Anyone can be a Fencing Coach ...or Pirate

[erooMynohtnA]

There's an interesting subcurrent I'm noting in the whole dialogue, and that's the suggestion that accreditation should be required to make one a teacher. While I understand many of the points made, I have an anecdote. (Gasp!)

My first instructor and I had a conversation a few months ago about certification, and he had an interesting point. He said "Well, what qualifies them to say you're a master? Because they can give you a paper? Who gives them the right to say you're a Master of Fencing?"

Honestly now, that's a capricious stance. What gives anyone any right to say anything about anyone?

I agreed it was a difficult question. I was skimming through the talk pages of fencing personalities on wikipedia, and came across that Martinez fellow from New York- his controversial status aside, there was an argument on the page that alleged his status as a Master was not true, because he hadn't been accredited by the AAI or USFCA or any number of other bodies. I'm thinking in my head "does that really matter?"

I wonder, does it really matter to be able to call yourself a Fencing Master with a diploma? What about those fencers certified from Gaugler's school, does that school's seperate status make their achievements worth less than a "mainstream" fencer?

Bottom line, accreditation isn't going to mean much to those instructors who are great at what they do and don't have the title of master/moniteur/grand poobah. They will continue to teach and instruct and give advice to fencers, and I don't see a reason why the old man at the side of the strip giving advice should be required to spend money, take a test, and get a piece of paper that says he's qualified to give you advice.

To end my (typically) long missive, at our end-of-the-year banquet for our club this past year, where we hand out gifts, accolades, and awards, we gave our current coach a black coaching arm. He has said on numerous occasions that he doesn't like to wear black because he's not a "Master."
We gave it to him anyway, explaining that because of the time, effort, and devotion he gives to teaching, practicing, and giving advice, he's a master to us.

Yes, it matters if you are a certified fencing master. It doesn't necessarily make you a better coach, but it make you not-a-liar when you call yourself a master.

Being a fencing master doesn't mean "this guy is a good coach" anymore than being a high school graduate means "this guy can read and do some math."

There are people out there who can read and do some math, and may even be much smarter and better educated than a high school graduate, but it doesn't make them a high school graduate if they never graduated high school. There are some very good uncertified fencing coaches out there, but they're not a master if they just because they say so.

[Mr Epee]

There are some very good uncertified fencing coaches out there, but they're not a master if they just because they say so.

Why not???

Obviously they are masters of their craft, and their craft is fencing.

Fencing instruction is not the domain of a protected guild or union. Without such an arrangement, as I believe exists in France, the title is largely ceremonial... and unless there is a requirement of continuing education is practically meaningless...

As has been pointed out in numerous other active threads, fencing is a particularly dynamic sport. There are frequent changes to the rules, equipment, and advances in general physical training theories.

I'm sure we all know Fencing Masters who simply refuse to adapt to modern saber/foil interpretations.... often citing their Fencing Master title part of the justification for their dissent.

Who does that help, seriously?

[Allen Evans]

It's a good point, Mr. E, though I'm not sure that I would trust a group of High School kids who elected their coach a "Fencing Master" over a diploma from the USFCA, no matter how old it was, or who sat on the examining board.

Currently, the title "Fencing Master" means almost nothing, and any push for certification in the US will have to over come that barrier.

AE

[MdA]

…Yes, it matters if you are a certified fencing master. It doesn't necessarily make you a better coach, but it make you not-a-liar when you call yourself a master.

I'm sure we all know Fencing Masters who simply refuse to adapt to modern saber/foil interpretations.... often citing their Fencing Master title part of the justification for their dissent.
Who does that help, seriously?

I see a lot of people throwing their referees rating around this site. I suppose if we had the title of “Master Referee” we would be having a similar discussion. I have a right to dissent…and I think it helps fencers and our Amateur Fencing Federations to hear that people disagree with this constant flow of upgrades and improvements. I like my computer too…but I don’t like it when Microsoft upgrades me every two days. I like it when they package the upgrades in a way that makes sense….and easier to handle…instead of causing disruptions.

Let’s be honest. This constant flow of clarifications keeps the referees in business…if they are the only ones who pretend to know what is going on. It would be worse if there was any money to be made.

…It's a good point, Mr. E, though I'm not sure that I would trust a group of High School kids who elected their coach a "Fencing Master" over a diploma from the USFCA, no matter how old it was, or who sat on the examining board.

