Circular parries in sabre?

[epeelion]

This is why we don't just drill one response, but many. Aladar (sorry to use this example, but it's the most available to me) drills many different techniques and responses to the same reaction or off of the same preparation, which makes me able to do any of them. Whatever I see, I can react appropriately. When someone makes a feint in bout, if it's a good feint, you have no time to think about it or analyze it, you must make a response to it, or respond by moving away. This seems to me to be even more true in sabre, when you have even less time to react (though epee tends to be more explosive, while sabre seems to keep a high level of speed almost constantly). I would think sabre relies heavily on rhythm, but of course I don't actually know. What I do know is that in epee you can plan a strategy, and maybe think about short term tactics, but you can't sit there and think about whether you're going to parry an opponent's feint or not. You have to have already planned your strategy (e.g.-I know my opponent likes it when his opponent responds with a counter-six) and/or short-term tactics (e.g.-I've counterattacked the last few times, the next time he does that I'll do a false one and take a parry four). You can't do it at the moment of the feint. At that moment, your muscle memory makes automatic whatever response you have prepared. Drills just make your movements more efficient and automatic.

I'm not going to address whether my implication is proven or not, because this statement:

Learn the actions in the dynamic environment of a bout, though, and he will learn to use the action, rather than being used by it

is not either. Yes, you say it's your opinion, I know, but you're trying to claim that a widely used and approved system is inefficient; you were also defending the statement that all bladework drills were useless. Just explain to me why, if opponents are equal in all things but technique, the opponent with better technique will not win a majority of the time.

Also, scientific concepts are not "fungible". They may not explain everything, but they are certainly not what you say they are. You are right that there are exceptions, and that scientific concepts are not applicable to EVERYONE. However, the existence of a few exceptions does not invalidate the general rule (in this case, that drills are useful). So, if I provide a rule (in this case, my explanation of muscle memory) and why it is useful (and that it is scientific), you cannot ignore the claim by saying that it is "fungible", because it is still true for a majority of the population, and as far as I can tell, you are still trying to show that drills are universally "useless", or at least much less useful than most high-level coaches think they are.

I think you're assuming that drills just teach one thing over and over. Drills teach a gigantic variety of things over and over, so that when you are required to use one of them, whichever "things" you need come more easily, are more efficient and automatic. If I had not learned flanconnade (sp?) through repeated drills, I would not have the option of using it. As it is, it flows quite naturally from a certain reaction to my preparations. And yes I may not encounter the exact rhythms from drills in bout, but I may learn to set them up and use them, or to recognize when someone else is setting them up against me. Not only that, but muscle memory gives you the technical ability to do the action, it does not lock you in to one speed. If you practice only slow extensions or footwork at home, are you completely unable to change their speeds in bout?

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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

Disagree. If something is unquestionable, and is then subsequently questioned by a crazy person who Thinks he or she is having a "modicum of success" in their endeavor, that does not make the original thing actually questionable.
I suspect you're just being contrary for it's own sake, by virtue of your stubborn resistance to accepted scientific explanation for the method by which muscle memory is built.

You don't really think that precise muscle memory can be taught / learned just as effectively in high speed high stress bouting situations as it can in start-slow-do-it-right then build speed precision situation of a drill?

Your argument about drills instilling a false stimuli response which is not applicable in bouting situations is reasonable except when you consider as epeelion and others have mentioned free choice drills to counteract this, and also the fact that drills are not always intended to teach stimuli response. Sometimes they are designed solely to teach, ta da, muscle memory. And if this is really your main argument, then you would have to argue that lessons with a coach (with exaggerated cues, etc) are far more destructive to useful fencing-time stimuli responses. I would also argue that if your coach, in a lesson, is not repeating an action with you until you get it right, that they are not doing their job effectively. But I doubt that is the case.

[eac]

1. jfarmer: Your post seems to imply that most fencers and most coaches are stupid and impatient, and they don't know how to use drills, and that's why they think drills are useless. This sounds plausible; by Sturgeon's law, 90% of everything is crap, and it probably applies just as much to fencers and coaches as to science fiction. However, you further seemed to imply that you *do* know how to use drills, and are therefore better than all those stupid impatient fencers and coaches. There is only one way to prove this: what has been the best competitive result of one of your students? Or, if you have not been coaching for long enough to have students that have good results, what was your best competitive result as a fencer?

