Amateur Coaches

[parrythis]

When an "elite" coach puts down the efforts of an "amateur" coach, they forgetting that the "amateur" coach is the source of their next book of business. It is the "amateur" coach that creates within a select few the desire to move on to greatness. When fencers do develop that desire, they will need to seek out one of those "elite" coaches.

Without you and others like you developing that desire in your fencers, those "elite" coaches will run out of students and income fairly quickly. They should be thanking you for what you are doing. They should be helping you in whatever way they can.

[wahrman]

You've answered your own question here.

You make fencers and new coaches who love the sport and go on to greater things. You run a successful, self sustaining club to boot.

What more could you possibly strive for?

If you are enjoying it, keep at it. If not, move on. But don't worry about being the "elite" club or not.

Originally Posted by jBirch

So the question is, should I shut down the club and walk away? The club is hugely solvent (I think it can run for 20 years without any students on the savings banked). I've created two other coaches and have a third on the way up who can teach beginner lessons in a rudimentary form. If the executive wants the club to continue, it can continue, though it won't produce fencers of the same calibre.

[Cookeit]

Just what does it take to become an amateur coach?
I know that you have to be a good fencer and have great teaching skills... but what else?

I have been considering being a coach part time when I get older.

[wahrman]

My goals (in my so far very short coaching career)

1) get and keep people interested in fencing and having fun.
2) make them even slightly better fencers.
3) not give them any bad habits that can't be fixed by a "real" coach later.

Originally Posted by Cookeit

Just what does it take to become an amateur coach?
I know that you have to be a good fencer and have great teaching skills... but what else?

I have been considering being a coach part time when I get older.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Cookeit

Just what does it take to become a coach?

(edited for greater generality)

A masochistic streak?

-B

[Allen Evans]

It also helps to have an outside source of income.

AE

[knave]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

It also helps to have an outside source of income.

AE

As my first coach said, when I was talking with him about coaching:

What do you call a fencing coach without health insurance?

Single.

[big daddy]

i think you're a damn good instructor. Fencing is about more than teaching a simple sport, it's about touching lives, changing lives. This is the heart of any fighting sport. If you can teach students to love the sport. If you can teach them to be a little better today than they were yesterday. Your job is done. The best fencing instructor I ever had was an amatur. He taught a love for the sport and he knew when to allow students to seek out better instruction. He was a major influnce in many lives . Yes you have a place.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

At one time or another, I think anyone whose livelihood doesn't depend on zipping up a plastron has doubts about coaching.

You really think that the people whose livelihood does depend on it don't have doubts from time to time?

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Cookeit

Just what does it take to become an amateur coach?
I know that you have to be a good fencer and have great teaching skills... but what else?

I have been considering being a coach part time when I get older.

I think desire, personability, empathy, patience, discipline, plasticity and most of all love of the game factor in more than current teaching or fencing skills.

If you have those basic qualities, not even necessarily in great supply, you would be amazed at what you can learn.

[Fencergrl]

Taking courses and learning from others helps you not only become a coach, but become a better one.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I think desire, personability, empathy, patience, discipline, plasticity and most of all love of the game factor in more than current teaching or fencing skills.

Hm. I would disagree... I know that I can learn from a good teacher who has good skills in what I'm trying to learn. It might suck, I might be bored, they might be mean and impatient... but if I want it, I can learn.

If I'm trying to learn from a person who wants to teach, has a good personality, is empathic and patient and disciplined and flexible... that doesn't mean they know anything. About anything.

Unfortunately, I've met way too many coaches like that. Being a good, fun, interesting person doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to teach me.

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite coaches is a downright asshole. I think he does it to weed out the people who don't really want it.

(PS, don't I know you from somewhere?)

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Hm. I would disagree... I know that I can learn from a good teacher who has good skills in what I'm trying to learn. It might suck, I might be bored, they might be mean and impatient... but if I want it, I can learn.

If I'm trying to learn from a person who wants to teach, has a good personality, is empathic and patient and disciplined and flexible... that doesn't mean they know anything. About anything.

Unfortunately, I've met way too many coaches like that. Being a good, fun, interesting person doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to teach me.

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite coaches is a downright asshole. I think he does it to weed out the people who don't really want it.

(PS, don't I know you from somewhere?)