I think it is the word “Master” that really bothers most Americans...it goes along with an overall lack of respect for authority. The referees want respect from the coaches and coaches want it too...let's just everybody love one another.

I am going to start referring to it as the “M” word so i can be more politically correct.

[erooMynohtnA]

Why not???

Obviously they are masters of their craft, and their craft is fencing.

Fencing instruction is not the domain of a protected guild or union. Without such an arrangement, as I believe exists in France, the title is largely ceremonial... and unless there is a requirement of continuing education is practically meaningless...

You have a valid point. The US doesn't have its **** together, so the term master doesn't really mean anything here. It's like a black belt, no one cares, but it sounds nice. But just like calling yourself a fencing master, you shouldn't go around calling yourself a black belt just because you can kick ass.

My point is more along the lines that we should try to be more like France. I don't think getting certified as a master helps a coach (I'm talking about the actual certification itself, not the process leading up to it which is most likely helpful). I think that getting certified is a drop in the bucket toward helping the American system become more like the European.

My entire argument that you're not a master if you're not certified by the USFCA boils down to the fact that the USFCA is acting as the US organization of certification endorsed by the AAI, the same international system the French fall under. In France, you're not called a master if you're not certified as a master by their coaches' organization, right? (I really don't know) I'm just trying to treat the USFCA and US fencing in the same manner.

As has been pointed out in numerous other active threads, fencing is a particularly dynamic sport. There are frequent changes to the rules, equipment, and advances in general physical training theories.

I'm sure we all know Fencing Masters who simply refuse to adapt to modern saber/foil interpretations.... often citing their Fencing Master title part of the justification for their dissent.

Who does that help, seriously?

My issue is a semantic one. You're touching on real world issues now.

I agree with you, but what to do about it?

I see a lot of people throwing their referees rating around this site. I suppose if we had the title of “Master Referee” we would be having a similar discussion. I have a right to dissent…and I think it helps fencers and our Amateur Fencing Federations to hear that people disagree with this constant flow of upgrades and improvements. I like my computer too…but I don’t like it when Microsoft upgrades me every two days. I like it when they package the upgrades in a way that makes sense….and easier to handle…instead of causing disruptions.

Let’s be honest. This constant flow of clarifications keeps the referees in business…if they are the only ones who pretend to know what is going on. It would be worse if there was any money to be made.

I've fenced your sons, so I know you're a really good coach, but I think you're letting you're frustration with a couple new rules build up and come out in a reactionary fashion.

While it may be good for fencing to oppose rule changes, I think that has to be done with discussion, not with coaching. It's certainly good to have dissenting viewpoints, but not if it hurts the fencers a coach training because the coach refuses to update his teaching.

To further the computer metaphor, I think most of the rules tweaks are just like OS updates, you wouldn't notice them if no one told you.

[MdA]

You have a valid point. The US doesn't have its **** together, so the term master doesn't really mean anything here. It's like a black belt, no one cares, but it sounds nice…

My point is more along the lines that we should try to be more like France. I don't think getting certified as a master helps a coach (I'm talking about the actual certification itself, not the process leading up to it which is most likely helpful). I think that getting certified is a drop in the bucket toward helping the American system become more like the European.

My entire argument that you're not a master if you're not certified by the USFCA boils down to the fact that the USFCA is acting as the US organization of certification endorsed by the AAI, the same international system the French fall under. In France, you're not called a master if you're not certified as a master by their coaches' organization, right? (I really don't know) I'm just trying to treat the USFCA and US fencing in the same manner.

Before 1965 there was no organization or place in the USA where you could be certified a FM. Michel Alaux, arguably one of the greatest MdAs ever produced in France and US Olympic coach, chaired the committee which produced the USFCA’s first certification process (it has been updated as recently as last year). Your right about France, and the respect extends to foreign MdAs. French fencers and coaches have addressed me as “Maitre” even though I am an American certified in Germany…it is respect for their sport…probably more then for me. The only time an American will address someone as “Maitre” is at a restaurant…usually while handing over a large tip for a better table. I just think we can use a little more of that in US fencing. That is the “drop in the bucket” that the USFCA is attempting to provide…we are maintaining a part of our heritage…which I admit is not as large or illustrious as other fencing nations.

I've fenced your sons, so I know you're a really good coach, but I think you're letting you're frustration with a couple new rules build up and come out in a reactionary fashion.