2. epeelion: In your first paragraph, you say that you must plan a response to a given action, and you can't decide about whether to parry an opponent's feint in real time. Being convinced that this is not true is one of the things that has caused me to improve recently; recently, I have been more able to make decisions in real time, during a phrase, based on the continuing situation around me, rather than just executing a plan I had previously. Guessing a plan and doing it will take you only so far; after a certain point, you have to see what's happening in the moment and make the right decision on the fly.
I think lessons are much better at training this sort of real-time flow-like decision making than drills are, because the coach is there to hit you when you make the wrong decision, and unlike a partner, a coach knows exactly what all the possible branches are, and can switch between them at will and randomly, where a partner is not often at that level of skill. Also, a coach can frequently diagnose your inability to make the right decision on the spot, whereas a pair of partners are usually at a loss.
Edit: By the way, I think my little Div I result was a significantly less important endorsement than Gerek never doing a drill in his life.

3. All this talk about drills reminds me of an experiment done with monkeys, the citation of which I have no memory of:
In the experiment, there was a cage with five monkeys in it, and a little platform with a few steps up to it, and some bananas hanging so that the monkeys could only get the bananas while standing on the platform.
To begin with, whenever any of the monkeys started up the steps, the entire cage was drenched with an enormous amount of water, knocking the stepping monkey off the step and pissing off all five monkeys. Before long, none of the monkeys approached the platform.
The water hose was taken away.
Then, one of the five monkeys was replaced with a monkey who had never seen the water or the platform, and it naturally started toward the platform. The other four monkeys proceeded to beat the crap out of it; it soon learned that it wasn't supposed to get the bananas.
One by one, the other four monkeys were replaced, and finally, there was a situation where there were four monkeys in the cage, NONE OF WHOM HAD EVER BEEN SPRAYED BY WATER, who proceeded to beat the crap out of a new monkey who approached the bananas.


I think drilling, at least in foil, is analogous to hitting the monkey.

[epeelion]

::sigh::

Obviously, you have to be able to react in real time. Obviously, you have to have a feel for the bout, for your opponent, and, at least in epee, for the blade and where it is. I was simply stating when drills can be helpful in response to Inq's idea that they just make you an automaton who is easily duped. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

My first coach had us drill more than anyone I've ever seen, and he HATED premeditated actions. He was all about feel in real time. This did not change the fact that to react properly to this feel, you had to drill, so as to make your movements correct and make your reactions more effective. When you make a reactive action, you'd better hope the technique is correct, or it's incredibly easy to get through it. Dilling ensures efficiency and correctness. My strong parry four, for instance, comes as a direct result of drilling it so damn much when I was fencing foil at my old club. Can people play off of this? Yes, maybe. However, I know this, and can plan around it, and whenever people fall for a counter-time parry riposte in four they are closed out, because the technique is good. The most important part of this is that I don't have to think about whether my four is going to be effective; because of drilling, it just is. This is true even with people like Ben Solomon or Alex Abend, who are faar superior fencers. They have better tactics than I do, and a much more developed base of technique.

My point is simply that drills do not make you an automaton unable to make decisions. If anything, lack of drills may make your movements less efficient, and may make you MORE susceptible to feints; if you have to make a reaction, you don't have that base of practice and technique to ensure that you will be effective.

And I'm sorry, it's nothing like hitting the monkey. You an Inq just don't seem to understand that drills aren't (always) mindless, and that even when they are just repetition they don't condition you to forget tactics, they make you more able to focus on tactics in bout and less on whether your technique will be effective. I cannot comprehend, for the life of me, why you two are dead set on saying that drills are useless, and why you can't compromise and say that they are in fact useful to most people, but not all. It's not an unreasonable compromise, especially considering the number of high level coaches and programs you are trying to "prove" wrong, despite the lack of any actual proof that drills are counterproductive. And considering the fact that there is a scientific basis behind why they are useful, and the fact that many, many, high level fencers would stand behind them.

The exception (Gerek, Inq, Eac) does NOT disprove the rule.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Data point from "Ask A Scientist" at: http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascie...2Fans_015.html

Quoting from that "learning and "memorizing" sequences of skeletal muscle activities or behaviors occurs for various tasks besides walking and is much of what athletes are doing when they are training for a particular sport" (emphasis added)

OK, what's the relevance? He says "training", not "drilling".

As I said IMO muscle memory is best left to very basic things like advancing and retreating. This leaves the mind free to concentrate on the things which require thought, such as bladework. Yet what do most drills seem to focus upon? Bladework. This to me is precisely backwards.

Not to mention the real world experience of coaches in sports, martial arts, music, and other fine motor skill activities that all make considerable use of drills.

