Referee exam vs Coach exam

[MdA]

What would that program look like? Who would pay for it, the college, or the USFCA?

AE

I suggest we go with Gillet and Gaugler programs as models.
1. National School will need a full-time director.
2. $1.5M endowment should fund the salary for a permanent professor at a college or university. This endowment could come from the USOC, NCAA, corporate sponsor, or private donor.
3. Professor should have a Phd or Masters (preferably in physical education or kinesiology) besides a MdA (USFCA or AAI equivalent) and be available to the college to teach other classes.
4. Program needs to be located near the population centers of fencing in the USA…for example San Francisco, Boston or NYC.
5. College or university may have a NCAA varsity fencing team, the director will not be the head coach. NCAA coaches are too busy with recruiting and NCAA compliance, budget, scheduling, etc.
6. College could also have a club (non-varsity team)
7. Needs to be several assistant, part-time, professors who will serve as adjunct faculty. They must also have advanced degrees and be certified by the USFCA or AAI.
8. Endowment must stipulate that should the program fail or be cancelled the endowment will return to the original donor or the USFA/USFCA/USOC or whoever…which could then be awarded to another college or university.
9. Program needs to be located near a full-time, highly competitive, Olympic Sport Fencing center or private clubs, with a full range of fencers from beginner to Olympic caliber.
10. Program Director is not directly responsible for high level international/nationally competitive fencers. His focus is coach education and training.
11. Director may participate in certifications as required.
12. Program will be a 2-year graduate program - may or may not result in a graduate degree by the college or university...this may need to be worked...may be continuing education certificate like Gauglers..but USFCA/AAI certification will be encouraged.

[keith]

2. $1.5M endowment should fund the salary for a permanent professor at a college or university. This endowment could come from the USOC, NCAA, corporate sponsor, or private donor.

Probably not even close in terms of endowment - you need the salary, on costs and institutional overhead for space. The space issue is key since the institution would be foregoing other income from the space.

[MdA]

Probably not even close in terms of endowment - you need the salary, on costs and institutional overhead for space. The space issue is key since the institution would be foregoing other income from the space.

I am assuming the college would supply the space...assuming they already have a varsity team or club in place.

[keith]

I am assuming the college would supply the space...assuming they already have a varsity team or club in place.

They would, but they would also be expecting revenue from that space. Which either means funds flowing from the endowment or students in the program. Despite documentary claims to the contrary colleges are not run as charities

Out of curiosity does anyone know what is/was the tuition charge for the Gaugler/Gillet programs?

[MdA]

They would, but they would also be expecting revenue from that space. Which either means funds flowing from the endowment or students in the program. Despite documentary claims to the contrary colleges are not run as charities

Out of curiosity does anyone know what is/was the tuition charge for the Gaugler/Gillet programs?

Master candidates would pay tuition...something nominal per course. But funds could be generated from club classes taught by the candidates and supervised by the director. We did this at Palo Alto College in San Antonio...we also had a local sports foundation which provided scholarships for disadvantaged kids to get lessons...there are a variety of funding sources for communities interested in developing fencing.

Unfortunately, we lost our college administration support (new president) and also sports foundation funding dried up when grants from USOC ran out.

[HDG]

This is an admittedly irrelevant question (for which I apologize), but do you pronounce the second "G" in Gaugler?

[kuroutesshin]

Uh, let's chew on this ...

So you're suggesting the USFCA, which has problems with retention and outreach, instruct others on retention and outreach??

Something is better than nothing, and judging from the outline MdA provided above and the comments about the new direction of the organization, that something is going to be quite a bit better than what we've seen in the past.

there's no harm in identifying problems and brainstorming solutions.

[Mr Epee]

On the fly, I'm not quite sure. I would be inclined to say that the university would pay the share, which is a difficult situation in and of itself in this time of raising tuition costs. Michigan State, where I am, actually has fencing courses on the rolls- the problem is that there is no one to teach them.

Ah, someone else foots the bill.

Not exactly nimble thinking on your part. This is a particularly poor tact for anyone concerned with establishing long-term programs capable of maintaining independent sustainability. If you are interested in starting programs that require charity, then I suggest you (plural) join head to the back of the long long line populated by all the other needy folks with pet projects.

Trust me, there are plenty of great ideas just waiting for Warren Buffet to give the green light.

