Amateur Coaches

[p1nkp4nther]

Originally Posted by Jason

...
Coaching certification, however, is not regulated nearly tightly enough for it to mean anything.

In the US especially (although I know of this same problem existing in other countries, as well), certification isn't a barometer of anything.

From personal experience I have to agree with that.

ALSO it seems to me sometimes that the higher the qualification of the coach the greater the "diva" behavior. I have realised that this is sometimes actually a strategy on the part of the coach to encourage some students tot prove themselves "worthy" before the coach will give them more attention. A little bit of psychology to encourage the student to perform.

Yet I do agree that coaches need to be able to change their style according to the student, because maybe they have a student that does not want to become a champion (therefore that type of "psychology" is inappropriate). But maybe it is ironically the Master coaches that are so focussed on high level fencing that don't understand that some people would just like to improve their technique so they can fence for fun and fulfillment. Something that a less qualified coach may better understand.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Jason

I'll respond to this as well.
I would love to live in a world where your analogy was true. Coaching certification, however, is not regulated nearly tightly enough for it to mean anything.

In the US especially (although I know of this same problem existing in other countries, as well), certification isn't a barometer of anything.

I think you are a little disingenuous in the above statement. If coaching certification was regulated any tighter, we would have even less coaches seeking certification.

I also disagree with your second statement. I think certification is a barometer.

If a coach passes an exam on terminology, has a Master’s thesis corrected, accepted and published, and passes a practical exam in all three weapons. I believe they know something about fencing. It is difficult for many coaches to submit themselves to this level of review by other coaches. Especially, when they think the other Masters are below their level.

It is a peer review. My day job is in the software industry. Peer reviews are part of the industry “Best practices”. But programmers still don’t like to have their code reviewed by their peers or their seniors. And yet industry stats show that it improves the quality of the code.

Most coaches don’t go directly to the Master’s exam. It is a process that you work up to over several years. It was 5 years between my Prevot exam and my Masters exam. I think this is another part of the process that turns coaches away.

We have many Moniteurs and Prevots who never come back for the Master exam. For many, I think it was the three weapon criteria. But soon we will have a single weapon Masters certification which will allow coaches to concentrate and specialize in one weapon.

The current USFCA process is not perfect, I will admit that fact, but we have made many improvements and it is better than it was five years ago.

[Allen Evans]

MdA:

It's not the requirement for three weapons that have kept me testing for Maitre, or the requirement that I write a thesis (I'm perfectly willing to write about fencing).

What is keeping me from testing is the extreme differences between what I might find on a exam board. Five years ago, a very esteemed and active fencing Master -- watching me teach a saber lesson -- told me that my fencers "took too many steps" and that I had abandoned the idea of saber as a game of parry, riposte, and counter-riposte. He told me that modern saber was a travesty, and he refused to teach it.

Last summer, I scored a 99% on my practical saber exam in Level 3 Saber at the USFA Coaches College by letting my student take a lot of steps, and without a single counter-riposte.

And this is not an isolated example. A friend of mine took a USFCA clinic within the past year in which the dipolma'd coach giving the clinic told him that the half advance had no place in epee.

Whose opinion is right? Who will be on my board if I ever stand for a Maitre exam? How will I know what sort of board I have until I'm asked to teach an epee fencer to do a second-intention evelopment in an inside line?

Progress has been made in the testing procedures -- and you were responsible for some of that progress -- but the USFCA still has some distance to cover before I can feel confident that I can walk into a room, and know what's going to be asked of me in a Maitre exam.

Allen Evans
(Prevost)

[Jason]

Originally Posted by MdA

I think you are a little disingenuous in the above statement. If coaching certification was regulated any tighter, we would have even less coaches seeking certification.

Is the goal to increase the number of coaches seeking certification or to raise the standard of what the certification means?

Allen's criticism is extremely sound.
I've given a few Moniteur exams for the USFCA and am quite certain that I've failed applicants who would pass easily with some examiners (and fail just as easily with others). I haven't sat on a board for a Master's exam, but can only assume the situation would be similar.

Additionally, the point (by Welted 24/7) which started this line of conversation was about a fencing master's respect for low level students. There is nothing in the USFCA's testing procedures (nor in those of any other country, as far as I know) which certifies this element of coaching.

I will add, however, that the USFCA has made tremendous progress over the last few years. I think it still has a while to go before it gains real relevance.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

MdA:

Whose opinion is right? Who will be on my board if I ever stand for a Maitre exam? How will I know what sort of board I have until I'm asked to teach an epee fencer to do a second-intention evelopment in an inside line?