Yes, and the military.

Ye gods, SO much drilling when I was in the Army. March, march, march! We never seemed to escape it.

And what exactly was the practical use? Did we really need training in how to walk? Or even how to maneuver in units? Did someone forget to notify the Pentagon that armies haven't fought in Napoleonic squares or marched in battalions around a battlefield in several hundred years now?

No. What all that drilling was intended to do was to instill discipline, pure and simple.

So if coaches think their students lack self-discipline, I suppose drills are a fine way to grind them down. If fencers feel undisciplined, then I can understand their willingness to do drills. Otherwise, not so much...

As for me, I feel that I have enough self-discipline already. I can go straight to learning, and to putting lessons into practice in a bouting situation. I can refine new techniques there, and build muscle memory there...

Originally Posted by epeelion

When someone makes a feint in bout, if it's a good feint, you have no time to think about it or analyze it, you must make a response to it, or respond by moving away.

This is only true if you are too close---if your distance is wrong. In which case "moving away" is exactly what you should do.

If you are at the right distance, there IS time to think...even in sabre. ( Or maybe especially in sabre. We may be arguing apples and oranges; I recognize that "thinking" may mean something different in epee and foil---something more deliberative, which takes longer than sabre thinking. And then there is such a thing as infighting in epee and foil, which isn't something we do much in sabre. )

You are right that if you are too close you can only "make a response", eg employ an automatic response. That's what I meant when I said that an automatic response is more easily drawn and fooled than a thinking one. Really, are you saying that automatic responses are superior to planned actions? That an automatic response, trained in by drilling, is going to defeat an opponent's planned action? One which almost by definition is going to be more subtle and complex than a reflex?

It seems to me that a good fencer will specifically design attacking actions to take advantage of the superficial nature of the automatic responses he will expect his opponent to have, no?

Yes, you say it's your opinion, I know, but you're trying to claim that a widely used and approved system is inefficient; you were also defending the statement that all bladework drills were useless.

But you see, it IS my opinion. I am not presenting it as demonstrable fact, as you ( correct me if that is not your intent ) seem to be doing. I am not saying that something is just true, it just IS, and why can't you see it, it's so obvious, you aged querulous wanker?

Opinions...are just that. But assertions of objective and universal fact need to be proved.

Just explain to me why, if opponents are equal in all things but technique, the opponent with better technique will not win a majority of the time.

No two opponents are or ever were "equal in all things". This is an unrealistic basic assumption.

Also, scientific concepts are not "fungible". They may not explain everything, but they are certainly not what you say they are.

So...then sciences like sociology and psychology obey universal laws such as those in physics and chemistry?

Human beings are diverse, idiosyncratic, eccentric and sometimes even...ah...mentally whimsical creatures. How can any science expect ALL of them to respond to a given stimulus in the same way?

However, the existence of a few exceptions does not invalidate the general rule...

Why not? I think that's precisely what it does. If there's an exception to a rule, it isn't really a rule IMO. More of a general pattern, from which it should be no surprise that any given individual departs at any given moment. In which case, why such a strong drive to force every single peg into that round hole? ( I mean, at least one coach in this thread has said that in his salle everyone drills if they want to fence in that club...and that's not an uncommon attitude, is it? More like the norm, I suspect. )

you are still trying to show that drills are universally "useless", or at least much less useful than most high-level coaches think they are.

Just the latter. And it's not so much that they are ineffectual as that they teach, IMO, the wrong things. They try to make fencing into an exercise in automated responses, sorting probabilities and reacting with preset actions which require little or no thought. This to me robs fencing of much of its joy. It tries to make art into mathematics. Ugh.

Originally Posted by whtouche

Disagree. If something is unquestionable, and is then subsequently questioned by a crazy person who Thinks he or she is having a "modicum of success" in their endeavor, that does not make the original thing actually questionable.

You're adding your own conditions. No one said anything about insanity or delusion. I mentioned objective results. At least one other sabre fencer has reported a similar result ( a similar result in far less time, at that ). Are you averring that we have imagined our results?

I suspect you're just being contrary for it's own sake,

Now, now, who would ever do such a thing?

You don't really think that precise muscle memory can be taught / learned just as effectively in high speed high stress bouting situations as it can in start-slow-do-it-right then build speed precision situation of a drill?

Let me put it this way:

Yes. Yes, I do.

