Anyone can be a Fencing Coach ...or Pirate

[Durando]

I was trying to point out how convoluted relations can get between these different national academies...the AAI try to be the umbrella over them all...the German Academy (for example) maintains relations with the Schlager FMs...they see it as part of their national fencing heritage....as the Italians see their Military Masters...it is complex and has nothing to do with modern fencing.

And, good lord, the French army has asked the FFE to start training military masters again. I think this is just for tradition's sake, though. After having nearly killed the sport with mindless discipline, they come crawling back to ask the federation to help them re-estabilsh their own poorly-stewarded tradition. Convoluted yes. And tradition is important. But somewhere there has to be one accrediting organization in the U.S.

[kuroutesshin]

Very interesting points and comments all around; thank you for the historical background, MdA. As a sidenote- if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you, be sure that I will use the title "Master."

This is all part of the continuing development of the world of fencing. I completely disagree with Jason's rather condescending attitudes toward Gaugler's school and non-"mainstream" fencing; as I've stated elsewhere and numerous times I believe there is room for all manner of fencing, whether it's Olympic-style or Master Crown's classical approach.

Politics has a way of harming relations between good people with good intentions. I don't think the people who have graduated from the SJFS believe their papers are worth any more or any less than one recieved from the USFCA, and it's an unfortunate event that has people look down on their achievement because they aren't mainstream.

There has to be a bit of give and take on all sides if we can achieve an even greater and more vibrant fencing community, not one where people who don't feel accepted, respected, or appreciated leave the society in search of greener pastures. We all love fencing, in it's various forms- why else would we be doing all of this?

[MdA]

And, good lord, the French army has asked the FFE to start training military masters again. I think this is just for tradition's sake, though. After having nearly killed the sport with mindless discipline, they come crawling back to ask the federation to help them re-estabilsh their own poorly-stewarded tradition. Convoluted yes. And tradition is important. But somewhere there has to be one accrediting organization in the U.S.

I know the feeling. The US Military asked me to coach the team at the 95 Military games after dropping support for CISM for many years. It was one of the worst…and in some ways the best fencing experiences in my life. Let’s just say they are worse than the USFCA and the USFA combined. I gave up on getting any support from the military…for as you say, “their own poorly-stewarded tradition. Only the Air Force Academy maintains a varsity fencing team…don’t get me started…this topic needs another thread.

Very interesting points and comments all around; thank you for the historical background, MdA. As a sidenote- if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you, be sure that I will use the title "Master."

….There has to be a bit of give and take on all sides if we can achieve an even greater and more vibrant fencing community, not one where people who don't feel accepted, respected, or appreciated leave the society in search of greener pastures. We all love fencing, in it's various forms- why else would we be doing all of this?

Thanks for the compliment…the first step towards becoming a Master is to respect at least one. And thanks for bringing us back to the point.

I am very sorry that the AFA program at Cornell was discontinued. Cornell is another institution with a fine fencing tradition and for the most part they let it go….

AFA was a centralized accredited program which was pedagogically sound. And some how…as a US fencing community we let it die. I remember seeing M. Gillet at the first few USFA Coaches Colleges. I didn’t know enough at the time but I think he might have been trying to pass the torch…it seems like these efforts are always a one man (or one woman-PAFA) show in the USA.

We missed an opportunity and now we have to start all over again. The USFCA has a Professional Development Committee established in its updated By-Laws (2006). But is has been inactive and has no chairman appointed. The current President Arnold Mercado has told me that training and education is a top priority but he will pass the torch to Abdel Salem in August. Salem has told me he wants to staff this committee as a top priority.

I ask new and old members to help us get this going again…but remember, for now, it works on volunteer power.

[Jason]

Politics has a way of harming relations between good people with good intentions. I don't think the people who have graduated from the SJFS believe their papers are worth any more or any less than one recieved from the USFCA, and it's an unfortunate event that has people look down on their achievement because they aren't mainstream.

