Circular parries in sabre?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeelion

Another thought I had to whoever said that they did lots of drills and fenced clean but lost, is that perhaps that's the fault of the coach forgetting to teach you tactics, not the fault of the drills. Drills only hurt when they're assigned by a coach that has no idea what he/she is doing...

In all candor, I sometimes wonder whether coaches insist on the drilling only because it relieves them of the responsibility for teaching their students something useful. Less work for the coach, IOW.

"Yes, I give you 10 minute lesson, then you go do drills for 50 minutes, I charge you for one hour lesson. Is good deal for me!"

[Peach]

Basic learning theory: People don't learn much in an hour, and they don't learn because of "being taught." Learning is something that occurs in the student's brain, not something poured into the brain by the teacher, and it is the product of taking action on the information you have been provided.

A lesson is just the beginning, and though repeated lessons provide important feedback, it's the practice in between which produces learning. If you learn anything in the short amount of time of a lesson, it's in short-term memory and is extremely fugitive. For the information you gathered in the lesson to take root and burn a useful pathway in your brain, you have to practice the skill.

The ideal drill creates a bout-like situation which allows you to automatize the actions you have learned until they can be executed in bout conditions with the correct form and with the minimum "noise." Although you can do this by bouting, it is rare that your opponents in free-bouting will create the correct set of circumstances for you to execute what you just learned in the lesson. However, for most adult fencers that's all they have to work with, because it's hard to get people to work on drills with you, and because a huge number of people have the sort of "folk" learning theory that allows people to make money selling their class notes in university when it's doing the homework and the classwork (steadily guided by a knowledgeable teacher who gives feedback, of course) that actually produces learning.

[epeelion]

A proper coach has to supervise most or all drilling, unless they trust that their students are advanced enough to do it correctly (which takes a while). So no, it's not necessarily just a way out...it seems silly to me to suggest that just because you think something isn't particularly useful, the coaches are doing it just to get more money out of you. Quite cynical, as well.

[whtouche]

This is a stupid line of discussion. I can't figure out why there is so much misunderstanding (and there I go getting sucked in!)

It's pretty simple. Doing drills badly or incorrectly or doing poorly conceived drills is a bad thing, and not helpful. But doing good drills well helps. How could they not?

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned this and I don't think it got enough attention: When you are taking a lesson with a coach, essentially what you are doing is drilling. How do the anti-drill people fail to understand this?

You can be good without drilling. Sure. But you can be good at any infinite number of things in life without doing things which are known to improve your skill in those things. But that does not make a causal relationship.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by whtouche

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned this and I don't think it got enough attention: When you are taking a lesson with a coach, essentially what you are doing is drilling. How do the anti-drill people fail to understand this?

Agreed.

One of the issues is that, supervised or not, it does take a great deal of skill on the drill partner's part to be effective (unless you are talking about really basic drilling). Coaches do it every day, multiple times and that is their "job." I know I suck at it, both as a participant and a partner.

I can only think of two or three people (over a 30 year period) that I have drilled with where it was really, really productive. One guy (a college bud that was the NYC HS foil champion and one of the top JRs in the US) was just simply amazing. I wish I had someone of that caliber to consistently drill with in addition to lessons and bouting. It would definately help.

Rick

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by piste off

One of the issues is that, supervised or not, it does take a great deal of skill on the drill partner's part to be effective (unless you are talking about really basic drilling). Coaches do it every day, multiple times and that is their "job." I know I suck at it, both as a participant and a partner.

Perhaps part of the solution is to practice drilling.

Bouting with people that don't bout probably isn't particularly helpful either.

-B

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Peach

Basic learning theory: People don't learn much in an hour, and they don't learn because of "being taught." Learning is something that occurs in the student's brain, not something poured into the brain by the teacher, and it is the product of taking action on the information you have been provided.

In which case, what is the purpose of the lesson? Or indeed of the "teacher"? Just watch others, imitate, and drill all you like. You will surely learn much more that way, from your own brain, no?

The distinction is also irrelevant to the question of whether or not drills are useful.

A lesson is just the beginning, and though repeated lessons provide important feedback, it's the practice in between which produces learning.

In bouting? Perhaps. Because there you are applying what you have learned in a fluid setting, where the reaction is unpredictable and you must adapt and adjust. That way lies understanding.

But from drilling? That's not "learning", it's just instilling muscle memory.

Originally Posted by whtouche

How could they not?

Ah...do you really want to advance this as an argument?

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned this and I don't think it got enough attention: When you are taking a lesson with a coach, essentially what you are doing is drilling. How do the anti-drill people fail to understand this?

You assume that it's a matter of "understanding" only---that somehow it is rationally impossible to disagree with the premise. Why?

You also assume that there is only one sort of lesson. Again, why?

