Coaching Certification

[MdA]

Originally Posted by MdA

I agree that the USFCA and the Coaches College do not need to be involved but I think it is a good idea for both to be involved. These are existing organizations...no need to re-invent the wheel.

The USFCA has an existing structure with By-Laws, committees, and some money. It is also a good idea to keep the certification board involved. That way we teach what will be in the exams...and v/v the exams test what is part of the "national school" curriculum That would solve a lot of the issues that we have indentified in this thread.

The other approach is to "Just do It" and don't wait for any organization to approve. That is what Vinnie B and I did with the PAFA. However, the administration at the college changed, we lost our funding, and facility...we also lost San Antonio Sports Foundation support...and PAFA died...actually it shifted to Walter Green who is running it as an online program.

Having experience in this matter it is much better to be set up in a non-profit org which can accept grants instead of trying to do this at a private club.

Having said that...Andrei and I will start to host clinics at Alamo Fencing Academy (private club) in the Fall. Andrei will host as USFCA VP for the south region. Each USFCA VP has a standing opbjective to host at least one training clinic in their region each year...this has not been happening. We will elect some new officers in August and will try to get the new VPs to do their job.

Vinnie has a lot of the curriculum for PAFA already written down. We could resurrect it and add to it for the "National School" and start at AFA in the Fall....we could then shift clinics around to your clubs...and have a rotating schedule with locations in several regions...with or without USFCA sponsorship.

[MdA]

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

The name of the French civilian national academy was

Ecole Superieure d'Escrime of the Institut National des Sports - commonly known as INS.

INS was disbanded in the early 1990's, there has been no one central place in France for Maitre certification.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by MdA

Korfanty, Burdan, and Gelman should put together the sabre course.

This is a nice idea, but probably unrealistic for numerous reasons.
Better to lift the program from an already existing source and then go to "star" coaches and get their input for changes/additional material.

That way, not only do things move forward more quickly, but no one is asked to do all of the labor themselves (and without compensation).

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by MdA

Your right Paul has a USFCA certificate. He has not been active lately and his dues are not up to date so he is not on my list.

I agree that the USFCA and the Coaches College do not need to be involved but I think it is a good idea for both to be involved. These are existing organizations...no need to re-invent the wheel.

Sure, as I said, it's not a bad idea by any stretch to at least make use of an extant structure.

The USFCA has an existing structure with By-Laws, committees, and some money. It is also a good idea to keep the certification board involved. That way we teach what will be in the exams...and v/v the exams test what is part of the "national school" curriculum That would solve a lot of the issues that we have indentified in this thread.

Part of me wants to disagree with this... it really does. I loathe the very notion of ranks and tests, etc (this is why I do fencing and not karate.) I hate it as an instructore even more than I did as a student, but this is part personal quirk. The other half come from the feeling that the pursuit of some abstract goal (my next belt/exam/title/other goddamn merit badge) tends to get put in front of the prusuit of the real goal (becoming a better fencer/coach.) While the tests may be such that studying to pass them WILL enhance one's abilities, I feel that the order of the priorities ehre is extremely important, and that only if the cirriculum and tests were 100% perfect in nature would this be a non issue, and I think we can all agree that this will not happen.

The fact is, however, that some sort of test for certification does help force a minimum level of knowledge, but I personally would be much more comfortable getting rid of the titles and sticking with something more along the lines of what CC has, or something totally different.

Korfanty, Burdan, and Gelman should put together the sabre course.

Do they all teach the same type of sabre? Can they get along well enough to work together? Even if we ignore any existing issues which may or may not be present, these are three very large personalities; none will want to play second fiddle to the others, and there has to be some method of deciding exactly what the system will focus on.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Jason

The idea of an "American School" is not to give a name to what already exists, but to raise the level of coaching in the country (without having to rely on foreign education systems) and to create a more unified language amongst coaches in regards to training practices.

I'm well aware of what we're talking about as a goal here, but I also think that we need to keep in mind exactly what a school of fencing (and really, a school of thought) is and what it isn't.

It doesn't matter who does it, but if the US wants to become a fencing superpower, there needs to be improved coaching education. Women's sabre does not have to be an exception.