The USFCA ought to have as its mission the development and improvement of coaching in the US--the measurement of which is certainly (although not exclusively) connected to competitive achievement. Gaugler's program may possibly be very demanding and interesting, but it treats fencing as a dead sport, locked in time and unchanging. It therefore offers very little to the development of US coaching. "Better" or "worse" isn't what's at issue; relevance is.

There are many kinds of fencing: "classical" fencing, "historical" fencing, stage fencing, kendo, etc. There are people who find value and merit in all of them. It's a bad idea, though, for one organization to try to represent them all. They are all different, with different needs, addressing different markets. There's no more reason for the USFCA to have anything to do with Gaugler's program than for it to be certifying stage combat choreographers.

[kuroutesshin]

The USFCA ought to have as its mission the development and improvement of coaching in the US--the measurement of which is certainly (although not exclusively) connected to competitive achievement. Gaugler's program may possibly be very demanding and interesting, but it treats fencing as a dead sport, locked in time and unchanging. It therefore offers very little to the development of US coaching. "Better" or "worse" isn't what's at issue; relevance is.

There are many kinds of fencing: "classical" fencing, "historical" fencing, stage fencing, kendo, etc. There are people who find value and merit in all of them. It's a bad idea, though, for one organization to try to represent them all. They are all different, with different needs, addressing different markets. There's no more reason for the USFCA to have anything to do with Gaugler's program than for it to be certifying stage combat choreographers.

Very good points, but this goes back to the original point about a national school of fencing. The SJFS program is apparently a strong, demanding, and pedagogically sound program that is very good at teaching fencers it's methodology, as was the AFA in it's time. The USFCA lacks this highly organized approach, which it is trying to address.

Saying that the SJFS program is akin to stage fighting is being completely unfair. It wasn't that long ago Gaugler founded the school, they aren't focused on things like Martinez's school (rapier, smallsword, etc.). They' firmly in the competitive aspect of the sport, just an older version.

Rather than looking at this as an apples/oranges situation, why not approach the Gaugler school in a spirit of fencing friendship and try to reconcile the differences? Yes, it's radical, but certainly less radical than other recent changes in the sport!

[MdA]

The USFCA ought to have as its mission the development and improvement of coaching in the US--the measurement of which is certainly (although not exclusively) connected to competitive achievement. Gaugler's program may possibly be very demanding and interesting, but it treats fencing as a dead sport, locked in time and unchanging. It therefore offers very little to the development of US coaching. "Better" or "worse" isn't what's at issue; relevance is.

…from the USFCA Constitution…note section 6

ARTICLE II
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

SECTION 1: To offer a national organization for fencing coaches, and others who are interested in the teaching, coaching, and welfare of the sport of fencing in the United States of America.

SECTION 2: To initiate, stimulate, promote, develop and raise the standards of the sport of fencing; to improve the techniques of teaching and coaching fencing; and to increase interest and participation in the sport of fencing in the United States of America.

SECTION 3: To acquire and maintain affiliation and recognition of the Association and its members with health, physical education, recreation, and athletic organizations.

SECTION 4: To cooperate with other athletic organizations in promoting, supporting and conducting national and international fencing events.

SECTION 5: To protect the interest and welfare of its members.

SECTION 6: To sponsor and conduct demonstrations of the sport of fencing, to support and promote amateur fencing programs, to present displays of historical and period swordplay, as well as to organize, conduct and present public educational programs on fencing.

[Allen Evans]

The SJFS program is apparently a strong, demanding, and pedagogically sound program that is very good at teaching fencers it's methodology, as was the AFA in it's time....<snip>...
Saying that the SJFS program is akin to stage fighting is being completely unfair. It wasn't that long ago Gaugler founded the school, they aren't focused on things like Martinez's school (rapier, smallsword, etc.). They' firmly in the competitive aspect of the sport, just an older version.