We mentioned in another thread that Gaugler's school isn't accredited for the USFCA, and is the only collegiate instructor's program in the nation. The USFCA might organize with colleges to introduce fencing masters degrees.

Then we would be the same as all those university programs churning out Baseball Masters, Basketball Masters, Gymnastics Masters, and of course the pride of the SEC ... NASCAR Masters. Oh wait, that last one is just silly.

Why must fencing be so queer?

In terms of producing large numbers of low-mid ability fencers?? Absolutely central. In terms of producing olympic-level fencers? Not so much. But that's an argument about the focus of the fencing community.

What do you mean by 'produce large numbers of low-mid ability fencers'. Does putting a sword in someone's hand mean you've produced a fencer, or do they come off a line somewhere/somehow? Your thinking on the subject is problematic.

This is where the USFCA can do some good, in outreach to clubs, even if it's just finding the head coach's name on a webpage and sending him a pamphlet. If you send out ten pamphlets and 5 coaches join, you're ahead. By constructing a system for coaches in collegiate settings, who can be instructed on retention programs, outreach, and lessons, I think it's more likely that people will continue to fence after college.

You know what might, maybe, be a good idea? A national collegiate club fencing coaches association. Why throw your money after an organization that doesn't particularly suit the needs of your identified target market.

Also, anyone in college has e-mail. Don't waste time with printing.

It's the 21st century, baby.

[Mr Epee]

I suggest we go with Gillet and Gaugler programs as models.
1. National School will need a full-time director.

I've always thought that the strength of the United States was our diversity. Doesn't the crying out for a "National School" fly in the face of our many currently successful programs?

2. $1.5M endowment should fund the salary for a permanent professor at a college or university. This endowment could come from the USOC, NCAA, corporate sponsor, or private donor.

Mmmm.... delicious handouts...

Even the most charitable of organizations expect something for their investment... what are you offering in return? What are you offering that can't be gotten elsewhere on better terms?

3. Professor should have a Phd or Masters (preferably in physical education or kinesiology) besides a MdA (USFCA or AAI equivalent) and be available to the college to teach other classes.

And and a law degree, and an MBA... while we're at it... these are also important areas to understand.

4. Program needs to be located near the population centers of fencing in the USA…for example San Francisco, Boston or NYC.

Which will start a war... fun. fun. fun.

I don't think that centralizing resources is prudent for a country as large and diverse as the United States. .

9. Program needs to be located near a full-time, highly competitive, Olympic Sport Fencing center or private clubs, with a full range of fencers from beginner to Olympic caliber.

In essence creating a massive subsidy for that private club, or Olympic Sport Fencing Center (which doesn't exist, btw).

10. Program Director is not directly responsible for high level international/nationally competitive fencers. His focus is coach education and training.

Shamefully poor resource management.

12. Program will be a 2-year graduate program - may or may not result in a graduate degree by the college or university...this may need to be worked...may be continuing education certificate like Gauglers..but USFCA/AAI certification will be encouraged.

Which prepares them to do what exactly?

What jobs are they headed to that make this 2-year graduate program worth their time and money?

Is it purely for self-improvement, or should their motive be "love of fencing"... or something to that effect?

[aamct2]

I've always thought that the strength of the United States was our diversity. Doesn't the crying out for a "National School" fly in the face of our many currently successful programs?
Mmmm.... delicious handouts...

What other currently successful programs are you talking about for teaching people how to coach fencing? The current USFCA model is not working terribly well and there is not another fencing coaches association (unless you count the USFA, to which an equally small percentage of coaches belong to).

Even the most charitable of organizations expect something for their investment... what are you offering in return? What are you offering that can't be gotten elsewhere on better terms?
And and a law degree, and an MBA... while we're at it... these are also important areas to understand. Which will start a war... fun. fun. fun.

Giving them some introductory law and business classes wouldn't be a bad idea. Then again, if you look at most sports education degrees today you'll find just that. Colleges have realized this is an important part of educated a coach.

I don't think that centralizing resources is prudent for a country as large and diverse as the United States. .
In essence creating a massive subsidy for that private club, or Olympic Sport Fencing Center (which doesn't exist, btw).
Shamefully poor resource management.