As someone who was trained as a coach in a foreign country, I can say that most US coaches know distressingly little about fencing and coaching. There's a lot of information out there, but it needs to be organized and taught (and built upon) if we are going to take the progress we've made already (thank you, end of the Cold War) and explode.

(Everyone, say it with me: USA! USA! USA!)

Agreed on all counts, however, I think that increasing the level of coaching education alone will not do it. While the US does have a number of truly heinous coaches, it doesn't matter how many bad ones we have, what matters is how many good ones, and we have good ones. Not huge numbers, maybe not many at the absolute top of the game (think along the likes of Andrea Magro and Michel Sicard) but we definitely have coaches who are capable of producing winning fencers. I think we need a better organization supporting the fencers, because the USFA's efforts are, to quote a coach who knows far more about any of this than me, "bush league," at best.

Perhaps even more than that, though, we need athletes who keep fencing throughout college that are focussed more on senior world cups than NCAA championships, and I think above all else, we need more fencers who are willing and able to devote the time, energy and financial resources to high level fencing once they are out of college and in the real world (which brings me back to the whole issue of better support from our NGB.)

I'm not going into much depth here, and there are more things that I'm just missing outright, but I think that speaking from a purely elite level standpoint, these problems need to be addressed first.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

these problems need to be addressed first.

No they don't. NGB athlete support and coaching education are separate issues that don't require one to be developed ahead of the other. Both are important for fencing growth and can--and, likely, should--be handled independently of each other. They draw on different resources, have different goals, and address different markets.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

First, I dont' think it would hurt to ask non-USFCA coaches to assist with this. It might be that their role would be just to review a document after the fact.

Second, we're not asking for a unified field theory here, or sequencing a genome (okay, maybe it's harder than sequencing a genome, since that seems to be a pretty automated process these days). This doesn't have to be a complete, soup to nuts guide from beginning to master, but a solid foundation for a beginning coach, as Jason and I have both suggested. It could start very modestly and grow.

The problem with a discussion carried out among the likes of the posters on this thread is that the imagined solutions are too complicated -- seeking to address a higher level of training than what we really need here in the US. I don't see any problem with the USFCA membership getting behind a VERY simple coaching course. After all, the level of coaching knowlege of the average club coach in the United States is so low as to be embarressing. When you read posts from many of the beginning coaches on this forum, most of them are "E" and "D" level fencers, just as I was when I started my "coaching" career. A USFA Coaches College Level 2 or 3 manual is more information than most of these coaches have, currently. Would that be so hard to write?

AE

As always, Allen, you've made an excellent contribution, but I think more work needs to go into this than just documentation. Lesson plans certainly need to be drawn out, decisions about tactics and technique need to be made, but to produce coaches, I think we need face to face interaction, time spent getting lessons and participating in group classes* as well as time spent giving lessons and classes and having them reviewed by other coaches. Even if we produced the best book on fencing/coaching in the world, more must be done to really understand the material than reading it.

* I also think a LOT more has to be done with group classes... too many clubs (and coaches) have the mentality that a group warm up and MAYBE some footwork is all that should be done before open bouting happens, and that even then, any real instruction beyond a beginner level should only occur during private lessons. I've grown to believe over the past year that a great deal of learning, both technically and tactically, can take place in group classes for fencers up to and including olympic levels.

Private lessons are NOT the be all and end all of instruction, and while they are very beneficial, they are just one more tool in a coach's box.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Jason

No they don't. NGB athlete support and coaching education are separate issues that don't require one to be developed ahead of the other. Both are important for fencing growth and can--and, likely, should--be handled independently of each other. They draw on different resources, have different goals, and address different markets.

Ok, excellent point, actually. I would say that the problems related to NGB support of elite athletes and coaches are of a more pressing nature to our success internationally, at least over the next 10 to 20 years.

[MdA]

You have both hit the nail on the head. The USFA and the FIE have have always been the amateur federations. Run by and for amateur fencers. The national academies (USFCA) and the Academy d'Armes Interntional (AAI) have been the organizations for the professional fencing coaches.

They have different priorities and while coaches development has been of interest to the USOC and USFA, it has never been a top priority.

Those of us who consider ourselves professionals must take responsibility for the development of our own kind.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

While the US does have a number of truly heinous coaches, it doesn't matter how many bad ones we have, what matters is how many good ones, and we have good ones.