I think you missed the main thrust of Jason's point, and got hung up on the example. I agree that the SJFS program is "strong, demanding, and pedagogically sound..." however, it's main weakness, and one of the issues Jason and I both take with the program is that it's completely interally focused, and self-referential. As far as I can tell (from brief interactions with graduates from the school, reading Gaugler's works, and one brief demonstration lesson I had some time ago from a graduate of the school) the competitive aspect that the SJFS program follows is considerably older than the establishment of the school itself, and older than even M. Gaugler himself. It is not so much a question of the SJFS program not being accepted by other, outside sources, as it is SJFS's rejection of any hint of modern influence intruding into their pedagogy. This makes the pedagogy taught at SJFS of limited use to the average sport coach/Maitre, giving the metrics the USFCA should be using to measure it's success in raising the level of coaching in the US, and it's mission focused on sport fencing.

I've felt for a long time that the "Classical" and "Modern" fencing communities should get along. However, I feel that the "Classical" camp (in which I put the SJFS program) needs to build it's own identity in a seperate organization. The USFCA -- as MdA often points out -- has limited resources. Incorporating classical and historical swordplay into the USFCA umbrella might be a worthy goal in the future (the European Sports Fencing Federations manage to co-exist quite well with their own branches of Historical and Artistic Fencing) but is definately a low priority item.

Allen Evans

[MdA]

For those who are interested.. link to the AAI statutes...you will note similar reference to fencing in all its forms

http://www.escrime.org/english_version/statutes.htm

[MdA]

I have sited the objectives of the USFCA and the AAI to support historical fencing as part of a FMs education and training.

This brings us back to the original point of many of these threads...Jason's question about relevance. A fencing school should be able to teach any kind of fencing...but to be certified as a Moniteur, Prevot, or Master in the USA, you must pass the USFCA exams.

Disclaimer: I am not a member nor have I ever been a member of the USFCA Certification and Accreditation Board….some might say I am a former politician or worse… a fencing civil service worker…useless overhead.

If I were accrediting a SJFS fencing instructor, I would ask a simple question. What fencing rule book do you use to teach your fencers? The AAI and USFCA exam protocol requires knowledge of the current FIE/USFA rules. Rules questions are a large part of the written and practical exams.

[MdA]

I This makes the pedagogy taught at SJFS of limited use to the average sport coach/Maitre, giving the metrics the USFCA should be using to measure it's success in raising the level of coaching in the US, and it's mission focused on sport fencing.

USFCA Objectives above don't really say this..sorta but it says "sport of fencing" this leaves it open to some interpretation.

....Incorporating classical and historical swordplay into the USFCA umbrella might be a worthy goal in the future (the European Sports Fencing Federations manage to co-exist quite well with their own branches of Historical and Artistic Fencing) but is definately a low priority item.
Allen Evans

It's already in there but I agree it is a low priority. The real goal should be to develop a USFCA national school for coaching Olympic Sport Fencing. This is a good goal for the Professional Development Committee...which I sited earlier.

Let the other schools do what they want...and take the USFCA exams if they like but the focus should be on the "national school"

[MdA]

I think you missed the main thrust of Jason's point, and got hung up on the example. ... This makes the pedagogy taught at SJFS of limited use to the average sport coach/Maitre, giving the metrics the USFCA should be using to measure it's success in raising the level of coaching in the US, and it's mission focused on sport fencing.
..... The USFCA -- as MdA often points out -- has limited resources. Incorporating classical and historical swordplay into the USFCA umbrella might be a worthy goal in the future (the European Sports Fencing Federations manage to co-exist quite well with their own branches of Historical and Artistic Fencing) but is definately a low priority item.

Allen Evans

Another reason why historical fencing should be a "low priority" for the USFCA. America doesn’t really have an indigenous form of Swordplay to preserve. We borrowed everything we know about swords from Europe and Asia.

US fencing history really starts in the 1890s with the reinstitution of the modern Olympics. See The Museum of American Fencing

So let the Italians maintain their schools …and the Germans…French…Spanish…teach whatever you want but we don’t need to attempt to reproduce it over here and stay in sync.

Let’s just develop the US National Academy of Olympic Sport Fencing of America or USNAOSFA for short (just kidding)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


[QUOTE=Allen Evans;712116]It is not so much a question of the SJFS program not being accepted by other, outside sources, as it is SJFS's rejection of any hint of modern influence intruding into their pedagogy. This makes the pedagogy taught at SJFS of limited use to the average sport coach/Maitre, giving the metrics the USFCA should be using to measure it's success in raising the level of coaching in the US, and it's mission focused on sport fencing.
Snips and emphasis mine.

