Circular parries in sabre?

[epeelion]

Unfortunately, Inq., for at least the fourth time, my position is not absolutist (I accept that drills are not useful for everyone always), whereas he, by his first post, claims that drills are universally useless. And, the only evidence he provides other than Gerek is that he got better when he stopped doing drills. He makes the claim that drills actually hurt you, which has pretty much been refuted. I mean, if drills hurt your fencing, how would all the drills oriented fencers I mentioned have done well?

I understand that not all my success can be attributed to drills, and maybe they haven't helped me. I can't actually prove that one way or another, though in my OPINION your opinion on this is an idiotic one. But I can sure as hell say that they don't hurt me.

[eac]

1. I have specified at various points that I am only talking about foil, and I suspect what I say applies somewhat to epee and less to saber, but it's only a suspicion, since I have absolutely no direct knowledge of either of those subjects. So 'universally useless' is a slight misrepresentation.

2. The other evidence I presented was the general high level of M-team results, as in particular the six 2007 Nationals foil golds, not just Gerek's existence plus my improvement. Out of curiosity, epeelion, what level of achievement by what number of foilists who don't do drills would cause you to think that I have a reasonable case? Would you term everyone who did well this way a 'phenom' who is to be discounted?

3. One odd thing about this whole debate has been your apparent level of anger in the last several posts. Why the vitriol? I don't think I've done much to provoke it, other than plainly stating on-topic controversial opinions.

4. bigdawg: If you define drills that way, then sure, they're useful. I'm talking about the kind where everybody lines up in a big set of pairs, the coach stands at the front and says okay, it goes like this, and then everybody tries to do it, and they all end up doing it in some way that would never work in real life. That's what I think is useless; if you include what you said, then sure, that kind of drill is useful, but not any other kind.

[fleshbroiler]

Originally Posted by eac

...If you define drills that way, then sure, they're useful. I'm talking about the kind where everybody lines up in a big set of pairs, the coach stands at the front and says okay, it goes like this, and then everybody tries to do it, and they all end up doing it in some way that would never work in real life. That's what I think is useless...

So maybe this debate comes down to semantics? I would agree that the situation you describe is useless, but I wouldn't call it a drill, more like an organized waste of time. Repetition without focus and intention is nothing. One of my teacher's favorite expressions on this topic goes, "The concept of Practice makes Perfect is a lie. Only practicing perfection makes perfect."

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by fleshbroiler

So maybe this debate comes down to semantics? I would agree that the situation you describe is useless, but I wouldn't call it a drill, more like an organized waste of time. Repetition without focus and intention is nothing. One of my teacher's favorite expressions on this topic goes, "The concept of Practice makes Perfect is a lie. Only practicing perfection makes perfect."

The version of this I like is "Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect."

As for the substance of this thread, yeah I'm SO not getting involved.

-m

[eac]

fleshbroiler: My point was that the doing it wrong is an inherent property of the activity of doing drills, not specifying that I'm talking about drills where people do it wrong. What kind of drills are you thinking of?

[fleshbroiler]

Originally Posted by eac

fleshbroiler: My point was that the doing it wrong is an inherent property of the activity of doing drills, not specifying that I'm talking about drills where people do it wrong. What kind of drills are you thinking of?

I have to reply largely outside of the context of fencing as my fencing experience is too limited. In teaching many close range fighting techniques using what I would refer to as a "reaction drill," the real benefit is only gained when both training partners fully commit to attack/defense or action/reaction. Typically some people go half heartedly, which basically invalidates both sides of the drill. Using the format of a drill allows the student to focus on a limited set of skills in a single setting, starting slowly and building to an exchange executed with "lethal intent." Variations can then be introduced as comfort level grows. This learning process (in those martial disciplines I have experience in) is superior to "free sparring" for mastering technique.

I can compare this to a recent lesson, learning parry 4, where fencer A should have lunged, attacking fencer B's upper torso while B retreated parrying with 4 then executing a riposte. The fencer opposite me would not come close to me with his attack so the drill began to fall apart. The drill is fairly pointless without a "real" attack. Certainly bouting gives the student the opportunity to practice in a setting that is as real as it gets for a fencer, and that is a good thing. What you can't do is isolate the technique through consecutive repetitions, which is a valuable learning process. Neither do you have the opportunity to break down a chained response.