Indeed there are coaches whose lessons seem to be nothing more than extensive rote repetitions of a few actions. Even without looking you can identify these: Listen, and you hear little more than a rhythmic series of sounds. I must say that I get little from such lessons. But there are others who actually teach strategy and tactics, and new techniques, rather than "Lets go over A, B and C again, for the umpteenth time". And I mean new things, or at least new twists on old ones, in every lesson---though there may be a review as well. And then the student is left to reflect on and try to integrate the new material by bouting. This does work for me.

If a coach is trying to produce an automaton, then I see a use for drills. Otherwise, not so much...

But that does not make a causal relationship.

Meh, given the "argument" with which you began your post, I'm not sure your understanding of how "causal relationships" are demonstrated is all that strong...

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Perhaps part of the solution is to practice drilling.

Hmm. There must be some good drills for that.

[epeelion]

Are you suggesting that muscle memory is not essential to good fencing?! If you are, I think you need to go talk to any fencing master. And I mean pretty much any one.

I only bring up the point, Inq, because you seem to assume that building muscle memory=building an automaton, when this is actually not the case at all.

[RITFencing]

Inq, two things...

I would say that the role of the teacher there is something that our dear, departed Mr Epee said... the teachers (or coaches) create the environment in which good training can occur. At least, he said the best coaches he's seen create good ones.

Secondly, drills create more than good muslce memory; they also, when done right, help teach timing, distance and tempo and help the fencers train their eyes and brains to recognize things about situations and opponents.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeelion

Are you suggesting that muscle memory is not essential to good fencing?!

Nope. I'm saying that that can be done equally well---better, in fact---by bouting. That is, by inculcating it in realistic circumstances, rather than the artificial ones of a drill. So if that is ALL drills do, and there's an alternative which yields other benefits besides...

you seem to assume that building muscle memory=building an automaton, when this is actually not the case at all.

When it's done by drilling, yes, I think that's exactly what it does. Drilling is a limited and artificial way of learning things which are intended to be used in a fluid, dynamic envirionment. IMO.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

the teachers (or coaches) create the environment in which good training can occur.

I agree, and that touches on what I was trying to get at in my reply to Peach, above.

She was reiterating the old truism, I think, that "Nothing worth teaching can ever be taught". That is, it cannot be forced into an unwilling or unreceptive mind. The student must learn it.

But learning doesn't occur in a vacuum, either. It needs both a learner and, if not a teacher, at least a source of knowledge. Information must be both given AND received, imparted AND absorbed. A failure of either and the student is lost. If a student won't learn, all attempts at teaching are for naught. And if a teacher will not teach, or is unavailable, again, no learning is possible, however motivated the student.

So we come back to this: A coach must teach, or the fencer cannot learn. And if the coach would rather set the fencer to doing rote mechanical exercises than teach him something new, how is he to learn anything?

Secondly, drills create more than good muslce memory; they also, when done right, help teach timing, distance and tempo and help the fencers train their eyes and brains to recognize things about situations and opponents.

But you're setting up an unrealistic condition: "Done right". What IS 'done right"? Almost anything can be justified with that amorphous proviso...

I have yet to see a drill that teaches any of those things. Heck, I seldom se lessons done at proper distances, using proper timing, etc. I see lessons where coaches are sparing their own resources by performing actions much closer and much slower than can be expected to occur in bouting. And I see them deliberately being predictable. And so on. The drills are usually even worse.

What of use in a dynamic game like fencing, does a student really get out of the static, I'm-going-to-be-here-every-time, then-you-go-there drill?

I have just never seen the point.

[Phaeton]

My (limited) understanding of the relationship between lessons and drills:

Lessons establish a tactical or technical idea. The ultimate goal is getting an action learned in a lesson into bouting. The purpose of drills is to create a transitional phase between lesson and combat. Drilling is a controlled situation in which to prepare and feel comfortable with an action. Drills of a certain action they are meant to become less and less technical and more and more combative and free form to the point where they effectively become controlled bouting.

The structure and type of lesson may not directly favor direct application to combat. A coach may give combative lessons, but rarely will a coach give just combative lessons. Sometimes a lesson is purely technical. This does not provide an easy transition, with the lesson often lacking a major decisional component. Depending on the lesson pattern a series of schedule and planned drills meant to augment a lesson can be very helpful.

The point of drilling is not to create new technical knowledge. It is to learn to apply previously learned knowledge (whether in a technical or combative lesson) better into combat by making it decisional and providing multiple options and situations which may not already be given or may need reinforcing. Having the muscle memory already set and decisional components already learned makes bouting easier. The moments I've fenced best are the moments where an action feels like something I've done in a lesson or a drill. They key parts of drills is the fluidity of the transition and that they are topical.

Drilling has a place in a training program, but someone probably won't improve well on drills alone. Drilling should be well supervised, and I feel that teaching group lessons is a great way for a coach to allocate time, though private lessons may be more important to an individual fencer's success.