True, but a person with these qualities, particularly a desire to learn more, good plasticity and love of the game will continue to learn and grow to the point where they have something good to teach.

I was more talking about what qualities are needed to become a good coach, not to be a good one. It's a fine line, maybe, (and of course some fencing knowledge is certainly required) and I certainly don't think anyone should look into opening up their own club without a solid knowledge of the game, but if someone wants to become a coach without already being very knowledgeable about fencing, they can kind of learn by doing with other, more experienced coaches teaching and watching them.

Also, remember that this is about amateur coaching. If someone is just starting up a rec program, I am far more interested in their abilities to get someone interested, get them to love fencing and give them good basics than their ability to churn out high level competitors.

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I meant that fencing skill/knowledge isn't important; it most certainly is. I'm just saying that it will come with time to any coach possessing the qualities I mentioned and that it is not really required to be a fencing expert to get people involved in the game and up to the point where they are ready for more experienced and skilled coaches to bring them further.

One thing I will definitely add to my list, though: a lack of misconception about fencing and their own abilities. I think it's important that coaches of any level are realistic about what they can do with a fencer and that they don't give their fencers any really bad habits to be deconstructed later.

Does that sound better?

(And yes, I think we've met before. )

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

a person with these qualities, particularly a desire to learn more, good plasticity and love of the game will continue to learn and grow to the point where they have something good to teach.

Maybe. Probably. But NOT definitely. Imagine such a person who had a bad instructor. Someone who was not a roaming student, but stuck with one instructor. If all their instructor isn't any good, all the instructor in question is doing is teaching their instructor's BAD MATERIAL BETTER... they aren't really a good instructor. They are a nice instructor, who teaches BAD MATERIAL well. Who wants that?

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I was more talking about what qualities are needed to become a good coach, not to be a good one.

Okay... either way, I don't see how you can possibly argue that HAVING GOOD FENCING SKILLS is LESS IMPORTANT than being enthusiastic. Yes, Enthusiasm is a HUGE plus. But like I said earlier... an enthusiastic moron is less help than a grumpy Michael Marx.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

It's a fine line, maybe, (and of course some fencing knowledge is certainly required) and I certainly don't think anyone should look into opening up their own club without a solid knowledge of the game, but if someone wants to become a coach without already being very knowledgeable about fencing, they can kind of learn by doing with other, more experienced coaches teaching and watching them.

Isn't that what we're really talking about here? Fencing takes YEARS to master, like any martial art (using the term in the broadest sense, no fights please). If someone wants to learn to be a coach they need to learn to play first. How can you teach the game if you can't play? I'm not saying it's not possible. But damn, that would be hard.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Also, remember that this is about amateur coaching. If someone is just starting up a rec program, I am far more interested in their abilities to get someone interested, get them to love fencing and give them good basics than their ability to churn out high level competitors.

That's what I'm talking about. How is said coach going to give any good basics if they don't know anything about fencing? Being a great wonderful enthusiastic people person who can attract business doesn't mean they KNOW ANYTHING. That's my point.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I meant that fencing skill/knowledge isn't important; it most certainly is. I'm just saying that it will come with time to any coach possessing the qualities I mentioned and that it is not really required to be a fencing expert to get people involved in the game and up to the point where they are ready for more experienced and skilled coaches to bring them further.

What about their first students? Maybe the coach is learning, but the first batch, the first students, the ones they taught when they didn't know anything... what about them? I know from personal experience how hard it is to un-learn from bad coaching.

[seak]

I think there's a difference you are missing between an amateur coach and Michael Marx. I think RIT is somewhat assuming that anyone who is looking to do an coaching will have some basic skills/knowledge (how to do a parry 4, what an advance looks like etc).

If someone really has the qualities that RIT has suggested they will even be able to learn more by just going to tournaments and asking better fencers how they perform, watching good fencing, reading books and posting here for instance. Hence, even if there coach is bad they will be able to get correct ideas.

Many top notch fencers are not good coaches, because while they can do it correctly, they can't explain and teach how to do it. Conversely being able to explain an action and teach it, even if you can't execute it at full speed in a bout yourself is going to do more good for your students.

Hence, why RIT is saying that good teaching ability and a willingness to learn are more important in becoming a good coach, then being a world class fencer.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Maybe. Probably. But NOT definitely. Imagine such a person who had a bad instructor. Someone who was not a roaming student, but stuck with one instructor. If all their instructor isn't any good, all the instructor in question is doing is teaching their instructor's BAD MATERIAL BETTER... they aren't really a good instructor. They are a nice instructor, who teaches BAD MATERIAL well. Who wants that?

