Anyone can be a Fencing Coach ...or Pirate

[MdA]

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)?

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.

I have moved the comments above from another thread in the Coaching Corner so we can keep that other thread on track and see if there is any continued interest in this topic. Those of you who know me may know that I don’t hide behind my coaching credentials as proof of my abilities. I have posted pictures of my AAI certificates in the albums of my profile as a public service to fencers, parents and coaches…so they will know what they look like...not as proof that I am a great coach

I truly believe that the measure of a fencing coach is in the quality of his or her fencers. I believe preparation for certification helps a coach grow and develop. It is also recognition by your peers. I have posted this in the thread on Certification. Having said all this, I will launch into the following rant…please bear with me...

It appears that anyone can be a fencing coach. Becoming a fencing coach is a lot like becoming a pirate. You just need to run up the skull and crossbones and start plundering and pillaging. (just kidding)

There is no authority in the world (not the least of which includes the FIE, USFA or the USFCA) to stop you from being a fencing coach. In fact, the USFA will actually encourage just about anybody. The USFA even started issuing fencing coach ID cards at NACs and at the Summer National Championships in Atlanta in July 2006. All you needed to do was go up to the registration table, declare yourself a coach with proof of USFA membership and they issued you a photo ID card that said “Coach” with the USFA logo on it. This was done to control access to the fencing area pods and I am sure it had something to do with insurance liability. It was more an issue of who could be on the floor rather than trying to regulate who is actually qualified to coach fencing. I understand this issue.

No communication was ever conducted with the USFCA or the USFA Coaches Committee about the implications of issuing these ID cards. Thankfully the program has been discontinued. Perhaps controlling access to the fencing pods is no longer a problem at our national evens. My youngest son keeps his “Fencing Coach” ID card posted on his bulletin board. He takes is down and wears it to tease me whenever we have discussions about who is the “coach”

I remember walking around the venue when the USFA issued these ID cards. Many people proudly displayed their photo IDs (complete with elastic band to hang around the neck)… it was a nice way to display their name…like a name tag at a convention. Some kids like my 14 year-old-son joked about being “the coach”. Some of us were mildly insulted. I know the real reason for the cards was to limit the number of people who could be in the pods and help the referees limit the number of so-called coaches in the fencing area. It just reminded me of just how easy it is to become a fencing coach …at least in the USA.

The data collected in this ID Card effort might actually be useful in future efforts to register coaches in the USA.

America has always been sort of the “Wild Wild West” for fencing coaches. Since the start of fencing in the colonies people have been hanging out a shingle…or running up the skull and crossbones…depending on your perspective. The formation of the NCFCAA in 1941 was an attempt to professionalize this vocation….as you can see by this forum…we still have a long way to go.

The FIE has gotten into the business of training “Fencing Masters” in the last few years. Here are links to the FIE Magazines in 2007 and 2006 (Page 10) with articles about the FIE Fencing Master school in Dakar.

While I applaud the FIE efforts to train fencing coaches in developing countries, I don’t think they should be certifying them as “Fencing Masters” or “Maitre d’Armes”. If we follow the traditional method these coaches should be certified by their own National Academies or the AAI. The articles focus on the training aspects but I would like to know if these coaches are being certified…and by what organization? Does it matter? …or is a certificate of training enough? I have identified this FIE program to the USFCA and our AAI representative with these same questions. I have not received any answer and I have seen no communications of any official response from either organization about the FIE program.

So my questions to fencing coaches are these: Do we want to regulate ourselves? Do we want to continue to certify coaches under the old Master/Apprentice/Guild system of the AAI? Do we want the Amateur Sports Federations like the USFA and FIE to determine who is a fencing coach or master? Or perhaps a college or university? Or do we just not care? If we don't care, why do many American coaches, like myself, go to European academies for training? Or can we just rely on our abilities…real or imagined!! Do we want to continue to be like pirates? Perhaps it is more fun…after all there ain’t no actual rules…more like what you’d call “guidelines”.

[Allen Evans]

MdA, you really need a beer!

I don't think that fencing is unique in this problem. Look at the rest of the martial arts world: strip malls across the USA are full of "nth degree Black Belts" who teach a variety of martial art systems, some systems of the instructors own devising. I can't help but think that these instructors aren't policed or licensed any better than fencing coaches are, and probably have an even higher number of fly by night artists and frauds mixed in with the well meaning (but unskilled) amateurs and the true professionals.

So, with all of this rant, is there a solution in there someplace?

I have to profess in all honesty that I don't have one. I can't see the United States ever getting to a point where a professional organization polices its members to the point that it sends out "cease and desist" warnings to fencing coaches who practice without certification (no matter who it is from). I'm not sure where that regulatory power would come from, anyway.