While it may be good for fencing to oppose rule changes, I think that has to be done with discussion, not with coaching. It's certainly good to have dissenting viewpoints, but not if it hurts the fencers a coach training because the coach refuses to update his teaching.

To further the computer metaphor, I think most of the rules tweaks are just like OS updates, you wouldn't notice them if no one told you.

Thanks for the compliment. Maybe one of them will be a FM someday (God help them). I am not as frustrated as I may seem in many of my posts. I have been at this for a long time. I am just trying to represent the voice of many coaches who don’t waste as much time as I do on this site…they are busy building fencers…I am winding down my coaching activities…youngest is almost in college. I want to continue to help other coaches with training and certification because I think it is worthwhile.

I am also a Software Engineer..so as for OS updates…most people don’t notice them…it just sucks when you’re the one person in 1000 whose application stops working. But, I guess I should have kept up with the latest release bulletin in my inbox. The rate of change has increased in fencing…just like other aspects of our modern lives. It just takes a lot of time to train a fencer.

[Hauptman]

I am not sure that any coaching solution in the US needs to focus on intermidiate and higher levels (what ARE those levels, exactly, in your mind?) immediately. The number of beginning coaches in the US who know very little about fencing (the vast majority of people who post on this forum about coaching questions seem to be "E" and "D" level fencers) seems large. I think that they are the big audience to be reached.

Allen, do you think that the vast majority of those coaches are actually E or D level fencers, or do you think that they just don't compete anymore and may just jump in a competition here or there to round out the field to 15 or 25 fencers?

[oiuyt]

'E' and 'D' level fencers who are getting started with a bit of coaching. Either they got "promoted" by all the more experienced people in their club/team/area leaving or have started trying to help out with beginners.

Experienced high-level fencers who have been coaching long enough for their ratings to degrade down to the E level have support structures in place for answering questions elsewhere. When they do post questions here they have a different tone.

-B

[MdA]

If you look at threads like "Reflexive vs. Intentional" and "Difference in Lunge Instruction" in the Coaching Corner or "Need Help Please" in the Club Corner you will see that these are from fencers who have been promoted up the food chain in their club. They are looking for help in this forum…but there is only so much we can do here...and sometimes a lot of abuse gets handed out.

These are often E and D fencers who have not had access to high level coaching. They are just trying to help out and they are most likely to teach the way they were taught. That is what I did when I first started coaching. Fortunately, I was taught by a “M word” before I started teaching.

I agree with oiuyt that it is a different situation for former A and B fencers whose classifications have expired down. They have probably been trained by several good coaches in the past and continue to have resources with which to share information.

I highly recommend USFCA Clinics and the Coaches College for all these coaches. It really helps to have an experienced coach take a look at you from the outside and give you some feedback…I don’t think you can get that from this forum alone.

To put things in perspective and give folks a measuring stick….this is not an actual rule…more what you’d call a guideline A Level 5 Coach or FM is someone who should have taken a thousand lessons and given at least a thousand lessons…give or take a few hundred in either category depending on personal situation. This takes many years.

[thekoby]

I highly recommend USFCA Clinics and the Coaches College for all these coaches. It really helps to have an experienced coach take a look at you from the outside and give you some feedback…I don’t think you can get that from this forum alone.

I agree with you on this. I joined here looking for more insights into the fencing world, and have made several posts asking for help or opinions (most of which in the threads you listed).

Yes, I am new to coaching a college club. Yes, I am NOT a A or B rated fencer. No, I will say that I can be a A or B rated fencer because I know where my skills lie and I know they are highly limited; I could possibly earn a D or C, I just need to get my butt to some higher-ranked tournaments. Like you said, my case is that I was promoted up through the food chain to the coaching spot by being the most experienced member in the club. Do I have more to learn? Hell yes!! I don't deny that one bit. However, as far as USFCA clinics and Coaches College, right now the funds for me to travel to Colorado or Texas are not there. I would LOVE to go to either one and gain more experience not just with teaching fencing, but also just fencing in general. I believe you had mentioned something to me in a different thread post about finding a coach in my area to help me progress more as a fencer, and I'm currently looking into that.