It may take longer, but it will result in a fencer who arrives at the same place, only with much more flexibility and a deeper, richer game than that of the reactive automaton built by drills.

free choice drills

What? This is an oxymoron. You cannot impart "free choice" by rote repetition. If you truly have a free choice---and not just "choose action A, B or C"---then you aren't drilling at all. You are bouting.

drills are not always intended to teach stimuli response. Sometimes they are designed solely to teach, ta da, muscle memory.

Erm...to teach "muscle memory" of [what? Of an action. You cannot separate the muscle from the thing it's doing. You are training it to "remember" an action, with which when activated by the proper stimulus it will respond. Otherwise, what's the point? Why teach something that can't be used in bouting?

I would also argue that if your coach, in a lesson, is not repeating an action with you until you get it right, that they are not doing their job effectively. But I doubt that is the case.

So, your coach will actually spend multiple lessons with you working on a single action?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeelion

The exception (Gerek, Inq, Eac) does NOT disprove the rule.

The problem with this ( well, one of them ) is that no one has bothered to prove the rule in the first place. Everyone seems merely to assume that it's a rule, that it must be useful because "everyone" obeys the practices prescribed by it and "everyone" believes they're useful. This more closely resembles faith than science...

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So, your coach will actually spend multiple lessons with you working on a single action?

Yes.
Of course not the entire lesson will be dedicated to one action, but I have taken far more lessons in my life than new actions I have learned. Can you say otherwise? You must know more fencing actions than anyone who has ever fenced if that's the case.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The problem with this ( well, one of them ) is that no one has bothered to prove the rule in the first place. Everyone seems merely to assume that it's a rule, that it must be useful because "everyone" obeys the practices prescribed by it and "everyone" believes they're useful. This more closely resembles faith than science...

And exactly what science have you provided? Everything is just a theory. On the one hand you have explanations as to how it is very likely drills can be helpful to build muscle memory, you have the opinion of many high level coaches that drills help and you have a plethora of results that indicate they help (though this is circumstantial). On the other hand you have very less coaches that drills don't help, you have your personal opinion about drills being counter productive due to reacting to stimuli too easily, and you have less results to back it up (again circumstantial). I mean I honestly feel that you're just full of ****, and arguing like a crazy person, I can't really see any other reason to have the ridiculous viewpoint that you've provided.

[epeelion]

Oh, you're right, Inq. I admit it. If one person with Parkinson's does not respond well to Dopamine treatment, we should just abandon that treatment completely. After all:

Human beings are diverse, idiosyncratic, eccentric and sometimes even...ah...mentally whimsical creatures. How can any science expect ALL of them to respond to a given stimulus in the same way?

Incidentally, the treatment of Parkinson's with dopamine came out of psychological research. I have never stated, nor has anyone, that one a science , or, in this case, a concept, handles ALL people. In fact, I am quite frustrated, because I have repeatedly said the opposite, and proposed a compromise. Shall I quote myself? I hope I don't have to...

This does NOT make the whole concept invalid.

This is simple logic. If the rule is intended as a useful guideline for MOST people, the existence of a counterexample does not invalidate it. And this is all I've ever claimed. You simply provide no evidence for your claim that runs counter to countless national teams and PhDs, and you hide behind LOLZITSJUSTMYOPINION!!11! That's dishonest debating, Inq.

And has anyone ever managed to fence an entire bout at always exactly the right distance? No? This is:

This is an unrealistic basic assumption

Yes, you SHOULD have enough time, but you often don't. So, you should be able to react when you don't. And react efficiently. And you STILL provide NO evidence for drills making thoughtful responses impossible. You don't do them, do you? I'm pretty sure you're just guessing here. I can tell you I do drills, tons of them, and I don't get easily duped, unless by tactics. A good fencer doesn't always know what his opponent is drilling, and a good coach drills everything, so there should be nothing there to take advantage of. You just don't get how drills are supposed to be run.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by whtouche

Yes.
Of course not the entire lesson will be dedicated to one action, but I have taken far more lessons in my life than new actions I have learned. Can you say otherwise? You must know more fencing actions than anyone who has ever fenced if that's the case.

No. There is often a sort of review. This is not the same as "working on an action until you get it right", however. Often it depends on: What the coach was working on with his previous student, the current bee in his bonnet, what former actions pop into his head to use as review, what actions he thinks may help remedy a perceived fault I have been displaying ( but which may not actually have anything to do with polishing a given action or element of a related action ), etc.

IOW, I think it's more about his teaching method than actively trying to perfect a technique most of the time.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

And exactly what science have you provided?