I think Jason was on the right track in his posts about raising the current standards of the USFCA (currently the only organization that can award diplomas in the US) so that a diploma means something. I think the USFCA has to start being more responsive to its members, and the leadership of the USFCA has to reach out to the members to build a base*. Finally, with this in place, the USFCA should open (or re-open) a dialouge with the USFA in order to come to an agreement about what a coach is, and who should be certifying coaches, and how they should be trained so that the USFA can continue with its mission of developing fencing in the US.

You've got some well placed indignation about the work you've done to attain your skills being undervalued, but if the USFCA is to function as a professional organization capable of recognizing these skills in you, and in others, it has got to get its act together first.

Allen

*I've been a member of the USFCA (on and off) for some 12 years, and in all that time, no officer of the USFCA has ever contacted me without me contacting them first.

[oiuyt]

I'm not sure where that regulatory power would come from, anyway.

The same place it came from for doctors, lawyers, and barbers -- paying lots of money to politicians to protect a group of insiders.

The purpose of the "Coach" badges had nothing to do with saying "This person is certified to coach." I'm fairly certain that insurance wasn't involved.

A couple of things that it WAS designed to help with included accountability (carding "old male coach of Fencer X" isn't nearly as effective as being able to copy down the actual name of the coach when recording a spectator penalty on the scoresheet) and ensuring that coaches are actually members of US Fencing.

It's absolutely rediculous that we have so many active coaches that aren't members. And we enable this behavior by giving non-members free access to our sporting areas. The coach ID program required that anyone who wanted to enter into a pod needed to be a member of our organization.

Anyone who wants to be actively involved in US Fencing should belong to the association. This includes the athletes, the officials, and the coaches.

The system didn't work all that well because of lack of uniform enforcement, coupled with some high-profile coaches successfully making a point of ignoring the rules, without sanction. I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurface at some point. It still won't be about certifying people as capable of teaching the sport and shouldn't be taken that way. Indeed, reading this thread tonight is the first I've even heard the suggestion that anyone took that interpretation. If it does come back at some point perhaps in needs to be framed somewhat differently if this was a widespread take on it.

-B

[MdA]

It's absolutely rediculous that we have so many active coaches that aren't members. And we enable this behavior by giving non-members free access to our sporting areas. The coach ID program required that anyone who wanted to enter into a pod needed to be a member of our organization.

If this was the purpose of the program then the badges should have said "Member" and not "Coach".

I am tired of hearing that the USFCA needs to "get its act together". The USFA needs to get its act together too...especially in the area of coaches development.

[oiuyt]

Of course the rules require that the person inside the sports zone be identified as a coach.

Each fencer may have one credentialed coach present, within the coach’s zone, during the bout.

If the credentials are being used for those allowed into the zone then they have to be identifying such people as coaches.

We acknowledge in our sport that many people can giving fencing advice (read: can coach), including, as you mention, uncertified amateurs. I think that demanding any supporter who enters a sports zone for that purpose be certified as some level of instructor by some body (whether the USFA, USFCA, AAI, or any other) is going to be an extraordinarily hard sell. And I would not support such a move.

Requiring that people gaining such priviledged access be members is considerably easier to convince people is a reasonable idea.

Of course the USFA should be doing more towards coaching development. Even the couple hundred people who go through Coaches College each year and however many people attend regional coaching clinics* sponsored by the Association aren't close to enough. We absolutely should be doing more. Especially at the intermediate and higher levels. And I hope we improve in that area in the future.

None of which changes the fact that the USFCA, which is focused primarily on coaching, needs to do considerably more than they/we are.

-B

* and we need to do a MUCH better job of advertising the availability of these clinics and making sure that they reach out to more areas that they haven't recently visited.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


With the USFA´s present non-optimal situation, financially and otherwise, should identification of bona-fide coaches (other than National team coaches) really be something for it to spend its effort and resources on?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

I am tired of hearing that the USFCA needs to "get its act together". The USFA needs to get its act together too...especially in the area of coaches development.

Sorry MdA. I know that considering your history, this is an old song to you, and you have a right to be sensitive about it (esp considering the work that you've done). But your post points out one of my own pet peeves: the USFCA (as an organization) complaining about coaching development/coaching issues while always seeming to look outside itself for solutions, or placing the blame for coaching problems on other organizations. If the USFA must take a role in coaching development, then -- by extension -- it would be natural that the USFA also take a role in certification. Where does that leave the USFCA?

We absolutely should be doing more. Especially at the intermediate and higher levels. And I hope we improve in that area in the future.

Given that I regularly see posts like this:

Foilist Needing Sabre Advice

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.

I had a lot of objections to the coaching credential issue at Summer Nationals. The biggest being that it seemed to be a slap at the amateur coaches there: "You're not important enough for us to figure out who your are, and we're too busy to ask your name if we need to talk to you, so stick this on your forehead, please". I also had a suspicion at the time that this was the first step in charging coaches a sport or participation fee. I'm glad that turned out to be untrue, since Dominion Fencing loses enough money on attending National events as it is.

