Coaching Certification

[MdA]

USFCA President Arnold Mercado got some grants from the NCAA for coaches education. This is the way to do it. Coaches should not pay out of their own pockets to educate other coaches.

[MdA]

One more thought and then I got to go...in the 1954 report by Mastropaolo. Hungary made a national decision to raise the competitive level of their fencing. They did this correctly by raising the level of their Fencing Masters. They imported the Italian method...established a centralized school...and a hundred years later...they are still at the top of the competitive ranks.

The system for fencing in the USA has been for the most part privately funded with no permanent support for a national school besides the Coaches College which is a three week program in the summer....which coaches must still pay out of their own pockets to attend.

So as they say in America...."you get what you pay for"....and we are not currently funding a professional program.

[RITFencing]

One note on certification that I feel I should mention...

Perhaps the best coach I have ever met, and definitely the one who has had the most impact on my own coaching, has a Prevot degree from waaaaay back in the day and has expressed no interest whatsoever in ever getting any more certification. Even had I not felt generally apathetic (or possibly antipathetic) towards the concepts of different titles, certifications and ranks for coaches, I think the attitude that this person has is the correct one. What the bit of paper on your wall says is irrelevant; it is your own understanding of fencing and your ability to produce good fencers and a good environment that is really important.

[Hauptman]

I am not a coach or instructor on any level, but I find this topic interesting.

I think you are correct, Rick, that getting any sort of agreement on what would constitute an "American School" of fencing is not a practical application of the limited resources you have available. Although, you might try forming an informal "study" group to start trying to outline what such a school might look like, and possibly... somewhere down the road...if the situation is amenable (and the stars align)... you could present anything you create to the larger fencing community and see where it goes. If you can't get any agreement with only a small group of coaches involved then you know you are wasting your time on the whole.

Now when we talk about various schools of fencing, how consistent are they in their respective countries? Do all French masters teach essentially the same way? Does the governing body there expect uniformity in their exams with any expectation that they will go forth and teach in a particular style?

In my experience in clinical psychology, there has been an historical war between several schools of thought. These schools were thoroughly contradictory and mutually exclusive so that if you practiced one method you couldn't possibly practice another (although a more eclectic method has resulted in practice).

Getting through examinations in which the boards were made up of practitioners of various schools was always a challenge. The keys to passing were having a chair that was from your particular school, and more importantly, demonstrating a complete knowledge of your particular school.

Applying this to fencing would imply that you shouldn't have to teach like any particular member of the examining board to pass, but only that you have a complete understanding of how and why you teach the way you do. This would require an unbiased examining board that has wide knowledge of a variety styles of teaching. Good luck with maintaining that consistantly.

[Rick Thompson]

RITFencing wrote:

What the bit of paper on your wall says is irrelevant; it is your own understanding of fencing and your ability to produce good fencers and a good environment that is really important.

In the end, this is absolutely true. Having MdA tacked on the end of my name (someday) isn't going to magically make my fencing students appear in the Olympics. But, as someone stated earlier, the journey makes the goal worthwhile (or something like that...).

Also, the bit of paper does grease the skids quite a bit when you're talking to schools or other organizations.

[Rick Thompson]

Hauptman,

As Allen stated earlier in this thread, an "american school" methodology would be primarily for the lower level coaches. At a higher level, there's a lot of individuality.

The Coaches College takes this approach, as well as the Canadian coaching manuals. (Though the Canadian manuals, extensive though they are, are pretty dated.)

The Coaches Association will be (working towards it...) working from a model similar to the Soccer Coaches Association. The Soccer Coaches are not targetting the collegiate champion varsity coaches to train - they're working with/for the Soccer dads who got drafted into coaching their 10-year old's team, and no clue (I exaggerate somewhat), and the mid-level coaches who are still bolstering their learning. These are the areas of greatest growth and turn-over. Of course the assoc NEEDS the help and involvement of the champion varsity coaches....

But back to your question - there's a lot of variety in coaching styles and methods, even within a given national "school." And coaches that attend seminars by other "schools" will usually steal (ahem.... learn) something from them.

An "American School" would be some very wierd concoction of French, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and Lower Slobovian teaching methods.

[Allen Evans]

Oddly enough, I had lessons from two fencing masters who graduated nearly 30 years apart from the major French fencing academy in Paris (the name escapes me right now) and both gave nearly identical lessons. One was just a LOT faster than the other :-)

Allen Evans

[Jason]

Allen's right when he says it would be easy to put together a curriculum. Even without lifting it from the Canadians, it wouldn't take much effort. After all, there are plenty of schools with established methodologies that would be easy to copy. The idea of the methodology being put together by a very small group is, I think, key to success. Three or four coaches with backgrounds in formalized coaching education would be a lot better than a mass of folks who "just wing it" (no offense to any wingers out there).

Of course a fully realized school would take time to be developed. The USFCA would have to break down its development into stages (which would require a plan, naturally).