Reading through some of the other posts on here I also have to agree that coaching is no substitute for certification. If I had the choice between learning from someone with 10 years coaching experience or someone with 2 years coaching experience but with a Fencing Master certification from USFCA, I would choose the latter because that little bit of paper states that they know their sh*t (I've looked up the guidelines to take the master exam and a lot of the stuff on there I quickly found out I have no f-ing clue on!).

[Allen Evans]

Allen, do you think that the vast majority of those coaches are actually E or D level fencers, or do you think that they just don't compete anymore and may just jump in a competition here or there to round out the field to 15 or 25 fencers?

I used the measuring stick of "D" and "E" level fencers not because of what they said their ratings were (or told me, if they pm'd me or emailed me) but based on their level of knowledge abut fencing once we start talking*. I've struck up conversations (on line and in person) with fencers who use to be good and whose ratings have decayed, and Ouiyt is right, they are an entirely different animal.

AE

*No surprise, but a lot of the people who contact me about coaching advice are from the Mid West.

[Allen Evans]

I highly recommend USFCA Clinics and the Coaches College for all these coaches. It really helps to have an experienced coach take a look at you from the outside and give you some feedback…I don’t think you can get that from this forum alone.

Instead of traveling, you can also bring a coach to you, and get someone else (or a lot of someone's) to pay for it. Host a one or two day clinic for the club with a more advanced coach, and charge a fee for everyone who attends. Part of the day is spent working with the fencers (they get something for their money) and part of the day is spent working with the coaches (they too, get some benefits). I've participated in these sorts of clinics with Vladimir Nazlymov in which I was both student and coach, and taught a few in Virginia and North Carolina.

Fifty people at $10 a head can raise enough money to interest a nearby coach who might have something to offer you.

Allen Evans

[oiuyt]

Fifty people at $10 a head can raise enough money to interest a nearby coach who might have something to offer you.

50 people at $25 a head can raise enough money to interest coaches who aren't nearby.

I'm not sure Muncie has 50 people interested even in a high-quality, low-expense weekend-long clinic. BSU's website only lists 10 members.

The other option is the Area Coaching Clinics sponsored/subsidized by the USFA. Last I heard it required the local organizers to front a fairly nominal fee ($100?) and cover local lodging and transportation. US Fencing picked up the rest of the tab, including transporting and funding the instructor. Usually a 2-day abbreviated version that covers material similar to that in Foil 1 at Coaches College. Local organizers are free to charge participants (both to cover the costs and to create a surplus retained for other purposes).

Especially if there are other people in the area that are also looking for coaching education, I'd recommend this program. Really should have a group of people interested in improving their coaching, both to make the program work correctly (enough perspectives in the class and enough training partners) and to make it worthwhile for the commitment from US Fencing and the instructor.

-B

[tbryan]

The other option is the Area Coaching Clinics sponsored/subsidized by the USFA. Last I heard it required the local organizers to front a fairly nominal fee ($100?) and cover local lodging and transportation. US Fencing picked up the rest of the tab, including transporting and funding the instructor.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decided to suspend this program temporarily, considering the organization's current financial difficulties.

[oiuyt]

Mmmm, checking the most recent budget report nothing was charged against that line item this fiscal year through the end of May. Seems like it could have been suspended.

Makes it more likely that your best option is the one Allen suggested. Pair up coaching work with a more general fencing clinic/workshop. Have the participants in the fencing clinic pay, with the benefit to the organizers of the (presumably separate) coaching instruction.

Could also work paired up with other activities. A referee seminar on one day, a fencing clinic on the other, work on coaching in the evenings.

-B

[thekoby]

I'm not sure Muncie has 50 people interested even in a high-quality, low-expense weekend-long clinic. BSU's website only lists 10 members.

This is true. We did a weekend-long clinic near the end of the school year and only got a dozen people together. Although we had a somewhat decent turnout, I gathered that less than half those members walked away with knowledge they found usefull, the rest were just there because they had nothing else to do. Rather sad, if you ask me.

[oiuyt]

This is true. We did a weekend-long clinic near the end of the school year and only got a dozen people together. Although we had a somewhat decent turnout, I gathered that less than half those members walked away with knowledge they found usefull, the rest were just there because they had nothing else to do. Rather sad, if you ask me.

Who was teaching, how was the clinic targeted, and what do you see as the problem(s) that resulted in people not getting something out of it?

If you were to organize another clinic for this coming season what would you do differently (both in preparation and in execution)?