I disagree that it doesn't matter how many bad ones we have. There are many bad coaches who really want to be better, but they don't understand what they need to do to improve. I think that they don't see a clear path from "I'm thinking about teaching" all the way through to "I'm a fencing master." That is, while they may kind of understand it, they don't know what that path looks like. (Unlike, for example, a 17 year old student who wants to be a lawyer. While he may not know what exactly he needs to know, if he does even a little research, he'll have a pretty good plan laid out from graduation through the end of law school before he even finishes high school.)

Bad coaches can drive their frustrated students away from the sport, especially in areas where there aren't any other fencing clubs nearby. (And as gas prices go up, "nearby" becomes a shorter distance.) If nothing else, they can waste years of a fencer's time in the sport before the fencer finally moves on to a more qualified coach who now has a lot of damage to undo in retraining the fencer. I believe that you have personal experience with this problem, don't you?

It would be better if the novice coaches have good materials to get them started, a clear path on how to improve themselves as coaches, and a better understanding of what it takes to be a coach at various levels. A novice coach who said, "I can give you the basics, but beyond that, you need to see someone else" would be great. For example, if a student came to me right now with a serious ambition to compete in world cups, I'd explain how far our club could take them and recommend the coaches and clubs where they may be able to find the caliber of coaching that they'd need beyond that. Better if they move on even before they reach their limit with me since the other coaches and clubs could provide a better environment for developing into an elite athlete more quickly.

You cannot rescue all of the terrible coaches. Some of them just won't listen or don't even care to improve. On the other hand, I've met plenty of coaches who really want to learn and become better coaches for their students. It just seems like a lot of them aren't finding what they need. Some of these coaches eventually make it to Coaches College. I'm sure you've met some of them if you've taken a level 1 class.

I don't know that the USFCA is serving these coaches very well at the moment.

[Allen Evans]

Bad (and dishonest, though they aren't the same thing) coaching drives away a lot of new students every year, and occasionally takes promising students and puts them so far off path that it takes a really good coach a long time to get the student on track -- if they haven't quit in frustration before then. So, yes, I think it matters how many bad coaches we have in the US.

There will always be some, but the fewer, the better.

AE

[Jason]

I think the next step in the discussion of creating an "American School" (that is, for those of us who see it as a worthwhile venture), is how to move the idea from internet forum to the real world.

The current options, as noted by others earlier, are: wait/hope for the USFCA to take the initiative; wait/hope for the USFA to take the initiative; "do it yourself".

It doesn't seem like the USFCA, as an organization, has the gonads to put something like this together. The USFA, of course, has organizational Down's syndrome. That probably leaves the most realistic solution for starting the process as "do it yourself". (I believe Aaron Kandlik was proposing something for coaching education to Michael Marx and the Northwest Fencing Center, though I don't think it went anywhere.)

I think, potentially, a network of clubs and competent coaches could get this started. One club/coach alone might be overburdened, but a handful--even just 3 or 4 to start--could probably have a real impact. The coaches could put together (steal) a basic coaching system and then construct a standardized course model which they could then put into effect by running coaching courses in their own clubs. The key words here are "standardized course model".

It might be worthwhile to use the USFCA testing system as well (though maybe not).

For the "do it yourself" option to work, I think it would need to be a money-maker. Therefore, the course model would need to be designed as both an educational and business venture.

It's actually not that difficult, but it would certainly require some motivation.

I suspect that if the experiment proved successful, both the USFCA and the USFA would suddenly be eager to jump on board.

[kuroutesshin]

I wonder what the main benefit of establishing a national school has. The only outcome of the Italian decision in the late 1800s was the codification of a specific type of fencing style for competition, and in France the solidification of their system began much earlier. But what's the benefit of those dogmatic systems, other than fostering nationalism and an inability to adapt to change?

It's my view that if a specific style of teaching and fencing is successful, it will naturally rise to the top and displace all others- those coaches who teach a style that, for the current day, is successful will see a proliferation of coaches teaching that style, whether in imitation or after being directly trained.

But when you start a national academy, you're creating a class of "experts" who have the ability to dictate to the fencing world what a proper American fencer should be. Formulating a specific program of fencing is harmful.