Allen Evans
(Prevost)

"Life is like a box of chocolates...." Momma Gump

During my Prévôt exam...one of the Masters on the board hated me….he was a former collegiate rival coach. I knew going into the exam that he was not going to pass me. It was 93, right after we switched over to electric saber. I started teaching the new saber en guarde position in the tierce. I knew he preferred the old classical tierce position with the bell guard rotated way out to the side covering the outside arm. I decided to go with what I was currently teaching…and what I had learned from top coaches like Nazlymov and Kaidanov. When he asked me about it, I explained the new electric whip-over timing in the scoring chip eliminated the need for the old tierce position. I also explained the new tierce position with the bell guard rotated downward relaxed the entire arm and allowed quicker, smoother actions.

He failed me…but fortunately the other two Masters (one of whom was my mentor and sponsor) passed me.

During the épée portion of my Masters exam in Germany in 97, one of the board members was a guy I knocked out of the German Masters Championship the previous year. He beat me the year of my exam so I think he was feeling a little better during my exam. He was also my instructor during many of the courses I took in Germany. I wasn’t sure if he would pass me. I don’t know if he did but that is why there are three Masters on the board.

My advice is to apprentice yourself to a certified USFCA Master/Prévôt that you know and respect. He or she can mentor/guide you through the examination process.

[MdA]

Allen,

...and I promise I will never ask you to teach an epee fencer to do a second-intention evelopment in an inside line.

[foiled once again]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

and yet...

I have personally worked with Gia and find him to be a great coach and friend. To bad he moved so far away from Salina when he took on his new job.

What a great write up for him though!

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Jason

Is the goal to increase the number of coaches seeking certification or to raise the standard of what the certification means?


Additionally, the point (by Welted 24/7) which started this line of conversation was about a fencing master's respect for low level students. There is nothing in the USFCA's testing procedures (nor in those of any other country, as far as I know) which certifies this element of coaching.

I

The answer to your question is both. This is the challenge we are facing in the USFCA. Raise the standards and increase the numbers...just like every modern company...increase production and quality. I agree it is a big job for a volunteer non-profit association.

As for respect for low level students...I think this is covered by the professionalism requirement. Does the Master conduct himself in a manner worthy of the profession? For me this is not observed only in the exam. Again..as in my email to Allen...start working with a Master you know and respect. That is how I did it. They taught me how to respect all fencers.

Did they sometimes faulter? Yes. Do I sometimes act in less than a professional manner? Yes. Masters are human. But the goal is to strive for professionalism.

[Allen Evans]

(laughing)

MdA...you're making my points for me!

Despite the work done by you and people like Vinnie Bradford, the process of getting accredited by the USFCA is still a very subjective one, and leaves the USFCA open to the critism of the USFCA being an Old Boys Network. When I took my Prevot (with Ed Richards, Buzz Hurst and Muriel Bower on the board) I was accused of angling to pick my own board. They were exactly right: I was angling for a board that would be fair, and had more than a passing aquaintence with modern fencing. I was trying to avoid the sort of situations you faced, and I was more or less successful.

Like Mr. E, I appreciate your passion and care for the USFCA, lumps and all. But I feel that USFCA is working very hard to make itself irrelevant, and the sort of behavior that we both are describing is accelerating that trend.

AE

[MdA]

This sort of behavior has been a part of fencing for hundreds of years...and not just fencing....it is a Master apprentice guild system....and Americans don't like it.

They want a totally objective scoring system...like a video replay of your lesson during the exam to be reviewed by a third (or in this case a fourth) party.

[MdA]

The USFCA has online multiple choice tests for Moniteur and Prevot. They are computer graded immediately after you finish the test. Totally objective. The only subjective part is the pratical exam.

I don't think a multiple choice test is appropriate for Master.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by MdA

It is a peer review. My day job is in the software industry. Peer reviews are part of the industry “Best practices”. But programmers still don’t like to have their code reviewed by their peers or their seniors. And yet industry stats show that it improves the quality of the code.

Back to original point of the thread, the mere fact that you have a day job would indicate that you are an "amateur" coach. You don't make a living from what it is you're doing and so, credentials or not, you're not a professional. You're a "professional amateur". Like Allen.

You guys tend to be the best around. Gifted intellectually and with a sound grasp of real professional ethics.

However, did you ever go through the "dark time" and consider dropping your teaching in favour of your family and your real career?

I know as a professional software engineer myself, that when crunch time comes, I sacrifice the club for my family and my job (in that order). It's why I spend time on developing the other coaches in the club so that I'm confident that they can take over and teach things right when I'm not around.

