Foil lesson cues

[AaronK]

J,
I believe I am talking about the same thing you are when you define an individual lesson: I am suited up (or the coaches equivalent) and I am working with a single student; possibly for a protracted amount of time.

Where I think we disagree is that you are defining one type of lesson.

I did not say that bouting was the only way to teach- I implied that real fencing is the best "cue" for an action.

Let me give an example and try to address the original start of this thread:

Say I had a fencer who knew how to advance, retreat, lunge and recover. They just learned how to make a hit (straight) and hit while lunging- which means that they may not know their lunge distance perfectly, nor will they execute the skill automatically (it will take a conscious effort).

I am giving an example that may also be more of a problem-solving method than the "classical" methodology of teaching (which a new skill is named, demonstrated, broken down into constituent parts, then given to the student to work on) the structure of my lesson may go like this:

If the student where a more experienced student, then he or she has already warmed up, because just as I see no reason to stand there and do an imitation of a fencing dummy, there is no reason why my fencers can't get their own heart-rates up on their own once they know appropriate methods of warm-up...if I were teaching the exact student I described above, then I would use the first 1-2 minutes of the lesson as warm-up, moving a little slower overall and gradually increasing to the desired speed.
Let's assume that the student have no other issues that need to be addressed in the lesson: they are not "differently abled" (in the current PE parlance) physically, mentally or emotionally.

I am going to tell the student that I am going to move around the strip. Their goal is to hit me with a lunge if I get close enough for them to hit me. I tell them that I want them to lunge at full speed, and they must execute the lunge. I am going to move at a pace that the student is able to recognize a distance they can hit me with a full-speed lunge.
Speed is sport-specific, you must practice a motor-skill at the speed it will ultimately be performed at. The closer you can get to this optimal speed, the better. This is true for fine-motor skills as well as gross-motor skills.
I am going to get hit- an attack requires a measure of confidence from the attacker. Getting hit will enforce that the student has made a correct assessment. I may increase speed or attempt to escape the student's lunge (by retreat) to challenge the student if the skill becomes "too easy".
I could stop here, the student can perform X number of repetitions and I can adjust the difficulty by changing speed, rhythm and direction at different frequencies. The student should be able to get 4/5 actions, less may get frustrating for them, more can become boring.
I didn't give the fencer instruction as to whether or not they should move; this was intentional. They may discover the need to make some preparatory footwork in order for their attack to arrive- such as if I stop coming into their "lunge distance" or am hovering just outside it. I would treat the recovery from the lunge as a separate issue- it's not part of this lesson even though I stated at the beginning that the student knows how to mechanically execute the recovery.
As a coach it is my job (regardless of the lesson format) to encourage correct execution, guide the student through difficulties they have executing the skills, and correct consistent errors.

Let me take one more crack at a related issue:
I know that many of us "unlearned" fencing when transitioning to being coaches, myself included. A beginning coach, or one who may not have learned a system of "this cue is for that action" may have the advantage to adopt a coaching method that requires them to use real fencing movements to "cue" a student to act rather than a "realistic" movement that no one has shown them (save perhaps when they took a lesson from their own coach).

[Allen Evans]

When coaches talk about "student controlled lessons" there is often an entire range of motion/actions that the coach is refering to. For instance: from standing, and slightly out of advance lunge distance, the student starts an advance. The coach either retreats in a timely manner and the student stops, and resets, or the coach retreats late and the student executes an explosive lunge to score. This is a simple example: the student initiates the footwork, the footwork is planned, and the student reacts based on what he/she sees. On the other end of the spectrum is a lesson in which the student manuevers independantly, and the coach simply works to stay out of the student's way, and frustrate any attempt by the student to score -- the student has to "take the touch away" from the coach. Again, "student controlled" (as much as anyone is controlling anything in that lesson).

In between is a spectrum of actions and and patterns, and measures of control. The lesson could be partially student controlled, in which the student initiates the action, the coach gives cues, and the student decides which cues to respond to (depending on a variety of factors). Or more control could be given to the coach and the students only role is to "start" the action. In each lesson there is a certain amount of "student control" but the lesson may never simply be the student and coach fencing each other.

Again, we (as fencers and coaches) suffer from having too many fencing "things" and too few words to describe them. When you said lessons were for technique and "controlled bouts" are for teaching tactics, you stepped into some preconcieved notions about what a "controlled bout" or a "lesson" consists of. So you got some of the responses you did.