You've got to start somewhere. Starting multiple schools simultaneously around the country would be a dangerous and difficult proposition. After one has already been established, I can't see any reason why more in other areas of the country couldn't be created.

Which prepares them to do what exactly?

To coach fencing.

What jobs are they headed to that make this 2-year graduate program worth their time and money?

Being on the mailing list of the USFCA (I'm an associate member), I get regular e-mails from their secretary about paid openings around the country for full- or part-time fencing coach positions. In addition, having this degree would help improve their coaching abilities and their management skills. It would likely help them improve the revenue at their own clubs.

Is it purely for self-improvement, or should their motive be "love of fencing"... or something to that effect?

That's certainly one good reason someone might do this program. I suspect there would be a number of people who would do just that. This doesn't have to be the only reason though. See above.

[MdA]

Which prepares them to do what exactly?

What jobs are they headed to that make this 2-year graduate program worth their time and money?

Is it purely for self-improvement, or should their motive be "love of fencing"... or something to that effect?

Jobs in Youth Clubs and those college clubs we have been talking about after those youth go to college.

If you are into self-improvement and have a "love of fencing" this school would be a good place to get into coaching after your competitive days are over...or almost over.

...and by the way lawyers and doctors ...and MBAs would be the adjunct faculty.

[Mr Epee]

What other currently successful programs are you talking about for teaching people how to coach fencing? The current USFCA model is not working terribly well and there is not another fencing coaches association (unless you count the USFA, to which an equally small percentage of coaches belong to).

There are plenty of successful fencing programs in the US. Now, they aren't necessarily geared towards teaching coaches per se, but following the example of most sports a solid knowledge of the sport is the key to coaching that sport. Outside strong knowledge of the particular sport, general coaching resources are widely available, and for the most part transferable between sports.

Giving them some introductory law and business classes wouldn't be a bad idea. Then again, if you look at most sports education degrees today you'll find just that. Colleges have realized this is an important part of educated a coach.

Kinda funny how I knew that, eh?

You've got to start somewhere. Starting multiple schools simultaneously around the country would be a dangerous and difficult proposition. After one has already been established, I can't see any reason why more in other areas of the country couldn't be created.

Well, that isn't the same as founding a National School of Fencing; now is it? It might be a successful project for Jones's School of Fencing, and the products of Jones's School of Fencing would be welcome to try their skill against all the other fencing instructors in the US, and the market would allow the best (as defined by success in the market) method to survive. In time, we might have Jones Fencing Master Schools all over the US... or we might not have any...

If history is any guide, Jones Fencing Master Schools would find themselves unable to compete in the greater fencing landscape, and would retreat within the walls of their own schools, and declare their's to be the only way to fencing enlightenment.

To coach fencing.

For free?

Being on the mailing list of the USFCA (I'm an associate member), I get regular e-mails from their secretary about paid openings around the country for full- or part-time fencing coach positions. In addition, having this degree would help improve their coaching abilities and their management skills. It would likely help them improve the revenue at their own clubs.

And how many of those jobs allow for the instructor to enjoy a 40-75k salary with benefits? And what is the level of competition for those jobs?

That's certainly one good reason someone might do this program. I suspect there would be a number of people who would do just that. This doesn't have to be the only reason though. See above.

Sure, and people become MBA's, Lawyers, MD's, and CPA's all the time for personal joy. I'm just not sure that you could find enough of those people to justify running a sustainable professional education program... just for kicks.

[Allen Evans]

I've always thought that the strength of the United States was our diversity. Doesn't the crying out for a "National School" fly in the face of our many currently successful programs?

Having 100 (or more) bad coaches in the US spouting dogma fro mthe 1890's because there isn't any reliable information out there to contridict them may be "diverse" but I'm not sure it is very useful, and in fact, is probably working against future success.

I'm not sure what constitutes the "many" successful programs here in the US. I think there are probably less than 10...which IS a big improvement over the last 30 years, I'll agree. And some of these programs (like men's and women's saber) have been wildly successful.

However, I tend to see those as exceptions rather than a proof of concept or a tribute to diversity. I think that there would be more successful independant programs if the overall base of knowlege about fencing was improved in the US. This is probably NOT going to come from individual coaches, who by and large don't see any reason to give their competitors more information than they already have.

