Coaching Certification

[MdA]

The following are the new USFA officers:

Kalle Weeks, president
Mark Stasinos, VP
Greg Dilworth, treasurer
Jerry Benson, VP
J. Roberto Sobalvarro, VP
Brad Baker, secretary

Jerry Benson and Ro Sobalvarro are Fencing Masters. Jerry teaches a course and has developed materials titled "The Business of Coaching Fencing" ...and club development.

I know he has always been interested in this...we need to get him engaged.

[MdA]

What I mean by engaged is that we need him to go to the BOD and support this effort. Unfortunately in this time of budget cuts...I don't think they will be adding programs.

As for demand for coaches.....I think we should work on certifying the coaches who are already out there and employed in existing clubs...we can't promise jobs....but we should be able to promise the clubs qualified coaches.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I suspect that MdA has the figures available... but I suspect that there are already more certified Provosts and MdA's (or their foreign equivalents) in the US than there are full time coaching positions. It would be fairly easy to claim that the market is already saturated with certified fencing instructors. Right?

With that in mind shouldn't the priority be the creation of fencing jobs?

....What is a little silly is people with a background in law, computer science or engineering being pushed through the same coaching programs as someone with a general background in physical education, sport science, physiology, bio-mechanics, athletic training, education... etc...

I have not run the numbers for a few years…but I know that the USFA has over 20K members.

USFCA has just over 300 members. About 65 are Fencing Masters (depending on current memberships etc) ..about 15 are Emeritus or retired. So there are about 50 active Fencing Masters. About 25 Prevots and about 100 Moniteurs. The rest are associate members with no certification.

I don’t have figures on the number of international coaches in the USA at the Masters equivalent level because most are not members of the USFCA. I would estimate about 100 have fencing education and experience that would put them at the Master level. There are probably another 200 international coaches at various lower levels.

We need get the current number of registered clubs from the USFA.

We also need the USFA data on the number of members who register as coaches. Remember the coach database they started a couple years ago with the coaches photo ID card to get on the floor at nationals…this might be helpful…but probably out of date since they haven’t been doing that for a year.

Of the 20K members USFA we know that half are under 18.

I have estimated conservatively that an active coach should be able to handle 20 fencers. If really busy maybe 30. After that you need assistants. I had 65 at the USAF Academy and I had two assistants and that worked out about right.

There is data from equipment vendors that there are 150 to 200 K people in the USA involved in some type of fencing…and only 20K are members of USFA. Many of these folks are involved in theatrical/historical fencing (fight directors) and SCA etc.

My point is that there are a lot of people out there coaching fencing in the USA. And Mr. E is right…they are lawyers, doctors, software developers, barbers, accountants…etc. The problem is that there is a very high number out there with no formal training at all. And a low number at the Master level.

I have always pointed out the low number of Prevots to the USFCA. In a healthy pyramid structure, the Prevots (apprentice Masters) should outnumber the Masters. These are the replacements for the current Masters. At the current rate we not replacing the Masters. Now the USA is different because we have always imported Masters…which screws up our numbers.

In my opinion, we are not getting enough coaches to this middle level. Many moniteurs or CC Level 1 coaches stay the same level for 20 years and never get additional training.

So the bottom line is I think we have enough coaching jobs out there. Our problem is that a large portion of those jobs are being filled by untrained or low-skill level workers. For recreational fencers this is probably OK as long as they follow basic safety procedures…this info they may get form other sports involvement. But for fencers interested in progressing to the highest competitive levels, my point has always been that they need a Master….and we have a shortage of mid-level coaches (Prevots) which leads to a shortage of Masters. We supplement with imported Masters….but this doesn’t solve the problem for the American-born coach who wants to move up the ladder to Master.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I suspect that MdA has the figures available... but I suspect that there are already more certified Provosts and MdA's (or their foreign equivalents) in the US than there are full time coaching positions. It would be fairly easy to claim that the market is already saturated with certified fencing instructors. Right?