I would be really interested to hear how "doing it wrong is an inherent property of the activity of doing drills" while bouting is inherently better. Please don't think I'm attacking you, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective. I have been teaching things that are not easily learned for a long time, Japanese and Chinese martial arts, weapon arts and (no laughter please) highland bagpiping. So I have more than a passing interest in how people learn things.

-fb

[eac]

Basically, I think whenever you require a partner/dummy/phantom whatever guy to act like he's really trying to do something, when he knows he's going to get parried or otherwise thwarted, you produce an unrealistic, counterproductive situation, where both people are doing things in a badly timed, lackadaisical way where there's no negative reinforcement for bad timing or other nonrealism. This isn't true in a lesson, because the coach knows what behavior he's trying to train, so a) he knows how he needs to act to make the behavior right, and b) and he can give reinforcement based on whether the student does it right. Also, in a lesson, the coach can choose intelligently between a number of actions to provoke different responses in the student, based on both randomization and which actions he thinks need work.

The purported utility of a drill, at least in your post (which is by far the least obfuscated and blustery of the pro-drill posts in this thread), is that you can repeat an action a bunch of times in a row. You certainly can repeat an action a bunch of times in a row in a practice bout; you just also get some practice with inducing the requisite action from your opponent, with distance and preparation and so on. Obviously they can refuse to do it, which makes them annoying, but generally when I'm practicing an action I don't run into that terribly much. You do have to have the discipline to decide to practice a particular action, but you need a lot more discipline for other things in fencing, so nevermind. Back when I trained with a lot of drills, I always found that I never seemed to use the skills from drills in bouts much, and in retrospect I think even if the drills had given me useful actions (which they didn't), I wouldn't have known how to set them up in a bout.

I'm not quite sure what you meant about breaking down a chained response.

[fleshbroiler]

Originally Posted by eac

Basically, I think whenever you require a partner/dummy/phantom whatever guy to act like he's really trying to do something, when he knows he's going to get parried or otherwise thwarted, you produce an unrealistic, counterproductive situation, where both people are doing things in a badly timed, lackadaisical way where there's no negative reinforcement for bad timing or other nonrealism.

I agree that this is a problem with almost any kind of partner-based training, but I don't believe the situation is automagically improved moving from drill to free-form training, i.e. sparring, open bouting, etc. If a training partner has their head up their ass in one format it'll be there in the other as well.

Originally Posted by eac

This isn't true in a lesson, because the coach knows what behavior he's trying to train, so a) he knows how he needs to act to make the behavior right, and b) and he can give reinforcement based on whether the student does it right. Also, in a lesson, the coach can choose intelligently between a number of actions to provoke different responses in the student, based on both randomization and which actions he thinks need work.

In my own teaching experience, this is the result I expect my students to get from drills. Based on my experiences as a student, I feel I have been able to absorb material pretty efficiently this way.

Originally Posted by eac

The purported utility of a drill, at least in your post (which is by far the least obfuscated and blustery of the pro-drill posts in this thread), is that you can repeat an action a bunch of times in a row. You certainly can repeat an action a bunch of times in a row in a practice bout; you just also get some practice with inducing the requisite action from your opponent, with distance and preparation and so on. Obviously they can refuse to do it, which makes them annoying, but generally when I'm practicing an action I don't run into that terribly much.

While sparring/bouting, the person opposite me is no longer a training partner, they're an opponent and I'm not thinking about cooperating with their plans, I'm trying to execute on them.

Originally Posted by eac

You do have to have the discipline to decide to practice a particular action, but you need a lot more discipline for other things in fencing, so nevermind. Back when I trained with a lot of drills, I always found that I never seemed to use the skills from drills in bouts much, and in retrospect I think even if the drills had given me useful actions (which they didn't), I wouldn't have known how to set them up in a bout.

I'm not quite sure what you meant about breaking down a chained response.

