereeing etc.

[Allen Evans]

Are well rounded fencers NOT being created in the absence of this program?

I'm with RIT with this one. I have mixed feelings about the arm band/belt system. On the one hand, it might be a good way to motivate fencers in a club environment, and it certainly gives a well defined learning path for fencing skills: both very good things. At the same time, I'm left wondering what a "XYZ" band really means, once you achieve it.

I've also seen these sorts of ranking systems in martial arts turned on their heads: the skills don't define the level, the level defines the skill, and fencers/parents use them as a pecking order in the club. I think it's easy to imagine that this is not a very good thing.

It might be useful in a recreational club without many competitive fencers (and thus no outside ranking). In a strong competitive clubs that field a lot of fencers to tournaments, I suspect that this system would not have much of a motivational/educational purpose.

I know a few American clubs have tried a system like this, I wonder if any of them would like to chime in about how successful it is and in what context they have used it?

AE

[RITFencing]

I've also seen these sorts of ranking systems in martial arts turned on their heads: the skills don't define the level, the level defines the skill, and fencers/parents use them as a pecking order in the club. I think it's easy to imagine that this is not a very good thing.

This is probably my number 2 concern with a system like this, but bear in mind that it can often happen with the USFA's rating system.

My number 1 issue, now that I've had time to think about it, is people missing the forest for the trees and focusing on getting the next rank rather than just improving as a fencer. I've seen this happen in eastern martial arts schools many times; people are worried more about passing their green belt exam than just becoming a better practitioner. Especially when the system can have a rigid progression of skills (one thing I will grant the armband system as outlined is that it is not especially rigid in its requirements) which does not include actual application of those skills (I am a firm believer that someone incapable of applying a skill in a real situation rather than an academic vacuum does not possess that skill,) and even moreso when fencers (I see this happen all the time with people who never move out of lower level competition) think that their technique is "good enough for x." X could be the level needed to get a certain band, or beat all the kids in the local tournament circuit, or whatever, but it can ultimately stunt a fencer's growth.