I can think of one type of use for a degree from SJFS for a coach:
Interaction with non-fencing entities.
Having a degree, from a place that can be found in a yellow pages search, could help (and can not hurt) a coach/club owner to get leases from landlords. Some of the latter prefer not to rent out to fly-by-the-night operations, and the more background, the better. The same goes for parents with no background in fencing, who are researching whether their kid can be entrusted to a coach in a sport which they know nothing of.

Another thing is that the coach need not do his coaching according to the SJFS program, once he has the degree. Just get your bona fides, and then do your thing!

the European Sports Fencing Federations manage to co-exist quite well with their own branches of Historical and Artistic Fencing
Allen Evans

Well, in Sweden there is a sport fencing organization - which has its house in order much more than USFA - but there is no organization for historical&artistic fencing that I know of. Not sure how that fits in with your statement.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

Having a degree, from a place that can be found in a yellow pages search, could help (and can not hurt) a coach/club owner to get leases from landlords.

I keep hearing this argument, but I have never been asked by any landlord or any administrator of any school I've fenced at for proof of my ability to coach fencing. In fact, NO one has ever asked me for a copy of my diploma or any other proof that I'm a credentialed fencing coach. I HAVE undergone a number of police background checks (as part of working in schools) but they did not include any request for my diploma, who awarded it and when.

When I have offered the information about my Prevot diploma as part of a an interview, I have had to spend ten to fifteen minutes explaining what it is, who awarded it, and why it's important.

Allen

[MdA]

Your right...hence the title of this thread.

[Mr Epee]

And here's the question of the day...

In another thread, there was reference to the fact that a fencer could be an Olympic champion several times over, and still wouldn't be able to open a fencing club without first becoming an MdA, or having one on staff...

Do you (anyone) agree with that type of arrangement?

[MdA]

And here's the question of the day...

In another thread, there was reference to the fact that a fencer could be an Olympic champion several times over, and still wouldn't be able to open a fencing club without first becoming an MdA, or having one on staff...

Do you (anyone) agree with that type of arrangement?

Here is the thread in question from someone at the Gaugler school...

Maestro Giancarlo Toràn: an American Tribute

Those are the rules in Italy and France. We have been discussing here at length...that is not the situation in the USA.

Must be why a lot of those Olympians head to the "Wild West" of fencing. Is that good or bad?

[keith]

Do you (anyone) agree with that type of arrangement?[/I][/B]

seems to work for the french and Italians...


On another, perhaps related, front does the AAI assess the ability of member associations to appropriately meet their duties?

Strikes me there must be at least one or two salles in the US that have sufficient expertise in the technical and pedagogical aspects of training fencers to run a master training program.

[Hauptman]

I think you missed the main thrust of Jason's point, and got hung up on the example. I agree that the SJFS program is "strong, demanding, and pedagogically sound..." however, it's main weakness, and one of the issues Jason and I both take with the program is that it's completely interally focused, and self-referential. As far as I can tell (from brief interactions with graduates from the school, reading Gaugler's works, and one brief demonstration lesson I had some time ago from a graduate of the school) the competitive aspect that the SJFS program follows is considerably older than the establishment of the school itself, and older than even M. Gaugler himself. It is not so much a question of the SJFS program not being accepted by other, outside sources, as it is SJFS's rejection of any hint of modern influence intruding into their pedagogy. This makes the pedagogy taught at SJFS of limited use to the average sport coach/Maitre, giving the metrics the USFCA should be using to measure it's success in raising the level of coaching in the US, and it's mission focused on sport fencing.

I've felt for a long time that the "Classical" and "Modern" fencing communities should get along. However, I feel that the "Classical" camp (in which I put the SJFS program) needs to build it's own identity in a seperate organization. The USFCA -- as MdA often points out -- has limited resources. Incorporating classical and historical swordplay into the USFCA umbrella might be a worthy goal in the future (the European Sports Fencing Federations manage to co-exist quite well with their own branches of Historical and Artistic Fencing) but is definately a low priority item.