One are I do think the USFCA would be helpful is in certifying more coaches. The ability to point to a certificate when applying for a job or looking to start a community education course is incredibly helpful, but taking myself as an example if I have to drive to Evanston, IL from mid-Michigan to have Laurie Schiller proctor my test/practicum, it's prohibitive.

I would like to see a more diverse system, much like the FOC examiners and referee trainers, spread throughout the USFA divisions, to train and certify. To use Laurie as an example- a Maestro di Scherma available to certify and instruct coaches in each division would be of incredible help.

The benefits come from having registered coaches in every are there are fencers, and it also starts a grass-roots movement to keep coaches in contact. I see divisional coaches clinics and tests down the road- rather than one big Coaches College once a year, multiple sessions throughout the year, at easily accesible distances.

Thoughts?

[darius]

I'm really late to this thread, too busy coaching and being newlywed to really think much about this, but I suspect dictating a "school" will ever work. What could work, however, is compiling a set of resources that folks can use as a starting point. Even better, add citations to those resources so the ambitious can see the thinking behind them and follow those pathways (motor learning, psychology, physiology, etc) to greater learning.

One of my goals since coming to NWFC has been to do a lot of thinking on how we can improve coach education in America (since I'm a consumer of that education as well as a practitioner), and make the path I've begun easier to follow. When Michael and the other coaches at NWFC sat down and rewrote our class coursework and testing criteria, one of my goals was to make it accessible to non-NWFC readers. That's an incredibly small step down a long journey, but it's one.

I have a concern that there currently aren't a lot of coaches who are interested in coach education, at least it seems that way to my eye. However, there are Americans pursuing coaching as a profession. If we could sit a few of the younger group and their mentors down, dispense with the egos, and just brainstorm, who knows what might happen?

I've already told Wendell Kubik and Sean Horan to remind me of these ideas should I get caught up in my own development. Now I'm on record saying it. If folks are interested, maybe we should get a group together to talk shop in San Jose...it's a hectic week, but we're all there at the same time.

darius

[Jason]

The best fencing countries in the world--and the countries where the best coaches come from--have national "schools". These coaches are formally taught how to teach fencing.

To say that there is no benefit to creating an American school is simply retarded. When the Hungarians wanted to get better results in fencing, they created a national school. So did the Poles. So did the Soviets. They didn't just give out diplomas, they formalized the training of their coaches, stealing from other countries and doing some of their own research.

If coaches aren't educated, they probably won't be very good. We, as a country, should want good coaches. To achieve that we need to create a system to educate them.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the term "national school".

A national school, in the modern sense, is not a set of rules saying "this is our way to execute parry 4" or "we lunge this way". A national school is an educational system for training coaches to teach fencing. It is not about teaching a specific style of fencing, it's about teaching a specific style of teaching. It's also--and this is extremely important--about simultaneously expanding a coach's understanding of the sport.

This US needs this kind of system.

[darius]

A national school is an educational system for training coaches to teach fencing. It is not about teaching a specific style of fencing, it's about teaching a specific style of teaching. It's also--and this is extremely important--about simultaneously expanding a coach's understanding of the sport.

The American fencing community is an odd mish-mash of various influences. Even if the USFA wanted to get behind such a project, there'd be backstabbing, infighting, and turf wars between "interested parties" before pen ever got put to paper. (Especially if there was a budget involved.)

I think that a formalized "national school" can't fly for those reasons. But that doesn't mean that the thinking about teaching can't be done and published within a professional community. Where does that pedagogy come from? Clearly other successful schools each have their own strengths, and if somebody's found a good solution for a problem, we should steal it shamelessly.

However, our situation is unique, in that we can't match the motivation levels of the Chinese athletes, or the ownership of the sport that the French / Italians claim. How can we teach in a way that maximizes our strengths and limits our weaknesses?

darius

[tbryan]

OK, again, I'm a novice coach. I don't really understand "national schools" of fencing or anything. (What they are. What they aren't. etc.) There seems to be a lot of concern over what has been proposed or whether it's even possible. Maybe we should review what's Allen and Jason were proposing, quoting liberally from Jason's post since he seemed to articulate this idea most clearly.

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I would say that the individual USFCA members have been training coaches...but the USFCA itself has not had a formal program in training coaches to achieve certification.