07-13-2008, 05:13 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,664
| A philosophical issue with the USFCA's website
The FAQ section of the USFCA's site has a part which sums up a lot of the misgivings I have with the organization: Quote: |
Competitive results may be a good indicator of a coach's ability but it is no substitute for certification.
| Can someone please justify this for me? How is it actually more important to have a certificate than the ability to produce? I understand how certification can be a good indicator of ability, but how is the theoretical presence of skill (passing a test meant to measure one's ability to produce fencers) supposed to be placed above the actual demonstration of that skill (fencers who have been produced?)
__________________
"If I were ever to challenge you to a duel, your best bet would be battle axes in a very dark basement." Misquoted from The Prisoner
"Technical excellence is the antecedant of tactical creativity." - Nat Goodhartz
But those things which belong neither to God nor to Caeser, feeleth free to writeth them off, for yea, they are deductable.
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
07-13-2008, 06:54 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,546
| The USFCA's goal is to 'sell' certification. It's a poorly written statement; if I were writing such a FAQ, I'd sell the ancillary benefits of certification (peer recognition, insurance) and pitch it as a complementary goal.
darius | |
| | |
07-13-2008, 08:11 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Hideaway, TX
Posts: 130
| Perhaps the statement should have read:
Certification results may be a good indicator of a coach's ability but it is no substitute for competition.
RIT has a valid claim. | |
| | |
07-13-2008, 08:49 PM
|
#4 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Pennsauken, NJ
Posts: 8,951
| Quote:
Originally Posted by darius  I'd sell the ancillary benefits of certification (<...> insurance) | I don't know of any current insurace benefit from being a USFCA member (certified or otherwise), but your post implies that one might exist.
This would have been a really good selling point for the USFCA if the USFA hadn't started offering complementary liability insurance to coach members a few seasons ago. Heck, even WITH that the USFCA should probably look at pricing it to see if it makes sense as an added benefit.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
| 
| | |
07-13-2008, 10:29 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,546
| Oops, I got my organizations jumbled. Part of the USFCA's problem is that their mission is defined as certification, but that they don't make a great case for it.
darius | |
| | |
07-13-2008, 10:34 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,664
| Quote:
Originally Posted by darius Oops, I got my organizations jumbled. Part of the USFCA's problem is that their mission is defined as certification, but that they don't make a great case for it.
darius | I'm not saying certification is a bad thing... I am, however, saying that a certification of an ability is not more important than the ability itself, which is a dichotomy that this statement seems to make.
__________________
"If I were ever to challenge you to a duel, your best bet would be battle axes in a very dark basement." Misquoted from The Prisoner
"Technical excellence is the antecedant of tactical creativity." - Nat Goodhartz
But those things which belong neither to God nor to Caeser, feeleth free to writeth them off, for yea, they are deductable.
| |
| | |
07-13-2008, 10:53 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,546
| Given the current principals, I suspect that such a dichotomy is not one that they'd readily agree to. Especially given that I've heard from USFCA higher-ups that they'd like to concentrate more on an educational mission.
Legacy stuff will always be an issue. Little need to quibble, if they're moving in the right direction.
darius | |
| | |
07-14-2008, 04:27 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 693
| I agree that the statement is outdated and could be reworked. It has been on the website since 2002...I will send a suggestion to Rick Thompson...he is working on the new website due in August.
The point is that competitive results by a coach is often difficult to quantify. It is difficult to determine a coach's ability based only on the results of his fencers. Did he develop them...or did they just walk into the club?
This question is really directed at those coaches who refer to themselves as Master or Maestro and only use their competitive results as proof to this claim.
This statement is there to educate fencers as well as coaches. If someone calls themselves a Prevot or a Master they should have a certificate. It is proof that the person has completed the process by a certifying authority.
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
| |
| | |
07-14-2008, 05:08 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 693
| Left out the first part of the question
Quote:
Originally Posted by RITFencing The FAQ section of the USFCA's site has a part which sums up a lot of the misgivings I have with the organization:
Can someone please justify this for me? How is it actually more important to have a certificate than the ability to produce? I understand how certification can be a good indicator of ability, but how is the theoretical presence of skill (passing a test meant to measure one's ability to produce fencers) supposed to be placed above the actual demonstration of that skill (fencers who have been produced?) | You also left out the first part of the FAQ...when taken together...I think it makes the point
Q3: My coach has produced many champions. Doesn't that make her/him a Fencing Master?
A3: Your coach may indeed be a very fine coach. The international standard for Fencing Master has not changed in many years. Competitive results may be a good indicator of a coach's ability but it is no substitute for certification.
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
| |
| | |
07-15-2008, 04:36 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Northern California
Posts: 389
| Quote:
Originally Posted by MdA You also left out the first part of the FAQ...when taken together...I think it makes the point
Q3: My coach has produced many champions. Doesn't that make her/him a Fencing Master?
A3: Your coach may indeed be a very fine coach. The international standard for Fencing Master has not changed in many years. Competitive results may be a good indicator of a coach's ability but it is no substitute for certification. | Context is such a useful thing!! 
On this same note, what is the definition of a fencing coach as opposed to the various rankings of fencing instructor (instructor, provost, master)?
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
| |
| | |
07-15-2008, 07:28 PM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 693
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauptman On this same note, what is the definition of a fencing coach as opposed to the various rankings of fencing instructor (instructor, provost, master)? | That is a good question. There is no definition for "fencing coach" in the USFCA's "Foil Technique and Terminology" even though the word has been in the association's name since 1941 when it was the National College Fencing Coaches Association of America or NCFCAA.
I think the word "coach" is an American thing. Here is what Wikipedia says
The word "trainer" is often used in other countries. The USFA Coaches College lists Level 1-5 Coach on their website...but I don't think I have ever seen a definition for fencing coach.
The terms Moniteur, Prévôt, and Maître d’Armes are defined by the AAI and are French, of course.
Most of the National Academies have a translation into their own language such as Fechtlehrer and Fechtmeister in German. The UK and the US have agreed on Fencing Master...but then the US uses the French terms Prévôt, Moniteur for the lower levels. There is even an Assistant Moniteur level in the USFCA...so it is all pretty confusing.
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
| |
| | |
07-15-2008, 07:35 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 693
| I don't think I answered Hauptman's question. My opinion is that "fencing coach" is a generic term used to describe a person who directs or manages a fencer's training, instruction and/or competive schedule. It includes both certified and uncertified amateur and professional coaches.
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
| |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