Allen Evans

You are right in that the SJSU program serves a dual purpose of training fencing instructors AND preserving the tradition of the Italian school of fencing. But I don't think this is the obstacle that some make it out to be.

I take the position that training a fencing master is the beginning of their journey, that we are giving them a solid foundation of training and pedegogy, and then sending them into the world to discover their own strengths and weaknesses. The traditional Italian school serves this purpose just fine. There was nothing that I learned in my lessons from Maestro Gaugler that conflicted with the lessons of any other coaches I've worked with.

And in fact, Maestro Gaugler would give "competitive" lessons, for those pupils who were actively competing, that were different from the traditional lessons used to train the instructors. The technique was no different, but the emphasis and strategy was more advanced.

I found that the differences between Maestro Gaugler's lessons and those of other coaches I've worked with were mostly stylistic, and no greater than between the lessons any two coaches.

Much of the criticism of the SJSU program comes from experiences with some of the graduates, but there is considerable variety among them. Some are experienced fencers, and some learned to teach even as they learned to fence. This is in line with academia in which you may see a person get a bachelors, masters, PhD and then get a teaching position without ever having worked in the "real" world. And the SJSU program is very much an academic program in which you must have a bachelors degree and complete a Master's thesis before graduation.

For those who cite Politics as the cause of many issues in the past, you are dead on. San Jose was a strong fencing center that fell to pieces in the mid-80's with useless political infighting. Thankfully it is finally recovering. I don't really know who was to blame, but all the key players have moved on. It is amazing the bias I still hear passed on by people not even remotely involved at the time.

For those who recommend reaching out, I strongly support it. Maestro Gaugler, in my experience, was always the epitome of a well-spoken gentleman and old-world scholar. You may not always agree with him, but his positions are always meticulously thought-out and supported.

One final word though; my experience with the SJSU program is many years in the past, and I understand that Maestro Gaugler has retired as the official head of the program. I was well-acquainted with Maestro Sahm who is the current man-in-charge; I thoroughly respect his ability, but he was a very different person from Maestro Gaugler with a very different background. I have no idea what the current direction of the program may be, and I do not make any representations except as a fencer who spent a number of years training and socializing there.

[jBirch]

Instead of putting more barriers in place to coaching, you guys should be putting less in place and helping the people that do get in the door, to become excellent instructors and to share the knowledge around.

The major problem with schools and diplomas is that you have to invest an awful lot of time and money to acquire them. If they are of no financial value and little personal value, why bother? They certainly aren't going to help anyone who is already interested in producing better fencers then they did last time, do so.

I think you have to face the fact that most fencing instructors are part-time and do so not for financial gain but for love of the sport. If you make it easy to be highly professional, then more people will become highly professional.

Just the two cents of an amateur coach.

James.

[MdA]

And here's the question of the day...
...Do you (anyone) agree with that type of arrangement?[/I][/B]

I think we have made it clear that anybody can open a fencing club in the USA and nobody has the legal power to stop it. I disagree with this arrangement....as should most fencers, coaches, and our Amateur Fencing Federation otherwise known as the USFA or NGB....they will even give you a badge to wear at the National Championships..see first post in this thread.

The problem is not an Olympic Champion opening a fencing club and giving lessons. Golubitsky was operating a club in Italy for awhile...I guess he had to hire another Maestro to open the doors....not sure how this was arranged. Italy invited Buckie Leach to coach their national team...of course, he is a FM.

....the problem is everybody else in between Olympian and beginner. I think we agree that there must be some minimum standard.

By the way, the USFCA has had a long standing policy that Olympians enter the certification process at the Prevot level...the Master certification is not a rubber stamp but it is certainly accelerated. But, they still need to join the USFCA and take the exam and write a thesis...these are the steps that a lot of champions like to skip. The fact that many champions skip these steps makes it harder to get a national coaches education program established in the USA.

The thesis promotes the level of fencing education in this country. Getting high level coaches to write things down helps educate other coaches.