Allen Evans

[Allen Evans]

I know that many of us "unlearned" fencing when transitioning to being coaches, myself included. A beginning coach, or one who may not have learned a system of "this cue is for that action" may have the advantage to adopt a coaching method that requires them to use real fencing movements to "cue" a student to act rather than a "realistic" movement that no one has shown them (save perhaps when they took a lesson from their own coach).

Of course, the best coaches have "cues" that aren't much different from the fencing action that they are trying to replicate (okay, except for Paul Soter, but he's the exception that proves the rule*). The advantage of learning a cueing system is that the coach learns to be more flexiable with the actions/cues to be used in the lesson and can then adapt to a larger range of situations.

The weakness of the Beginning Coach's "fencing action as a cue" is that often the beginning coach's cue can't be "adjusted" to fit the level of the student. Once, at Coaches College, the pair next to me was having a problem in a feint/disengage exercise. I watched them for a few minutes, and it was pretty obvious that the "coach" was parrying as if he were fencing his student (who was not as skilled or as fast as the coach was) and there was no way the student was going to learn how to make a proper feint at the tempo/rythm that they were working.

"Unlearning" how to fence in order to coach isn't always a bad thing, I think, especially if the coach was not a very accomplished fencer. Having the ability to pull out the stops and execute good actions at speed is important (and this is the argument for turning good fencers into coaches to begin with) but having a mastery of "artificial" cues can help a bad fencer teach over his or her head, even if it's only a level or two.

Allen Evans

*Just in case Inq. is reading this thread

[KD5MDK]

Since I've never seen him give a lesson, what is Paul Soter's cue?

[Allen Evans]

Since I've never seen him give a lesson, what is Paul Soter's cue?

I'm mostly making fun of Paul here (he's an excellant coach, in my opinion). I've often seen him give lessons in epee where he just seems to be waving his arm around, without replicating a "true" fencing action....but because of his control of timing and space of the cue, his student is making very precise and accurate actions at high speed. I found it pretty interesting to watch, and a good example of cues not always being "real" real fencing actions, but getting desired results.

Another example: sometimes you see coaches at Tauber actually kick their foot up onto the student's point in an epee lesson. It's not a cue that I like, myself, but under the Tauber system, there's a reason for it, sort of like darius example of saber coaches holding their weapons straight up in the air while the student makes cuts.

AE

[jBirch]

This part of the forums is so much nicer then the others...people are actually trying to understand what's written, rather then just inflate their egos.

Thank you!

J,
Let me give an example and try to address the original start of this thread:

Say I had a fencer who knew how to advance, retreat, lunge and recover. They just learned how to make a hit (straight) and hit while lunging- which means that they may not know their lunge distance perfectly, nor will they execute the skill automatically (it will take a conscious effort).

I am giving an example that may also be more of a problem-solving method than the "classical" methodology of teaching (which a new skill is named, demonstrated, broken down into constituent parts, then given to the student to work on) the structure of my lesson may go like this:

If the student where a more experienced student, then he or she has already warmed up, because just as I see no reason to stand there and do an imitation of a fencing dummy, there is no reason why my fencers can't get their own heart-rates up on their own once they know appropriate methods of warm-up...

Agreed, though I think we differ on what a "fencing dummy" is and can do. Part of the point of a coach is to give the student consistent reactions that they can exploit. The "fencing dummy" (or target board, or golf ball on a string or whatever) can't show the difference between an early parry, a correct parry and a late parry and how that affects a students feint-disengage.

In many cases, the coach needs to be a "fencing smartie", I guess.

But I agree on the warm up.

I am going to tell the student that I am going to move around the strip. Their goal is to hit me with a lunge if I get close enough for them to hit me. I tell them that I want them to lunge at full speed, and they must execute the lunge. I am going to move at a pace that the student is able to recognize a distance they can hit me with a full-speed lunge.

Speed is sport-specific, you must practice a motor-skill at the speed it will ultimately be performed at. The closer you can get to this optimal speed, the better. This is true for fine-motor skills as well as gross-motor skills.

I am going to get hit- an attack requires a measure of confidence from the attacker. Getting hit will enforce that the student has made a correct assessment. I may increase speed or attempt to escape the student's lunge (by retreat) to challenge the student if the skill becomes "too easy".
I could stop here, the student can perform X number of repetitions and I can adjust the difficulty by changing speed, rhythm and direction at different frequencies. The student should be able to get 4/5 actions, less may get frustrating for them, more can become boring.