That goes under the assumption that work the only jobs out there are with existing clubs (ie no one would be creating their own openings), and that

With that in mind shouldn't the priority be the creation of fencing jobs?

Yeah, that's a huge priority to be sure, but now it's becoming like a chicken and egg thing... should we create the positions before they can be filled, or should we worry about making qualified candidates first?

You mention the incoming traffic at your (I assume you mean GGFC) club. That's great, but IIRC correctly you were complaining a while back about a lack of health care and disposable income. A job that can't provide those things or the ability to support a family isn't much of a job, is it? Hey, I'm all for folks sacrificing to do what they love, but hard work for low pay tends to weed out the majority of suitable individuals... and we're left with a handful of good folks... and a shipload of misfits. You know this.

Actually, I am no longer at GGFC for pretty much the reasons mentioned. It was a very amicable parting, though, and I wish them the very best. I'm now working at First Place Fencing and making a decent amount.

Running a succesful small business is ridiculously difficult and time consuming. Ideally, club management is a full time job and coaching staff is a whole seperate branch of the tree...

Yes, but is that a realistic idea in the current market? I'm not being rhetorical, here; I really want to know your thoughts on it.

Not sure why you brought this up in response to my comments.

Because you seemed to be talking about things that can be added to coach training that were outside the traditional sphere of 'how to make fencers.'

Maybe this is a good point to mention that most universities already offer professional diplomas in education and business management. Certainly, anyone seriously interested should be already taking advantage of those quality resources.

What is a little silly is people with a background in law, computer science or engineering being pushed through the same coaching programs as someone with a general background in physical education, sport science, physiology, bio-mechanics, athletic training, education... etc...

See the problem?

They don't start equally... it makes the same sense as enrolling an 18 year old in 1st Grade and expecting a happy classroom.

That's a very fair point to make...

I wodner if you're hinting at this, but maybe a better answer would be a series of courses in different areas instead of just Moniteur, Prevot and Master. That might be helpful for those with favorable backgrounds who are getting into coaching, and also for those with a lot of fencing experience who need to learn more about these other topics.

Really, though, I think that the first step in creating any cirriculum would be to figure out the objectives of it: what should someone who has graduated from this program be capable of? Fencing education should be part of it, as should business management, sports psychology, armory work, marketing and sales work, and probably many other fields that I'm too tired to mention. Once that is done, courses can be designed around it with much more unification.

[Mr Epee]

Unfortunately, my thoughts are being scrambled by keyboard interference. I generally type at around 50+ wpm which allows me to keep a consistant thought going, but when keys get moved around (and hidden), the brain wanders... so sorry.

sidenote: RIT congrats on your move. Hope that works for you.

I'm not sure that one could accurately make any predictions about the need for fencing instructors based on the USFA membership rosters. There simply aren't 20k fencers taking regular lessons (3+/week). Also, there is a great deal of 'churning' in the ranks of USFA membership. Folks flow in and out.

I admit that I'm shocked by the low number of Provost level instructors. I would have thought there would have been many many more. It makes me wonder how many of the current MdA's are actually the product of the USFCA certification program in the past decade (or two). Off the top of my head I can easily think of a handfull of MdA's who were certified back in the 70's and, to put it kindly, haven't kept up with the game.

Obviously, the number of fencers a coach can handle is going to vary significantly with the level of fencer. At first glance, I thought MdA's 'conservative' number of 20 to be extremely high... For coaches working with elite athletes, the number (in my observation) is much much lower.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

... It makes me wonder how many of the current MdA's are actually the product of the USFCA certification program in the past decade (or two)....

I need to do a little research on this one. It gets complicated because a lot of Masters do not keep their memberships current (don't pay their dues) so they drop off our membership lists. I keep several old lists so I can go back and look.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Obviously, the number of fencers a coach can handle is going to vary significantly with the level of fencer. At first glance, I thought MdA's 'conservative' number of 20 to be extremely high... For coaches working with elite athletes, the number (in my observation) is much much lower.