For example, maybe the first thing that gets developed is a program for educating moniteurs. That level requires less training and is, therefore, more "accessible". The curriculum for everything up through Fencing Master would have to already be in place (though, as I've said before, it would be "organic"), but each piece could be implemented successively.

One way to approach moniteur education could be the way the Polish system educates the "instruktor" level. Candidates are required to take a two-week course (with a specific curriculum and reading materials) followed by 8 months (if I remember correctly) of practical work (ie. coaching in a club or school) and are then eligible for the instructor's exam.

Because it's a low-level coaching degree, a 2-week curriculum covers the necessary methodology.

This is the kind of starting point that would not be terribly difficult to implement. A club could host it during the summer (or whenever) and keep a significant share of the proceeds (the course, obviously, would not be free). It would function much like many coaching clinics already do, except it would adhere to a specific methodology and--like the referee seminar--anyone wanting to take the exam would be required to have first completed the course (followed by practice "in the field"). I believe Coaches College works similarly (without the field-work requirement).

Requirements for higher-level degrees would be more stringent.

For lower-level degrees, this would not be very difficult to implement. A program for educating Fencing Masters would be a little harder (after all, a 2-year course may not be a practical solution in the US... though perhaps it would be), but far from impossible.

There are many ways to do this. I suspect there's even a market for it (I understand that Coaches College is quite popular--there's every reason that a USFCA system would be, as well). It just requires some momentum from the organization.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Oddly enough, I had lessons from two fencing masters who graduated nearly 30 years apart from the major French fencing academy in Paris (the name escapes me right now) and both gave nearly identical lessons. One was just a LOT faster than the other :-)

Allen Evans

Were the lessons far apart? Just because someone got their MdA doesn't mean they stop learning and growing (hopefully.)

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson

RITFencing wrote:


In the end, this is absolutely true. Having MdA tacked on the end of my name (someday) isn't going to magically make my fencing students appear in the Olympics. But, as someone stated earlier, the journey makes the goal worthwhile (or something like that...).

Also, the bit of paper does grease the skids quite a bit when you're talking to schools or other organizations.

It never HURTS to have the title, of course, though I think it helps much more to have a track record of producing athletes. If given a choice between someone with no formal coaching certification who has put several people on national teams and someone with a Fencing Master degree who has never produced anyone of note, who would you pick?

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Were the lessons far apart? Just because someone got their MdA doesn't mean they stop learning and growing (hopefully.)

The older coach had been teaching in the US for quite some time. The younger coach had been teaching in the US for a few years, and teaching in France (I believe) before that for a year or two. I was working with both of them at the same time, and the lessons were remarkably similar.

AE

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Jason

There are many ways to do this. I suspect there's even a market for it (I understand that Coaches College is quite popular--there's every reason that a USFCA system would be, as well). It just requires some momentum from the organization.

I would certainly subscribe to something like this. I know that the lower levels (1's and 2's) at Coaches College are quite popular, while the upper levels (3's and 4's) are more sparesly attended.

One of the biggest weaknesses in my fencing/coaching background is formalized training in motor learning, skill development, stimulous/response, and so forth. I feel that my aquisition of fencing skills are adequate (I can even teach an envelopment in an inside line) but my formal training in the classroom has been very hit or miss. (I've printed out the list from Jason to start doing some research/reading on my own). A direct connection from theory to practical application would be valuable.

I'd love to see the USFCA explore some of these ideas.

Allen Evans

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I would certainly subscribe to something like this. I know that the lower levels (1's and 2's) at Coaches College are quite popular, while the upper levels (3's and 4's) are more sparesly attended.

One of the biggest weaknesses in my fencing/coaching background is formalized training in motor learning, skill development, stimulous/response, and so forth. I feel that my aquisition of fencing skills are adequate (I can even teach an envelopment in an inside line) but my formal training in the classroom has been very hit or miss. (I've printed out the list from Jason to start doing some research/reading on my own). A direct connection from theory to practical application would be valuable.

I'd love to see the USFCA explore some of these ideas.

Allen Evans

I've only done level 1 epee at coaches college and read voer the manuals for all the level 2s (which may have since changed), so I can't comment on the cirriculum beyond that, but I agree that more attention to such things would be very useful, especially considering the average age of a US fencer. We generally only have them until they are 18, maybe 21-22. Up through cadet, I believe that natural talent, early physical development and athleticism play a much larger role than fencing skill, as there simply is not as much time to develop fencing skill as there is for junior and senior level fencers, so with a lower level of skill all around, the natural talents of each competitor play a larger role. [/tangent]

Anyway, in the past year or so, I've been lucky enough to work with a group of extremely high level coaches, all of whom were very big not only on teaching fencing technique and tactics, but athleticism, psychology and many other seemingly tangential aspects to the sport. They were also constantly expanding on their knowledge with books and seminars, as well as discusions with one another and many different experiments with their students.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson

But back to your question - there's a lot of variety in coaching styles and methods, even within a given national "school." And coaches that attend seminars by other "schools" will usually steal (ahem.... learn) something from them.