I didn't give the fencer instruction as to whether or not they should move; this was intentional. They may discover the need to make some preparatory footwork in order for their attack to arrive- such as if I stop coming into their "lunge distance" or am hovering just outside it. I would treat the recovery from the lunge as a separate issue- it's not part of this lesson even though I stated at the beginning that the student knows how to mechanically execute the recovery.

As a coach it is my job (regardless of the lesson format) to encourage correct execution, guide the student through difficulties they have executing the skills, and correct consistent errors.

Now I'm curious. The students that I have tried this with quickly realised that all they had to do was advance down the piste and I'd be forced into "lunging distance". It taught them to get too close to lunge so I abandoned it for "keep the distance, attack when I cue".

But maybe I just wasn't doing it properly.

Could you describe the method/technique a little more fully?

James.

[Jason]

Now I'm curious. The students that I have tried this with quickly realised that all they had to do was advance down the piste and I'd be forced into "lunging distance". It taught them to get too close to lunge so I abandoned it for "keep the distance, attack when I cue".

But maybe I just wasn't doing it properly.

Could you describe the method/technique a little more fully?

What would happen to the student if they tried that in a bout against a good fencer? The answer(s) to that are your solution. If the student is making a mistake, "score" against him as an opponent would.

You may also want to explain the reasoning behind "playing" with the distance, rather than just moving forward.

[jBirch]

What would happen to the student if they tried that in a bout against a good fencer? The answer(s) to that are your solution. If the student is making a mistake, "score" against him as an opponent would.

Right, but then the lesson just degenerates into bouting with both of us making counter-acting footwork without clear teaching around what constitutes correct and incorrect distance, timing and technique.

It muddies the lesson substantially in my experience...

But again, it could just be because I'm not doing it correctly.

You may also want to explain the reasoning behind "playing" with the distance, rather than just moving forward.

Of course, but there needs to be a threat to CAUSE them to "keep the distance" with me until the true opportunity arises. If the opponent is just retreating, following them safely is a good idea: if they're giving ground, my students should be taking it.

...and if you're relying on "threat" to indicate when to retreat, and hitting them when they don't retreat fast enough, then aren't you really just bouting?

This is why I was saying that keeping the distance is the core of dynamic footwork. The student first learns to keep correct fencing distance regardless of what the opponent is doing (including lunging, retreating, stopping, feinting, whatever). The student then chooses to make closing footwork when the opportunity to hit arises. Prepatory footwork is then taught to create the opportunity "cue" and then the student chooses to hit. Equally, they are taught to always stay at the correct distance to retreat and riposte or exploit and attack.

So long as the technical execution is correct, they should have no trouble hitting either the coach or the opponent.

James.

[keith]

Part of the point of a coach is to give the student consistent reactions that they can exploit.

I think the distinction people are picking on is what you mean by consistent.

If consistent means the same action with the same cadence at the same distance then you have the archetype of the 'bad' fencing lesson.

If consistent means a restricted set of movements (foot and blade) being used in mixed measure by the coach then that is what would seem to be a 'good' lesson.

Could you describe the method/technique a little more fully?

It is the dog training approach - reward and penalty - as applied to fencing. So as Jason says, if they push into distance hit them (and swear in Italian), if they fail to initiate with their footwork, hit them (and swear in Italian). If they start correctly but hesitate, just hit them.

As with any animal training, try not to teach two skills simultaneously. It only confuses the poor beasts.

[Jason]

Right, but then the lesson just degenerates into bouting with both of us making counter-acting footwork without clear teaching around what constitutes correct and incorrect distance, timing and technique.

It muddies the lesson substantially in my experience...

But again, it could just be because I'm not doing it correctly.

The idea is that you are teaching the student how to move in--and control the movement of--a bout. From the perspective of the footwork and mobility, it should look like a bout. However, the exercise has limitations that a bout does not.

You can certainly go more slowly, if need be, and you, as the coach, limit your own reactions (depending on the needs of the student). Further, the student's options, in this case, are limited only to attacking with a specific lunge--the only thing he can change is the timing and distance (through variations in preparation). So, as a result, the primary thing he is developing is an understanding of what constitutes correct distance and timing.

[jBirch]

I think the distinction people are picking on is what you mean by consistent.

If consistent means the same action with the same cadence at the same distance then you have the archetype of the 'bad' fencing lesson.

If consistent means a restricted set of movements (foot and blade) being used in mixed measure by the coach then that is what would seem to be a 'good' lesson.