I don't need to provide any. I am not making the assertion that drills are, positively, demonstrably, obviously, productive and essential for fencers. The burden of proof is on those who make the assertion, not on those who question them.

If we the pro side was only saying "I think they're great, I believe they work for me", that would be one thing. But as soon as they claim that something simply IS, period, for most if not all, and suggest that to question this is a sort of heresy or insanity, then they have passed from opinion into assertion of fact. At this point they must either prove the fact, or admit that it may not be fact but only opinion.

In no case is the skeptic required to disprove their "fact". He need only ask for evidence.

I mean I honestly feel that you're just full of ****, and arguing like a crazy person, I can't really see any other reason to have the ridiculous viewpoint that you've provided.

Reread that, and think again about my suggestion that faith has entered the picture.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeelion

Incidentally, the treatment of Parkinson's with dopamine came out of psychological research.

I have not said that psychology is useless. I have said that it is not the sort of hard science which can establish hard and fast "rules".

A rule IS refuted by the existence of a single counterexample.

You simply provide no evidence for your claim that runs counter to countless national teams and PhDs,

1) "Countless"?

2) As I mentioned to KShan, the burden of proof is not on me. Attempting to shift it onto the person questioning an assertion of fact is a common logical fallacy.

and you hide behind LOLZITSJUSTMYOPINION!!11! That's dishonest debating, Inq.

Yet another unproven assertion.

Seriously, what would you like me to say? It IS just my opinion. The only ones thus far asserting an understanding of a Truth, not just for themseles but for "most" or "almost everyone" or "the majority", and insisting that it just IS...is...well...not me.

And has anyone ever managed to fence an entire bout at always exactly the right distance? No?

Possibly. Having not seen them all, I cannot say. I think it's likely, though.

To the extent that they do not, they are usually hit. And rightly so.

Yes, you SHOULD have enough time, but you often don't. So, you should be able to react when you don't.

And yet, you have still not demonstrated that drills create or enhance the ability to do this, as opposed to, oh, creating a reflex which is more predictable and easily fooled than a natural response would be.

And react efficiently. And you STILL provide NO evidence for drills making thoughtful responses impossible. You don't do them, do you? I'm pretty sure you're just guessing here.

BINGO! Hence, OPINION.

And you HAVE done them, right? So how can you possibly know that you would not be just as good as you are now, or indeed better, had you not? You're "just guessing", too, in case it escaped your notice. And yet you aren't talking like you think it's a personal opinion only. You are talking as though it's Revealed Truth...

Do you see what I'm on about?

I can tell you I do drills, tons of them, and I don't get easily duped, unless by tactics.

So you say. Have you any independent evidence of this?

As Mencken wrote, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only to the extent and in the sense that we respect his opinion that his wife is beautiful, and his children, smart."

A good fencer doesn't always know what his opponent is drilling, and a good coach drills everything,

Uh...isn't that a bit contradictory?

If his opponent is good, then, by your light, his coach has "drilled everything". So you know this, and therefore you DO know what he has drilled...

so there should be nothing there to take advantage of. You just don't get how drills are supposed to be run.

Well, I expected better than "You just don't understand".

The only place where disagreement is always labeled ignorance is in religion.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I don't need to provide any. I am not making the assertion that drills are, positively, demonstrably, obviously, productive and essential for fencers. The burden of proof is on those who make the assertion, not on those who question them.

If we the pro side was only saying "I think they're great, I believe they work for me", that would be one thing. But as soon as they claim that something simply IS, period, for most if not all, and suggest that to question this is a sort of heresy or insanity, then they have passed from opinion into assertion of fact. At this point they must either prove the fact, or admit that it may not be fact but only opinion.

In no case is the skeptic required to disprove their "fact". He need only ask for evidence.

Sure, congrats on being argumentative. However, I'm assuming the point of the thread is not just to prove a point, but to further knowledge of fencing and training right? That is the purpose of the board, right? So if one side has provided at least some evidence, it's very easy for the other side to say, but look at these two or three counter-examples. However, if we're actually trying to further our knowledge of affective training techniques, wouldn't it help for you to provide evidence for your side? Of course, if your aim is just to be argumentative, then, mission accomplished.

[epeelion]

Ok. I will make this as clear as possible.

Drills are an established practice by yes, countless coaches, and have scientific backing for why they are useful. It is NOT a rule that they are useful for EVERYONE, it is a rule that they don't hurt, and are useful for many.

A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE DOES NOT DISPROVE THIS, BECAUSE THE RULE DOES NOT CLAIM UNIVERSALITY!