Maintaining and improving plasticity

[Mr Epee]

Oso,

I know you are talking to me, but I am not sure what you are saying.

This is how I read your post:

Here are your basic statements
1. Coaches should be able to communicate with students
2. Coaches should enjoy the respect of their students
3. One good way to coach is to lead by example


I have taken the liberty of rephrasing of your conclusion:
A student who has a naturally high internal level of motivation, when placed in the right environment has a high probablility of success.

What were you trying to say?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I suspect that this is probably because he is trying to discuss too many different independent factors through the use of an over simplified umbrella catch word.

Word.
For some reason "over simplified umbrella catch words" are constantly employed when people talk about fencing. "Tempo" is the notorious example.

RIT is definitely talking about multiple things.

It seems those things include both educability (zing!) and adaptability. It also seems like it includes both technique and tactics. It also seems to include various aspects of motivation. Those things need to be discussed independently. There can certainly be a relationship between them, but they are not one thing.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I know you are talking to me, but I am not sure what you are saying.

Ah... It's about time. Welcome back.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Plasticity points to the ability for change, but is very distinct from the motivation to change.

I'm still chewing on the implications of this, but one thing comes to mind:

Given enough dedication, CAN all students make it to the highest levels of the sport?

I've been operating under the assumption that ALL students, if dedicated enough to change, CAN make it to Gold at the Olympics. Some just have a harder path then others.

But there is a conflict with this and with the notion of predetermined qualities (including those that lead to motivation, curiosity and ability), which I'm coming to believe in more and more.

Are there some students who just CAN'T?

[p1nkp4nther]

This discussion sparked a memory from psychology and I looked it up:

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

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

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/pcu/noe...esis_vi_4.html

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/...y.98/0101.html

In essence, JM Baldwin introduced the concept of phenotypic plasticity as "the ability of an organism to adjust to its environment during the course of its lifetime."

Is it possible that some people (in accordance with this concept of Baldwin) posses some characteristics that genetically predisposes them to be able to learn fencing more effectively?

The type of person that "can do what it takes" to become a good fencer:
Like being able to commit to learning specific skills over years...
To be able to persevere even through failure...
Combined with physical characteristics (a certain degree of athleticism) so that he/she can succeed enough to be able to stay committed...
etc...

[Mr Epee]

Thank you, Pink.

So, we can assume that RIT will be able to improve plasticity in his students through the implementation of a selective breeding program.

I thought I smelled a German influence before, now I'm sure of it.

Ugh.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I thought I smelled a German influence before, now I'm sure of it.

I call it my final solution to the plasticity problem.

[Mr Epee]

May I propose:

Triumph of the Will: The heavy-handed, overly analytical, coach's glorious guide to competiive success with naturally untalended and unmotivated fencers.

[RITFencing]

So all of this raises an interesting question...

You seem to be very much against coaches impacting their students, or maybe you just think much impact is impossible.

Where do you draw the line, though? At what point can a coach say "this behavior or point of view should changed?"

[Mr Epee]

Someone much smarter than I once said "Great athletes make great coaches".

I would extend that to include "Great programs/resources make great coaches"

More resources increase the chances of identifying talent.

[RITFencing]

Would you say that great coaches make great programs?

[Mr Epee]

What do you mean by "great coach"?

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

What do you mean by "great coach"?

Right back at you...

As far as what I mean, someone who runs or helps run a successful program that produces high level fencers who enjoy the sport.

[Mr Epee]

Elements of the Sport Program Model.

1. Administrators
2. Marketing/Public Relations
3. Management/Oversight
4. Coaching Staff
5. Facility Development/Maintainance

Given the primitive state of fencing in most of the US it is common for one person to wear many (if not all) these hats. Bad times.

However, we are now totally off-topic... Time to start a new thread or let this baby die the sweet death it's earned.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm still chewing on the implications of this, but one thing comes to mind:

Given enough dedication, CAN all students make it to the highest levels of the sport?

I've been operating under the assumption that ALL students, if dedicated enough to change, CAN make it to Gold at the Olympics. Some just have a harder path then others.

But there is a conflict with this and with the notion of predetermined qualities (including those that lead to motivation, curiosity and ability), which I'm coming to believe in more and more.

Are there some students who just CAN'T?

Without a doubt there are genetic differences that will limit athletic potential. We are NOT all created equal.