Ohh! That makes a lot more sense. Again, damn the imprecise nature of text. Of course I don't mean same cadence, same distance.

It is the dog training approach - reward and penalty - as applied to fencing. So as Jason says, if they push into distance hit them (and swear in Italian), if they fail to initiate with their footwork, hit them (and swear in Italian). If they start correctly but hesitate, just hit them.

As with any animal training, try not to teach two skills simultaneously. It only confuses the poor beasts.

I have a SAR dog, and my wife is a professional dog trainer, so I know exactly what you mean. And, oddly, you can probably understand why I have an intense desire to be home on time. *grin*

Still, with the "just hit them" approach, the lesson, especially with eager teenagers, often degenerates into a bout. The student saying, "why can't I do action X instead of what we're supposed to be working on? I like action X. It's easier!"

It creates, in my experience, an adversarial lesson rather then a co-operative one.

Hunting lessons (lessons where the student is learning how to execute an action in the context of an adversarial opponent), I often teach strip-side. The student is fencing another, more senior, student and we're talking through how and why actions are and are not succeeding. If the student is simply lacking the technical skill, but picking the right distance and timing, then we go back to individual drills to try to craft the correct responses into their muscles.

I'll also use adversarial games (and occasionally, step on the piste with the student) to craft the same dynamic motion. Pool noodles, wrapping paper tubes and foam swords all work wonderfully for these kinds of lessons.

But I generally don't find it productive to have the student using adversarial footwork and me "falling for" their actions occasionally.

James.

[keith]

Ohh! That makes a lot more sense. Again, damn the imprecise nature of text. Of course I don't mean same cadence, same distance.

Wasn't suggesting you were .

One catch of the highly mobile - bout like - lesson is that it can hide a regular cadence, one that would be glaringly obvious in a more traditional/old fashioned/fuddyduddy(have we agreed a generic term of abuse?) lesson.

Still, with the "just hit them" approach, the lesson, especially with eager teenagers, often degenerates into a bout. The student saying, "why can't I do action X instead of what we're supposed to be working on? I like action X. It's easier!"

One catch here may be the transitioning between lesson styles. The other may be that if X really is easier then perhaps they are right?

Remember that the key to this type of lesson is that simplicity is all - it is just feet and extension. You are putting footwork above all; blade work is restricted to simple attacks, the odd beat direct or beat disengage and perhaps a simple parry riposte for completeness.

It creates, in my experience, an adversarial lesson rather then a co-operative one.

Think about if from the perspective of teaching a student from scratch. How would you show them that this way of moving works best, this position is easiest on the body, this hand position, this way to extend etc etc. You are preparing everything around the easiest, most bio-mechanically natural, way to hit the opponent.

This type of slow, repetitive correction in the context of real fencing movement allows you to (hopefully) teach everything at once. The student gets a intuitive feel for what is 'right'. Anyway that's the theory I make to claim to be able to do it in practice.

[jBirch]

One catch here may be the transitioning between lesson styles. The other may be that if X really is easier then perhaps they are right?

They probably are, at least at their current level of ability, but the point of learning, and practicing, a new skill is to acquire that new skill to the same level of ability as the other skills...so that it becomes another, equal, tool in the tool chest.

Remember that the key to this type of lesson is that simplicity is all - it is just feet and extension. You are putting footwork above all; blade work is restricted to simple attacks, the odd beat direct or beat disengage and perhaps a simple parry riposte for completeness.

Interesting...

Something is twigging my instincts in a negative way here, so I'll have to think on it before I comment.

Think about if from the perspective of teaching a student from scratch. How would you show them that this way of moving works best, this position is easiest on the body, this hand position, this way to extend etc etc. You are preparing everything around the easiest, most bio-mechanically natural, way to hit the opponent.

This I definitely do disagree with. The "most bio-mechanically neutral" movement, at the beginning, is probably not the most efficient in fencing. The lunge, the recovery, steps forward and backward are all "odd" movements that need to be trained and practiced before their benefit becomes truly obvious.

I agree with letting the student "discover" motion on their own, and in refining the natural inclinations that they already have, but I disagree that the "un-natural" fencing movements that we use on the piste are inherently wrong.

This type of slow, repetitive correction in the context of real fencing movement allows you to (hopefully) teach everything at once. The student gets a intuitive feel for what is 'right'. Anyway that's the theory I make to claim to be able to do it in practice.

I prefer to transition from simple, mechanical, correct actions, to fluid dynamic ones, rather then starting with fluidity and hoping that technicality will emerge.