Sure, you're describing my first instructor here, and as many forumites can tell you, I'm still bitter about it. Actually, there's a danger here where a person who is a good teacher teaching bad skills (again, my first coach, and several others I have worked with) is worse than a bad teacher teaching bad skills.

However, there's a difference between someone with a solid grasp of basic material and a bad grasp of advanced material, if you know what I mean. That's why I put in my little appendix where I think they should have a good idea of what they do and do not know, and should have at least a clear picture of what fencing should be.

As far as someone stuck with one instructor, that's not an enviable situation, and exactly what they are looking for from fencing (and their own personal tolerances) should really determine exactly what type of coach is good for them. Of course, it's not like they'll have a choice.

Okay... either way, I don't see how you can possibly argue that HAVING GOOD FENCING SKILLS is LESS IMPORTANT than being enthusiastic. Yes, Enthusiasm is a HUGE plus. But like I said earlier... an enthusiastic moron is less help than a grumpy Michael Marx.

If you're going to talk about the extremes, I think both a fencing genius who hates their students and a fencing moron who loves teaching are going to be kind of useless from a coaching standpoint. However, FOR AMATEUR COACHES AND REC PROGRAMS, which is kind of the topic here, I would stray slightly more towards the good teacher/bad fencer side. At least their students will stay involved in fencing longer and get to the point where they can benefit from another coach.

Isn't that what we're really talking about here? Fencing takes YEARS to master, like any martial art (using the term in the broadest sense, no fights please). If someone wants to learn to be a coach they need to learn to play first. How can you teach the game if you can't play? I'm not saying it's not possible. But damn, that would be hard.

Oh sure, they need to know something about fencing, but they don't necessarily have to be a great fencer. Having an excellent understanding of the game and being good at applying that understanding are two subtly different things, albeit very closely linked.

I can name a list of top level coaches, however, who have never been top level competitors: Mike Pederson, Gary Copeland, Buckie Leach... ask anyone in the US if these people know a thing or two about fencing.

That's what I'm talking about. How is said coach going to give any good basics if they don't know anything about fencing? Being a great wonderful enthusiastic people person who can attract business doesn't mean they KNOW ANYTHING. That's my point.

I think maybe you're taking what I said a little too far here... I'm nto saying that a person should know nothing about fencing, and I'm not saying that in a choice between no fencing skill/all coaching skill and no coaching skill/all fencing skill I'd take the former, necessarily. I'm saying between someone with mediocre fencing skills and good coaching skills and someone with good fencing skills and mediocre teaching skills, I'd want th good coach to be running a rec program.

What about their first students? Maybe the coach is learning, but the first batch, the first students, the ones they taught when they didn't know anything... what about them? I know from personal experience how hard it is to un-learn from bad coaching.

That's definitely a good point, and I know from experience how rough that can be as well. However, once again, there's a line between "wrong" and "not high level." I think anyone coaching at any level should be able to impart strong basics, and if they cannot they either should not be coaching or should at least have someone looking over their shoulder and teaching them.

Sometimes, however, even that is not an option, and in these cases I think the person should either not be coaching or should be completely honest and up front with their students. I was in a situation like this for a while, and I told them "Look, I'm not a good coach. I'm not that great of a fencer, either, but I'm what you've got for now. I'll do my best to teach you, but don't take everything I say as gospel. If another, more accomplished coach tells you something else, give it a shot, and if it works, bring it back here."

That's where good introspection and plasticity come into play.

Speaking of Buckie Leach, he once said that the reason he is such a good coach is because of his ability to say to a student "Hey, this thing I taught you before really doesn't work, let's try something else."

[jBirch]

Good discussion.

The question I was asking was more along the lines of coach motivation then coach skill. DFP posted in the main forum that a coach should always be rigourously upgrading their skills or else they're doing their students a disservice. The original question was about whether there is a place for a coach who doesn't want to sink the time and energy required to get better.

On a different note, we have a push around here to get high school phys ed teachers involved in teaching fencing. They obviously have no clue when it comes to fencing but can probably be instructed on how to run a 1 or 2 week introductory program. Are they a bad thing too?