Sorry, should have clarified. A chain of events that constitute a "technique" or "response," that you can break down into parts and practice a step at a time until you can link them together into a single fluid response. A really simple example might be feint/disengage/attack while executing advance lunge.

Can you post an example of a drill you trained with that was not useful in bouting and an example of a technique you typically use when bouting that you did not develop through drilling? Thanks.

-fb

[Peach]

I chatted with my coach last night about this thread. Among other things, he agreed that his program incorporates considerable drill, some of it technical, some of it tactical, starting with all the games his students play in the beginning. He made the point that lessons with the coach are all about the student, where good partner drill is about the opponent and making your opponent do what you want. If all you did was take lessons, you'd be depending on someone else to present the correct opening to you instead of working to make that correct opening happen. IOW, taking a lesson is an essentially passive role for the student.

Free fencing, while offering an active role, doesn't necessarily permit practicing the skills you need to fence your real opponents, the ones you will meet up with at the tournaments that matter to you. I don't know anyone at my club who fences the way many of my main opponents fence. Some of my clubmates who are recreational fencers have so many bad habits that I develop bad habits fencing them--if I count on them being correct and seeing what I want them to see, I'll lose (and more significantly, get badly bruised).

The thing I've had most success with is leading my clubmates in partner drills so that they can improve as opponents. I get to practice correct actions, and so do they--and quite often, during the drills, my clubmates seem to have epiphanies about basic concepts in fencing. There's a reason for this. A good partner drill has restricted options--one fencer is the attacker, for instance, and the other fencer is the defender, with roles switching in a predetermined way--but still involves choice on both parts, so that the skills being practiced are performed in a meaningful context. In free fencing, a weaker fencer or one with bad habits gets reinforcement from the wrong things, because they are more likely to see success from ham-handed awfulness and because they often have no idea why a stronger fencer is hitting them so consistently.* In restricted-action drills, they get reinforcement from correct actions and they get some insight into how they can be successful.

* early in my fencing career, when I was still doing foil, my coach told me to go fence our strongest fencer, who at that time was Charlie Washburn, and watch what he was doing.

"So what's he doing?" asked my coach after I unhooked.

"He's hitting me," I said gloomily. And that was all I could figure out.

[Adler]

Originally Posted by Peach

, taking a lesson is an essentially passive role for the student.
[/i]

I really disagree with this. A good lesson should have elements in which the student has initiative.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeelion

He makes the claim that drills actually hurt you, which has pretty much been refuted. I mean, if drills hurt your fencing, how would all the drills oriented fencers I mentioned have done well?

What occurs to me, offhand, is that it is possible that they would have done even better if they had NOT drilled.

Note however that I do not advance this as a positive hypothesis, because it cannot be proven. It cannot be proven because it has not been tested. ( Neither has the hypothesis that drills improve fencers, BTW. )

It easily COULD be tested, but doing so would require doing a disservice to half of the test subjects---which half cannot be predicted in advance, but either those who drilled or those who did not would have their progress retarded by the method of the experiment...

But I can sure as hell say that they don't hurt me.

Without having tried both methods---an impossibility---you cannot be sure even of this much. It is possible, as I said, that you would have gotten better faster had you not wasted time, effort and energy on drilling. ( I say "wasted" in the event that in fact drills did turn out to be . )

Let me point you to the example of stretching. For a long time, stretching prior to athletic activity was thought, fairly universally, to improve performance. Anyone claiming otherwise would have met with a great deal of skepticism ( heck, the idea might even have been called "idiotic". ) The accepted paradigm was "Stretch, then warm up, then play".

Then, testing revealed---or "revealed"---that stretching before strenuous athletic activity was dangerous. The new paradigm was "Warm up, then stretch, then play".

And now the prevailing theory is that stretching is an essential thing for athletes, but as a part of a conditioning program, and not before strenuous activity. Apparently this latter will actually weaken the stretched muscles slightly.

So---was someone who, 20 years ago, averred that stretching before athletic activity might be counterproductive "idiotic" after all? Or were the multitudes who bought into "Stretch, then warm up, then play" just wrong, no matter how fervently they believed in the paradigm, and no matter how many coaches swore by it and professed to see the benefits of it?