I agree the number of elite fencers a Master can handle is lower especially with travel to competitions. I was thinking about a mix of intermediate to elite/advanced...and the up-and-coming youth.

[MdA]

“In 1895, the Hungarians acted to raise the level of their competitive fencing. They invited the Italian Master Barbesetti to direct instruction at the Magistral School of Wiener-Neustadt. He formed 600 Fencing Masters at this institution between the years of 1895 and 1914 (19 years). Italo Santelli settled in Budapest in 1896 and trained a great number of Olympic champions. Borsody laid down the foundations of the Hungarian method: movements from the wrist, mobility, decontraction, changes in rhythm, and a profound study of tactics. The Hungarian School developed from the influence of Borsody and Santelli. It was executed by Barbesetti’s 600 Fencing Masters.

If the Hungarians can be inspired by a foreign school, orient themselves to a fencing style more suited to their temperament, why can’t the Americans?”

Excerpt from the 1954 report by Joseph A. Mastropaolo to the Fencing Master’s Education Committee of the NFCAA (now the USFCA).

My question to this group: Is this idea of a centralized school still valid today in the world of modern sport? The French disbanded their centralized school INS in the early 90s. The USFCA has been using a decentralized system for the past 50 years (except for the brief period of the AFA at Cornell 1973-84) and it is not working. We are still importing the vast majority of our Fencing Masters from other nations.

By the way, just for comparison to Barbesetti, Maitre Gillet formed 15 Fencing Masters at AFA including Buckie Leach.

Gaugler also had the Military Masters program at San Jose State for many years. I don’t have data on the number of Masters produced since he was not affiliated with the USFCA.

Professor Zbigniew Czajkowski operated out of a centralized school in Poland. I am sure there were incentives for producing successful Fencing Masters and not just successful fencers.

What about big money sports like football and basketball? There doesn’t seem to be a centralized school for football coaches. I assume there are clinics for coaches but its seems to be a system where coaches work their way up thru levels from high school to the NFL …with apprenticeships under the top coaches.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by MdA

There doesn’t seem to be a centralized school for football coaches. I assume there are clinics for coaches but its seems to be a system where coaches work their way up thru levels from high school to the NFL …with apprenticeships under the top coaches.

I just finished reading "The Blind Side" in which Michael Lewis (author of Money Ball) noted that there are two primary schools of philosophy in the NFL... The majority of the coaches in the NFL come from either the Bill Parcells coaching tree, or the shockingly extensive Bill Walsh tree... there most certainly is an apprenticeship type trickle down in place.

If you are interested in coaching and have any interest in football, you will find this facinating.

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a Maitre d' American Football, but still these guys are considered qualified to direct the perfomance of multi-100 million dollar teams.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by MdA

I agree the number of elite fencers a Master can handle is lower especially with travel to competitions. I was thinking about a mix of intermediate to elite/advanced...and the up-and-coming youth.

And then there is also the question why the same coach that is training elite international athletes is tasked with training intermediate and intro youth fencers.

[keith]

Couple of thoughts on the thread;

Unless and until the USFA demands a criteria from people who call themselves coaches no 'system' will work - there is no need for one.

You need to fund the coaching system, and the easiest way to do that is to force people to pay to learn.

If the USFA drove up the demand for coaching courses the supply would probably follow.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

And then there is also the question why the same coach that is training elite international athletes is tasked with training intermediate and intro youth fencers.

Good point..they shouldn't...but that is the way it works out at many clubs

[MdA]

Originally Posted by keith

Couple of thoughts on the thread;
Unless and until the USFA demands a criteria from people who call themselves coaches no 'system' will work - there is no need for one.