An "American School" would be some very wierd concoction of French, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and Lower Slobovian teaching methods.

I think you'd be remiss not to mention the Germans here...

Anyway, one of the big difficulties with creating one school of american fencing is that we have a fair number of high level coaches with different backgrounds. Paul Soter teaches a very different type of epee than Michael Marx, who teaches a very different type of epee from Kornel Udvarhelyi, etc etc. If I had to pick one coach, I'd go probably go with Kornel based on coaching ability, or maybe Paul based on his ability to organize and run a really tight ship, as well as create very strong lesson cirriculums (cirricula?) I think either one of them could do men's or women's epee.

In foil, we at least have a group of high level US born coaches who have all been proven to collaborate very well, and while this group is by no means all inclusive, I think that at least for women's foil, the stuff that Buckie Leach, Nat Goodhartz and Mike Pederson have been teaching could form the basis of a very strong American school. No disrepesct meant to people like Mikhail Petin, since I was just looking at American coaches here, or Greg Massialas, who at least in my mind is more of a men's foil coach (though I may just be unable to get past Gerek in that assumption.)

As for sabre... I don't know enough about the community. My knee jerk response is to give women's sabre to Ed Korfanty and men's to Yuri Gelman and let them come up with whatever they feel is necessary. Lord knows they've both been successful.

This is just an off the top of my head set up, and while it would probably lead to a very strong cirriculum over the next 10 years or so if all of the coaches mentioned agreed to it and got along and all, and make sure we get a minimum of whining and tantrums from any elite coaches left out. Honestly, you could probably pick almost any elite level coach in their weapon and have them develop a program of coaching education, just so long as we picked SOMETHING. Having all these different influences is a great thing at times, but only for those who understand enough about the game to know when to do what. I think that for beginner to intermediate level coaches, it's (probably) better to just pick a good system and stick to it, then worry about changing things around when they have a better understanding of how everything works.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Anyway, one of the big difficulties with creating one school of american fencing is that we have a fair number of high level coaches with different backgrounds. Paul Soter teaches a very different type of epee than Michael Marx, who teaches a very different type of epee from Kornel Udvarhelyi, etc etc. If I had to pick one coach, I'd go probably go with Kornel based on coaching ability, or maybe Paul based on his ability to organize and run a really tight ship, as well as create very strong lesson cirriculums (cirricula?) I think either one of them could do men's or women's epee.

In foil, we at least have a group of high level US born coaches who have all been proven to collaborate very well, and while this group is by no means all inclusive, I think that at least for women's foil, the stuff that Buckie Leach, Nat Goodhartz and Mike Pederson have been teaching could form the basis of a very strong American school. No disrepesct meant to people like Mikhail Petin, since I was just looking at American coaches here, or Greg Massialas, who at least in my mind is more of a men's foil coach (though I may just be unable to get past Gerek in that assumption.)

As for sabre... I don't know enough about the community. My knee jerk response is to give women's sabre to Ed Korfanty and men's to Yuri Gelman and let them come up with whatever they feel is necessary. Lord knows they've both been successful.

Great of all the coaches you mentioned in your post ...only Ed Korfanty is a member of the USFCA. That means we don't even have these folks in an organization to begin working on a national school.
...unfortunately most of our top coaches are interested in coaching fencers and not teaching other coaches...unless it is an apprentice relationship.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by MdA

Great of all the coaches you mentioned in your post ...only Ed Korfanty is a member of the USFCA. That means we don't even have these folks in an organization to begin working on a national school.
...unfortunately most of our top coaches are interested in coaching fencers and not teaching other coaches...unless it is an apprentice relationship.

Well, then maybe you get one of the people who apprenticed with one of those people. They may be motivated to make sure that the great knowledge passed to them doesn't simply trickle down from that one master to their staff. In any case, they may have more time and interest in helping to document the system. They may be able to lean on their mentor, solicit corrections or review of the curriculum, etc.

It's an idea.

Personally, as a novice assistant coach (and not a current member of USFCA), I would be much more interested in the USFCA if they had something more like what Allen and Jason are talking about.

Of course, if the USFCA develops some sort of coaching system and curriculum, that's going to leave coaches like me a little confused between what the USFCA offers and what Coaches College offers. Would they be significantly different? Would they somehow merge at some point? (So someone passing all of the CC level 2 exams is probably ready to be certified as a moniteur or something like that.)

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by MdA

Great of all the coaches you mentioned in your post ...only Ed Korfanty is a member of the USFCA. That means we don't even have these folks in an organization to begin working on a national school.
...unfortunately most of our top coaches are interested in coaching fencers and not teaching other coaches...unless it is an apprentice relationship.

I know Paul Soter has a fencing master degree from the USFCA; I've seen it.

Does this have to be done by the USFCA, though? Or even Coaches College? Or the USFA? There is no one rubber stamp to put on something can call it "The American School of Fencing," though having an existing organization to disemminate information and standardize instruction could certainly be quite helpful.

Simply put, if the majority of coaches in America teach epee a certain way, then it is the default American Epee system.