And I'm sure if you've been in a lot of code reviews yourself that you know how often those "reviews" come down to criticisms of style, rather then substance. Much the same as what sounds like the USFCA system.

Objective measurements, while not optimal, at least allow for a degree of legitimacy not covered in subjective analysis. Wherever possible, it is a worthy goal to mitigate that subjectivity. While I like the idea of a masters thesis, and like the idea of a terminological standard, I'm not so sure I like the idea of a small board evaluating my ability. I much prefer the accreditation, examination and nomination model of the other professional organisations as a simple baseline for mid-level professionals. A school is audited and credentialed, all the students must pass a final exam, then they must work as an intern for a credentialed member before finally being nominated as a good candidate for professional status.

And while that is no guarntee of competence, it does allow for professional censure (revoking your license) and continuing education standards lacking amongst most coaches.

Coaches, seem to be measured by their results. Coaches that provide students that win are better then coaches who do not. Coaches that provide a fun environment are blessed with more students while coaches that do not, struggle to survive.

And since I'm not so sure of whether the coaching or the club atmosphere are more important for producing winning fencers, I can see a lot of actions based more on reputation in order to protect a livelihood then in the best interests of each student that walks through the doors.

James.

[MdA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

[MdA]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Back to original point of the thread, the mere fact that you have a day job would indicate that you are an "amateur" coach. You don't make a living from what it is you're doing and so, credentials or not, you're not a professional. You're a "professional amateur". Like Allen.

You guys tend to be the best around. Gifted intellectually and with a sound grasp of real professional ethics.

There was a time when I made a living as a Fencing Coach...and I was not yet a Prevot...but my journey is complicated.

Thanks for the compliment...for Allen too...more later...I must be posting in the right thread.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by MdA

The answer to your question is both. This is the challenge we are facing in the USFCA. Raise the standards and increase the numbers...

This is a fine answer, but isn't congruent with the dichotomy you set up when you said:

If coaching certification was regulated any tighter, we would have even less coaches seeking certification.

I'm extremely proud to be a fencing master (and I'm pretty excellent at what I do), but that pride is heavily couched in the knowledge I gained from my education. There is a wide variety when it comes to the knowledge and education of "fencing masters"--and, as Welted 24/7 noted, there is a lot of variety when it comes to professionalism as well.

I wish the title denoted a certain standard but, for the time being--particularly in the US--it still doesn't. There are better ways to identify great coaches than by title.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Back to original point of the thread, the mere fact that you have a day job would indicate that you are an "amateur" coach. You don't make a living from what it is you're doing and so, credentials or not, you're not a professional. You're a "professional amateur". Like Allen.

..... I much prefer the accreditation, examination and nomination model of the other professional organisations as a simple baseline for mid-level professionals. A school is audited and credentialed, all the students must pass a final exam, then they must work as an intern for a credentialed member before finally being nominated as a good candidate for professional status.

Coaches, seem to be measured by their results....

James.

Originally Posted by Jason

.....I wish the title denoted a certain standard but, for the time being--particularly in the US--it still doesn't. There are better ways to identify great coaches than by title.

I have two professions and three careers, in the following order:

Fencing Master
Retired Air Force officer
Software Engineer

This seems to be the case of a majority of coaches in the USA. For example: Of the ten members of the USFCA Executive Committee, only 4 are full-time "professional" coaches.

The Certification and Accrediation Board is a little better. Of the 6 elected members, 5 are full-time coaches.

We have made some steps towards an examination and nomination model as James suggests. Vinnie and I integrated elements in the Pan American Fencing Academy a few years ago.

It is true that coaches are measured by results. It is difficult to implement objective quality standards for results.

Remember, the USFCA has no full-time paid staff members. All the improvements over the last 6 years have been done with volunteer hours...online tests...online dues payment....total overhaul of the Moniteur and Prevot exams...criteria for the Assistant Moniteur cert...and now many hours of work on the single weapon Master certification. Members have also donated web server space to host our exams...and the new updated pilot website. We have paid a little for a professional programmer to help with the new website to speed up implementation.

In a nutshell, I think we are doing the best we can.

And for Jason, as a retired Air Force officer, I wish titles guaranteed a high level of professionalism...but unfortunately they don't....and for a non-profit, volunteer organization...it is a great challenge especially in our country which is so large and spread out.

[MdA]

One more thing, the USFCA reimburses its members promptly and is not in debt ....like some other non-profit fencing organizations.

[jBirch]

MdA, how do you find your interactions with professional coaches? Do you produce fencers that are nationally competitive? If you are a certified master, does that virtually assure that your students will be sucessful on the competition circuit? Do you find that the accreditation helps when dealing with fellow coaches?

James.