This may change in the very near future. USFA is now requiring background checks for national team cadre...the next step would seem to be coaching credentials...my advice to young coaches is to start working on it now.

Clubs are also looking to protect themselves...note the thread in other forum on "inapropriate behavior by coach"

Originally Posted by keith

You need to fund the coaching system, and the easiest way to do that is to force people to pay to learn.

You are correct. One very successful, Russian collegiate coach, once told me. "Don't give it away for nothing" I think the key is to target the private clubs. As clubs become profitable they should be willing to pay to certify their coaches to protect their clients and of course improve results.

Originally Posted by keith

If the USFA drove up the demand for coaching courses the supply would probably follow.

I think the clubs and fencers should drive up the demand for certified coaches. I don't think the USAF is interested in managing the coaching business or development. They seem willing to staff the national teams with imported coaches. This is easier then developing a system..and cheaper....short-sighted...but definitely easier..this is where we are now.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by MdA

I think the clubs and fencers should drive up the demand for certified coaches.

If this is the case, then shouldn't the focus be on developing new clubs?

Who starts clubs and why?

James.

[keith]

Originally Posted by MdA

Clubs are also looking to protect themselves...note the thread in other forum on "inapropriate behavior by coach"

Don't read to much into that, you'll find previous posts by many of the outraged folk about how it's just fine to for coaches to treat students as the happy hunting ground

Apparently they are consenting adults right up to the moment they aren't .

Originally Posted by MdA

You are correct. One very successful, Russian collegiate coach, once told me. "Don't give it away for nothing" I think the key is to target the private clubs. As clubs become profitable they should be willing to pay to certify their coaches to protect their clients and of course improve results.

Since most fencing injuries are probably due to poor footwork perhaps we need an enterprising lawyer to start a class action suit? All those creaky knees in need of fixing.

More seriously; waiting for clubs to demand it of their coaches is probably going to leave you waiting a long time and even if the larger clubs go this path what about the rest?

Originally Posted by MdA

I think the clubs and fencers should drive up the demand for certified coaches. I don't think the USAF is interested in managing the coaching business or development. They seem willing to staff the national teams with imported coaches. This is easier then developing a system..and cheaper....short-sighted...but definitely easier..this is where we are now.

The USFA does not need to (and probably should not) develop and manage a system. All it needs to do is say that if you want to be a 'coach' and carry insurance to coach these are the minimum standards you must meet.

That is all you require to start developing a US cadre of coaches, it would generate the demand for training courses. Hell the USFA could even put giving coaching seminars into the national coaches contracts - start running one day seminars of the back of a NAC at a local salle and you can probably make quite an impact.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by MdA

Professor Zbigniew Czajkowski operated out of a centralized school in Poland.

The past tense is premature. The Professor continues to train coaches at the Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Poland, as he has for many years.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Is there really a point to work towards professional diplomas without an existing demand for diploma'd workers?

This is a tremendously important observation. There is absolutely no demand for diploma'd workers. There is, however, tremendous demand for qualified workers. Qualified, knowledgeable coaches can find work pretty easily (ignoring visa issues that might come up for our foreign friends, naturally). The standard of pay, benefits, etc., varies with each position, as with any job, but a capable coach can certainly make a living and, if he's business savvy, even a good one.

Most American-born coaches, regardless of their diplomas, are not very "qualified". They simply aren't very good coaches. I know of a few exceptions, and they stand out particularly because they are exceptions.

If there was an "American School" tied to the diploma, then the diploma would mean something.

From a business point of view, there is money to be made for an educated coach and there is money to be made in educating coaches. QED, b!tches.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by keith

The USFA does not need to (and probably should not) develop and manage a system. All it needs to do is say that if you want to be a 'coach' and carry insurance to coach these are the minimum standards you must meet.

I think we have come full circle in this thread. Allen said he was told that the USFCA only certifies coaches and doesn't train them. Now, it sounds like you are suggesting that the USFA take this role.