[whtouche]

It's true, bouting can instill muscle memory just as effectively as drilling. The difference resultant of the level of focus paid to actually doing the actions, at first slowly and correctly and progressively increasing the speed to "bout level" means that drills are far more likely to instill GOOD muscle memory. You really don't see this?
What is the point of learning new actions in lessons then? And repeating them until you do them correctly? Or do your lessons take place in a classroom, because nothing other than intellectualizing and actually bouting have any utility?

Honestly.

[epeelion]

Absolutely. There's no question that the muscle memory you learn in lessons and drills cannot be learned in bouting. At least, not bouting at realistic speeds, or realistic tactics. I can only imagine it might work if you bouted extremely slowly, or worked exclusively on one parry/action, which is what I meant by unrealistic tactics. In bouting, you may learn what works, especially against certain opponents, but you will not necessarily learn what's correct. And what's correct has a reason for being considered so. A skilled opponent, perhaps at the same level of tactics as you but with better form, will often pick you apart simply because your actions are less ingrained, or ingrained improperly.

[jeff]

The subject line of this thread kept me from looking at it, but seeing as it's gone on for days I just had to see what the fuss was about.

Can there really be any doubt that repeated execution (drills) of a physical action can lead to more accurate execution? Sure, there are bad drills as well as good ones, and misuse of drills can make them an end in themselves rather than a means, but repeated drills are used for improving almost every fine motor skill. I guess we should tell all those violinists and pianists that the hours they spend in practice every day are a waste of time.

Everything in its place: Lessons help learn new skills and refine existing ones. Drills also refine skills and improve timing and coordination (whether with stimulus followed by resonse, or purely for mechanical coordination). Bouts can be used for this as well, but the opponent may not be so cooperative as to let you work the same action over and over again.

Very old anecdote, which I only partially remember: either George Calnan or Joe Levis would, when asked to do free bouting, would reply "Let's go practice one-twos instead" Since those aren't familiar names anymore, see http://fencingonfairfield.com/hallof...d=80&Itemid=28 and http://fencingonfairfield.com/hallof...d=32&Itemid=28

[KD5MDK]

I had no idea the US had won so many Olympic medals. I suppose it's the golds that were really rare.

[jfarmer]

I think that we've hit several key points about drills, of any type. Most students don't know how to use or work with drills, and most instructors don't know how to create or structure drills for the maximum benefit.

The first is endemic in the US in many fields, not just fencing. Partly a result of the "I want results now" mentality, and partly a result of the "I know as much as the teacher" view that so many individuals have. (I suffer from these just as much as many others do...) I confess that I don't know the answer to getting students to understand drilling. To say that you learn just as much in open bouting as you do from drills is much like boarding a plane and finding out that the pilot has never practiced takeoffs in multi-engined jets, but he's sure that he will learn quickly...

The second issue is probably more germane to the Coaches Corner, but must instructors teach the drills that they were taught as fencers without understanding the purpose or the expected results. In most cases, they've never learned how to lead or teach a drill, so are reduced to mimicking the drills they took. Even if they apprentice to a national level coach, they end up receiving the same type of training, but at a higher, possibly more effective level. (Fencers as instructors and self-trained instructors are left for another discussion... ) What can be done to improve this situation? Well the efforts of the USFCA to create core knowledge sets and to create curriculum's as well as the USFA's Coach's College are a start. Another would be to create a wiki or other form of depository to collect drills and the instructional material for them (level drill is designed for, expected results, student's required knowledge & ability going into it, instructions for the drill partner, etc.).

To tie this back into the OP's question, it is acceptable for a student to ask the instructor what result should they be getting from a drill and what variations they should include (distance, mobility, initial actions, etc.). However, the student should go ahead and work the drill as best they can, even if they don't see how it applies to bout situations.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by whtouche

It's true, bouting can instill muscle memory just as effectively as drilling. The difference resultant of the level of focus paid to actually doing the actions, at first slowly and correctly and progressively increasing the speed to "bout level" means that drills are far more likely to instill GOOD muscle memory.

And your proof of this is...?

You really don't see this?

Nope.

What is the point of learning new actions in lessons then?

Uh... the learning?

And repeating them until you do them correctly?

Is this a necessary part of the lesson?

Usually in mine I have to try an action a few times, but there is certainly not unlimited time to "repeat them until I do them correctly". There's time to move on to something else.

And then it's on to working on "doing them correctly" in bouting. ( I know I have succeeded when they either begin to score touches more often than not or prevent me from being touched more often than not. It seems a very simple and practicable metric to me---much superior to having someone TELL me that I'm doing it correctly while I'm doing it over and over and over in the isolation of a drill... )

Originally Posted by epeelion

Absolutely. There's no question that the muscle memory you learn in lessons and drills cannot be learned in bouting.

Meh, I am not sure you realize the meaning of "no question".

If someone does in fact question it, and has had a modicum of success in which you found the question, then surely...?

In bouting, you may learn what works, especially against certain opponents, but you will not necessarily learn what's correct.

Well...I can only say that I will take winning "incorrectly" over losing "correctly".