For instance, baseball infielders, who have reaction times related to the speed at which their eyes can focus on the ball; they are extremely fast. I've had my eyes tested and they have a below average focusing speed, and there is no known way to significantly improve this.

Also, change the location of where a particular muscle connects to the skeleton by only a centimeter and you have changed the leverage dramatically, and that is purely genetic.

I'm sure there are a huge number of genetic limits on athletic potential. Where motivation and hard work comes in is; how close will you come to your athletic potential?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Would you say that great coaches make great programs?

No.

*grin*

Great organisations make great programs. A coach is but one (albeit a very important one) element in that program.

I'm thinking that the old world approach of "Darwinian Fencing" where lots of fencers start and only a very few make it all the way would be the answer. The trick to creating a great program in this case would be efficiently identifying potential, working with that potential optimally, and then advertising the heck out of the program so that more "slag" is run through. It becomes a filtering process and not a creative one.

Simply put, great fencers are FOUND not made.

Or so this line of thinking would imply.

The question then becomes, what's a coach's role in this?

My assertion would be that the coach is the major product that attracts high quality "slag". You need to have an excellent reputation (though whether you're actually excellent is irrelevent), you need to be able to bond with your high quality students/parents and you need to be able to take them as far as they can go.

In hindsight, it actually explains a lot of behaviour at high calibre clubs...

But these are also just thoughts. I'm not a good enough coach to really know if this is the case or not.

Mr. E or Allen? You guys got any better input here?

James.

[Mr Epee]

James,

You captured my thoughts exacty, even down to the example.

I was kinda hoping that RIT would read between the lines. I didn't have time to write it all out this afternoon, but now I don't have to... Thank You

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by jBirch

No.

*grin*

Great organisations make great programs. A coach is but one (albeit a very important one) element in that program.

I'm thinking that the old world approach of "Darwinian Fencing" where lots of fencers start and only a very few make it all the way would be the answer. The trick to creating a great program in this case would be efficiently identifying potential, working with that potential optimally, and then advertising the heck out of the program so that more "slag" is run through. It becomes a filtering process and not a creative one.

Simply put, great fencers are FOUND not made.

Or so this line of thinking would imply.

The question then becomes, what's a coach's role in this?

My assertion would be that the coach is the major product that attracts high quality "slag". You need to have an excellent reputation (though whether you're actually excellent is irrelevent), you need to be able to bond with your high quality students/parents and you need to be able to take them as far as they can go.

In hindsight, it actually explains a lot of behaviour at high calibre clubs...

But these are also just thoughts. I'm not a good enough coach to really know if this is the case or not.

Mr. E or Allen? You guys got any better input here?

James.

If the programs role is to bring in as many fencers as possible and then to identify and devote resources to those with the most potential, then the coaches role would be how to enable the individual fencer to achieve that potential.

There lies the creativity and skill. No two individuals are exactly alike; they will have differing physical talents, learning styles, personalities, motivational needs, etc. The great coach tailors the training regime to the individual, and avoids a cookie cutter/one-size-fits-all approach.

[p1nkp4nther]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

There lies the creativity and skill. No two individuals are exactly alike; they will have differing physical talents, learning styles, personalities, motivational needs, etc. The great coach tailors the training regime to the individual, and avoids a cookie cutter/one-size-fits-all approach.

Agreed!

I believe the role of a coach is more that of a "facilitator" than a "sculptor/maker (sorry I can't get the right word) of fencers".

Ultimately I think coaches can only stimulate their students in dynamic, interesting and different ways, instead of having a standard "formula" that will bring about learning.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Given enough dedication, CAN all students make it to the highest levels of the sport?

I've been operating under the assumption that ALL students, if dedicated enough to change, CAN make it to Gold at the Olympics. Some just have a harder path then others.

But there is a conflict with this and with the notion of predetermined qualities (including those that lead to motivation, curiosity and ability), which I'm coming to believe in more and more.

Are there some students who just CAN'T?

I think the short answer to this is "Yes, there are individuals who, for any number of reasons, will never make an Olympic Fencing Team no matter how much their desire is". That's not to say that they can't learn to fence, or learn to fence to a decent (but not superior) level.

Personally, I have seen a lot of students who are going to fail to make even a "D" level of ability because they are just not suited to the sport physically or emotionally, no matter how much they may want to be a high level athlete.

I don't necessarily see this as a huge tragedy.

Quote:</