The previous attempt at a central school (the old program at Cornell) seems to have put out a number of excellant, home grown coaches. I'm not sure that there is the interest or the funding to re-create such a program again (though I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying if they think the local climate is right), but I would like to see an Organization become a resource in terms of consistancy of message and openess in communicating information about coaching, no matter who that turns out to be.

I think that the USFCA OR the USFA need to embrace a program of coaching education as a part of their mission whole heartedly, and start taking steps towards implementing this mission in a concrete way. Unfortunately this seems to be a tricky subject for any of the two fencing organizations in the US (why is still a little beyond me). I think that's a more important first step without building a fencing salle in the middle of a cornfield.

Allen

[Mr Epee]

Having 100 (or more) bad coaches in the US spouting dogma fro myth 1890's because there isn't any reliable information out there to contradict them may be "diverse" but I'm not sure it is very useful, and in fact, is probably working against future success.

Currently, in the US we have a collection of some of the very best fencing coaches in the world from a wide variety of nations and backgrounds. Not sure how you fit that into your '100 fools' idea... I'm not sure that I would call what you describe diversity... sounds like crap homogeneity to me.

I'm not sure what constitutes the "many" successful programs here in the US. I think there are probably less than 10...which IS a big improvement over the last 30 years, I'll agree. And some of these programs (like men's and women's saber) have been wildly successful.

As I'm sure you know, the level of fencing in the US has improved DRAMATICALLY over the past twenty years. Competitors feed off of each other and drive one another to higher levels. Even at the non-elite levels the majority of the US is headed in a very good direction in this regard.

However, I tend to see those as exceptions rather than a proof of concept or a tribute to diversity. I think that there would be more successful independant programs if the overall base of knowlege about fencing was improved in the US. This is probably NOT going to come from individual coaches, who by and large don't see any reason to give their competitors more information than they already have.

When I look at a state like TX, I can see the fencing influence of Soviets, Hungarians, Poles, Egyptians, at least one German trained American, a lingering French influence in some of the old timers, and some surprising talent developed by home(self?)grown American coaches. It's a fantastic mixing pot of fencing knowledge and talent... That's the diversity that I'm talking about.

The previous attempt at a central school (the old program at Cornell) seems to have put out a number of excellent, home grown coaches. I'm not sure that there is the interest or the funding to re-create such a program again (though I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying if they think the local climate is right), but I would like to see an Organization become a resource in terms of consistency of message and openness in communicating information about coaching, no matter who that turns out to be.

I'm not sure that the priority can be in producing excellent, world class coaches, or all-knowing, 3-weapon specialist, fencing masters.

Something Cheap, Dirty, and Free might just be what the doctor ordered.

Maybe the level that is most needed is something that wouldn't take significant effort for someone whose been fencing for a couple years.

Get 'em in the door... one foot... another foot. An move 'em up the escalator.

With that in mind, time spent organizing multi-year graduate level programs is a colossal waste of time, energy, money, and most importantly the opportunity cost to do something more appropriate.

[Allen Evans]

Currently, in the US we have a collection of some of the very best fencing coaches in the world from a wide variety of nations and backgrounds. Not sure how you fit that into your '100 fools' idea... I'm not sure that I would call what you describe diversity... sounds like crap homogeneity to me.

This is something I wouldn't argue with. Either way, it's not helping the US.

When I look at a state like TX, I can see the fencing influence of Soviets, Hungarians, Poles, Egyptians, at least one German trained American, a lingering French influence in some of the old timers, and some surprising talent developed by home(self?)grown American coaches. It's a fantastic mixing pot of fencing knowledge and talent... That's the diversity that I'm talking about.

Texas is a good example of when it works. Think of your time in Kansas (wasn't it?) how did that compare? Is there coaching/fencing talent going to waste there because of a lack of information?

Get 'em in the door... one foot... another foot. An move 'em up the escalator.

With that in mind, time spent organizing multi-year graduate level programs is a colossal waste of time, energy, money, and most importantly the opportunity cost to do something more appropriate.

Totally agree. My argument right now is that the escalator isn't easy to find, and sometimes takes you someplace other than "Third floor, Fencing Knowlege", and no one tells you otherwise.


Allen

[Mr Epee]

Texas is a good example of when it works. Think of your time in Kansas (wasn't it?) how did that compare? Is there coaching/fencing talent going to waste there because of a lack of information?