-B

[kuroutesshin]

Honestly now, that's a capricious stance. What gives anyone any right to say anything about anyone?

Well, that's simplifying it much further than I think he intended it to mean, but it makes you ask the question- what does the title mean, who is giving it to me, and what is the importance therein?

Richard Cohen mentions the stroy of a fencer imprisoned during the Napoleonic wars, who had the good fortune of being incarcerated with an expert in fencing (or master, whatever). He spent his entire period in prison fencing with sticks and whatever the guards would allow, and then recieved a slip of paper, signed by the master and the other prisoners, indicating that he had completed enough training to be considered a master.

Does the manner of that achievement mean he's less than a master educated, say, at a school in Paris?

Yes, it matters if you are a certified fencing master. It doesn't necessarily make you a better coach, but it make you not-a-liar when you call yourself a master.

Being a fencing master doesn't mean "this guy is a good coach" anymore than being a high school graduate means "this guy can read and do some math."

A diploma isn't an indicator of skill or education- it's a license to get a job. This point can be argued, so it's not that important.

There are people out there who can read and do some math, and may even be much smarter and better educated than a high school graduate, but it doesn't make them a high school graduate if they never graduated high school. There are some very good uncertified fencing coaches out there, but they're not a master if they just because they say so.

I'll go back to my query about the USFCA and the Military Master's program at San Jose. Gaugler's school creates Fencing Masters. So does the USFCA. What's the difference between the two? And if there is one, why? What if one of their master's became active in the olympic fencing world?

There have been excellent points made all around, and by the endless discourse we continue to have I don't think the problem will ever be resolved. But I like the discussion, and I truly believe it's more helpful to talk about these things than keep on keeping on.

[erooMynohtnA]

Well, that's simplifying it much further than I think he intended it to mean, but it makes you ask the question- what does the title mean, who is giving it to me, and what is the importance therein?

Richard Cohen mentions the stroy of a fencer imprisoned during the Napoleonic wars, who had the good fortune of being incarcerated with an expert in fencing (or master, whatever). He spent his entire period in prison fencing with sticks and whatever the guards would allow, and then recieved a slip of paper, signed by the master and the other prisoners, indicating that he had completed enough training to be considered a master.

Does the manner of that achievement mean he's less than a master educated, say, at a school in Paris?

I don't know the standards for certification at the time, so I'm going to use present day standards in the US.

Does it mean he's less than the Parisian master? I don't know what that means.

Does it mean he's not a master? Yes. He's not a prevot (insert French squigglies) either, but he could be a moniteur.

I'll go back to my query about the USFCA and the Military Master's program at San Jose. Gaugler's school creates Fencing Masters. So does the USFCA. What's the difference between the two? And if there is one, why? What if one of their master's became active in the olympic fencing world?

There have been excellent points made all around, and by the endless discourse we continue to have I don't think the problem will ever be resolved. But I like the discussion, and I truly believe it's more helpful to talk about these things than keep on keeping on.

Is Gaugler's certification of master recognized by the AAI? If not, that's the difference.

[thekoby]

Who was teaching, how was the clinic targeted, and what do you see as the problem(s) that resulted in people not getting something out of it?

We had a coach from Bladepoint Fencing Academy (Alexander's Fencing Academy) in Indy come to run basic footwork drills, teach us new games we can play with incoming members for the next year, and do some one-on-one lessons with him. I do not know for certain if he had any type of certification, but he was recommended to us by three other club coaches around the state. The problems I saw was that not everybody was taking it seriously. This actually would not be a problem since BSU's club is not NCAA or anything like that, but my issues lied with those members who expressed interest in becoming competetive fencers or moving up in the food chain to fill in when some of us senior members have left.

If you were to organize another clinic for this coming season what would you do differently (both in preparation and in execution)?

I was not a major part of putting the clinic together due to my hectic work schedule and that it just so happened to be around the time that I was having issues with my car. However, I feel like there could have been more communication between the senior members and club officers, as well as more information passed down to ALL the club members and not just those wishing to move up in skill/knowledge. The clinic was only for 4 hours on a Saturday (so not really all weekend), and I would have enjoyed more time working on things in both the private lessons and group lessons. If my club could get the money, I wouldn't mind doing a two-day clinic, 4-5 hours a day. But, like you mentioned earlier, BSU just doesn't have the member turnout that we should if we want to do something like this. However, doing a large clinic may help increase/retain members.