Allen Evans

[Allen Evans]

I'll emphasize one more point here: as long as the USFCA and the USFA feel that they have different missions, coaching in the US at the levels below elite is going to suffer. The USFA and USFCA need to sit down and come up with a plan -- fitting the expertise of the USFCA members with the needs of the USFA -- to work hand in hand to develop coaches for the US market.

As we say back home: you only tie the dogs to one end of the sled*.




Allen Evans

*Okay, I'll confess that no one in AK ever said that to me. But I think it's still apt, and damn funny.

[Mr Epee]

I'll emphasize one more point here: as long as the USFCA and the USFA feel that they have different missions, coaching in the US at the levels below elite is going to suffer. The USFA and USFCA need to sit down and come up with a plan -- fitting the expertise of the USFCA members with the needs of the USFA -- to work hand in hand to develop coaches for the US market.

Umm... what?

That doesn't make ANY sense.

When a smelly old boot and a grimy sponge get together over dinner I'm pretty sure the result isn't a golden egg.

Or whatever they say back home.....

[Mr Epee]

None of which changes the fact that the USFCA, which is focused primarily on coaching, needs to do considerably more than they/we are.

At some point one begins to wonder if people of only middling competence who have 'earned' the right to call themselves Master might stand in the way of the development of others.

In fact, I'd suggest that it's not only possible... it's probable.

[MdA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by USFA Rulebook
Each fencer may have one credentialed coach present, within the coach’s zone, during the bout.
Some really good ideas posted here...I've calmed down now...even without the beer.

Let's not bite off more than we can chew here...but I think the "old boot" and the "grimy sponge" can get together and start fixing this thing.

A good place to start, in my humble middling level opinion, is to define what a "credentialed coach" means in the rulebook. Does this mean someone who is simply registered (in some manner) to be in the fencing area?

This is doable and provides a good place to start working on all these issues. When a fencer registers for a NAC or SNs they can list their coach on the form…just like the membership application. The names of those coaches go into a database and can be checked for current USFA membership….and listed on the website…like the registered fencers. When the coaches show up at the competition the coaches pick up their coach badge.

This data would be very useful for encouraging these USFA member coaches to seek additional coaches development programs provided by ...(fill in the blank).

[MdA]

The system didn't work all that well because of lack of uniform enforcement, coupled with some high-profile coaches successfully making a point of ignoring the rules, without sanction. I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurface at some point. It still won't be about certifying people as capable of teaching the sport and shouldn't be taken that way. -B

A good place to start, in my humble middling level opinion, is to define what a "credentialed coach" means in the rulebook. Does this mean someone who is simply registered (in some manner) to be in the fencing area?

This is doable and provides a good place to start working on all these issues. When a fencer registers for a NAC or SNs they can list their coach on the form…just like the membership application. The names of those coaches go into a database and can be checked for current USFA membership….and listed on the website…like the registered fencers. When the coaches show up at the competition the coaches pick up their coach badge.

This system will need to be uniformly enforced...I can see the national coaches not needing a badge...since they need to be USFA members...but all other coaches need to pick up their badge...and take a photo.

So let's see here. We have top shelf coaches who don't want to wear their badges and middling level masters who want to certify us...man...we have a lot of work to do......pirates!!!

[Inquartata]

Hah. I am going to start calling my coach the Dread Coach Roberts.

[MdA]

At some point one begins to wonder if people of only middling competence who have 'earned' the right to call themselves Master might stand in the way of the development of others.

In fact, I'd suggest that it's not only possible... it's probable.

Being of only “middling level competence” myself, I never intended to earn the right to call myself Master. It just sorta happened. I found myself inspired by gals and guys like this

...and started teaching people to fence because I really love the sport and want to share what little I have learned. All I want to do now is help other fencers of the lowest and middling level competence earn the right to call themselves Master. Something good is bound to happen along the way. I am sure that I can find a few other members of the USFCA to help me.

[oiuyt]

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.

Fair point.

Rephrasing what I intended to say somewhat, we currently have at least SOME programs in place for lower level coaches. Much as I feel I've gained from the level 3 and level 4 courses at Coaches College, we really don't have much offered at that level. Too few people taking those classes and a number of those really aren't the people that the classes should be targetted at, which, in turn hurts the learning available in the classes.

We need much more coaching education available at all levels.

Perhaps the best solution is to build the base of the pyramid and then worry about the middle and top tiers once that's been accomplished.

-B

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Hah. I am going to start calling my coach the Dread Coach Roberts.

Did you call???

[tbryan]

"Who are you?"

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Becoming a fencing coach is a lot like becoming a pirate. You just need to run up the skull and crossbones and start plundering and pillaging. (just kidding)

I beg your pardon??? Our Pirate's Association is in the black (unlike yours) and our system carefully screens out the fake Pirates (again unlike yours). The truth is, you could learn a lot from us.

Remember... once word leaks out that a pirate has gone soft, people begin to disobey you and it's nothing but work, work, work all the time.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

"Who are you?"

No one of consequence.

[kuroutesshin]

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?"

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.