Not sure exactly how to answer that one...
Quite a few clubs in KS have fantastic coaching from a variety of backgrounds, but suffer from a variety of other issues... most of it general culture... and then a traditionally dysfunctional fencing culture.

Also, there are a couple of real real bad eggs...

Totally agree. My argument right now is that the escalator isn't easy to find, and sometimes takes you someplace other than "Third floor, Fencing Knowlege", and no one tells you otherwise.


Allen

This site does a damn good job of turning the lights on and getting people on the escalator...

It would be nice to see someone headed in this direction... I haven't spent a ton of time on this site, but I like what I've seen so far.

Keepin' it simple.

[griffindm]

Currently, in the US we have a collection of some of the very best fencing coaches in the world from a wide variety of nations and backgrounds.

As I'm sure you know, the level of fencing in the US has improved DRAMATICALLY over the past twenty years. Competitors feed off of each other and drive one another to higher levels. Even at the non-elite levels the majority of the US is headed in a very good direction in this regard.

When I look at a state like TX, I can see the fencing influence of Soviets, Hungarians, Poles, Egyptians, at least one German trained American, a lingering French influence in some of the old timers, and some surprising talent developed by home(self?)grown American coaches. It's a fantastic mixing pot of fencing knowledge and talent... That's the diversity that I'm talking about.

Well, It seems that Mr E recognizes that the rise in US fencing is driven more by the exodus of talented coaches from overseas, particularly the former Soviet Block, rather than a conspiracy amongst NCAA schools to keep fencing down.

What we are seeing is market economics. The US is a lucrative market for foreign coaches of already established systems. While it does not drive a "National Program" in any coordinated sense, it does provide the US with a ready source of well trained fencing coaches.

Against that background, how successful would a newly instituted National Coaching program be?

[Mr Epee]

Well, It seems that Mr E recognizes that the rise in US fencing is driven more by the exodus of talented coaches from overseas, particularly the former Soviet Block, rather than a conspiracy amongst NCAA schools to keep fencing down.

Not sure that I ever said that the NCAA was keeping fencing down... I am quite willing to point out that the glory days when NCAA fencing was a central focus of fencing in the US was a particularly horrible time for the sport in the US as a whole... particularly in terms of international performance.

Now, it should also be noted that the Soviet Block coaches working in the US are not cut from the same cloth as US Fencing Masters. They are for the most part products of physical education schools with some focus on fencing. Almost all of them had extensive fencing experience as athletes. Of course, they weren't all elite athletes, but they certainly had extensive experience in training environments that produced/were producing elite athletes. This is starkly different from the US where a Fencing Master title is tacked on to a butcher/baker/candlestickmaker/computer-geek.

The bright side is that we have some of the top sport science schools in the world at our disposal... this is very promising. Unfortunately, most of our top most experienced fencers are lured away by more profitable professions... what a clever bunch. :-)

What we are seeing is market economics. The US is a lucrative market for foreign coaches of already established systems. While it does not drive a "National Program" in any coordinated sense, it does provide the US with a ready source of well trained fencing coaches.

For a time... as we know, this is not an unlimited supply...

Against that background, how successful would a newly instituted National Coaching program be?

I don't know... I'm not guessing it would be very successful...

[MdA]

Hey!!! Just got a PM from a private donor. She wants to know where to send the check for the National Fencing School.


…..just kidding. But what would we as coaches do if this happened? Tell her to send it to the USFA…what org would work the deal (she wouldn’t actually send a check for an endowment).

The USFCA Coach of the Year award is funded by a private donor, David J. Schreff. Thanks to the work of current President Arnold Mercado, the USFCA completely updated its Constitution and By-Laws in 2006. We are a 501c non-profit and we are set up to handle grants and donations for the benefit of American coaches. Those old guys that don’t keep current are pretty good at setting stuff like this up for us youngsters. I have attached a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws.

But only 350 members is not going to cut it. The private donor said that if we can get our membership up to 600, she will fund the endowment (just an example of what she might stipulate). This structure is some of what you are getting for your $35 or $50 per year.

[MdA]

This is an admittedly irrelevant question (for which I apologize), but do you pronounce the second "G" in Gaugler?

Yes. Gog - Ler. Gog as in Blog.