Is this one of those stylistic differences that normalise out at the highest levels? Does one work better for the "fighter" student type and the other work better for the "technician" student type?

Jason, you mentioned in your blog that one of the keys to talent is belief created by early success. Does this allow the student lots of early success to build on that the more "fuddy-duddy" style lacks?

James.

[keith]

They probably are, at least at their current level of ability, but the point of learning, and practicing, a new skill is to acquire that new skill to the same level of ability as the other skills...so that it becomes another, equal, tool in the tool chest.

Not all skills are equally useful, doesn't mean that teaching them is wrong. Perhaps the divergence of opinion is more about aims than means?

This I definitely do disagree with. The "most bio-mechanically neutral" movement, at the beginning, is probably not the most efficient in fencing. The lunge, the recovery, steps forward and backward are all "odd" movements that need to be trained and practiced before their benefit becomes truly obvious.

The movements may be odd, and unnatural, for a novice fencer but they are the best movements for the purpose.

I agree with letting the student "discover" motion on their own, and in refining the natural inclinations that they already have, but I disagree that the "un-natural" fencing movements that we use on the piste are inherently wrong.

It is not discovery - they are being taught but purpose is explicit not implicit. Technique should be a the top of the coaches attention list, nudging the student into the groove.

I prefer to transition from simple, mechanical, correct actions, to fluid dynamic ones, rather then starting with fluidity and hoping that technicality will emerge.

You are not hoping that technicality will emerge - it is simply a different way of teaching technicality. One might criticise your approach (which is how I was taught to fence) as assuming that tactical thought will appear through spontaneous generation .

Is this one of those stylistic differences that normalise out at the highest levels? Does one work better for the "fighter" student type and the other work better for the "technician" student type?

God knows, I suspect a detailed analysis would simple reveal that its all a bit more complicated than that

[jBirch]

Not all skills are equally useful, doesn't mean that teaching them is wrong. Perhaps the divergence of opinion is more about aims than means?

Probably. As with all things of nuance, I guess. By "equal" I was thinking of equal ability so that the selection of which fencing tool to use is based on a relatively rational analysis of the situation. If the student has knowledge of a wide range of technique, but has only one technique which they feel comfortable using, regardless of the situation, they're likely to keep choosing the one that they like.

Ideally, they'll have enough training so that all of the options are equally "preferred" in the general case and the specifics of the situation will make them select the "best" tool for the job.

My criticism of the coaching technique described above is that it causes the student to keep working on their best tools at the expense of the other tools that they could be learning and improving. To paraphrase, "If your only tool is parry/riposte, every problem looks like second intention".

I think that's what you meant when you were saying that "You are putting footwork above all; blade work is restricted to simple attacks".

The movements may be odd, and unnatural, for a novice fencer but they are the best movements for the purpose.

If I understand your nuance here, you're saying that BECAUSE the movements are the ones best suited to the purpose that the student will naturally discover and gravitate towards them if they are consistently placed in a situation where they have to use them, right?

If so, I disagree. Students tend to keep trying what works RIGHT NOW, at the expense of learning what's going to work LATER. If they haven't developed the right mindset, as soon as that technique stops working, they bail instead of trying something new.

I wonder how the system works with quiet and frustrated students? If they don't believe that they can figure out the problem that keeps getting put in front of them?

It is not discovery - they are being taught but purpose is explicit not implicit. Technique should be a the top of the coaches attention list, nudging the student into the groove.

I think we're saying the same thing here, but I'm missing some bit of nuance. What do you mean by "purpose is explicit not implicit"?

You are not hoping that technicality will emerge - it is simply a different way of teaching technicality. One might criticise your approach (which is how I was taught to fence) as assuming that tactical thought will appear through spontaneous generation .

You were taught by criticising my approach???

There is an element of discovery that is important to the teaching process. Skills stick best if the student just "happens" to stumble upon them.

I would argue that technique dictates the range of tactical options and should therefor be concentrated on before moving into tactics. The reverse approach may work though, where the student is constantly looking for a tool to solve a particular tactical problem that they simply don't have (or don't have well enough).

God knows, I suspect a detailed analysis would simple reveal that its all a bit more complicated than that

Everything's more complicated then a simple sentence. *sigh* And much of that complication simply doesn't matter. I wish it weren't so.

Good discussion though. Thanks.

James.

[keith]

.I think that's what you meant when you were saying that "You are putting footwork above all; blade work is restricted to simple attacks".

Not really. By and large virtually any problem which begins "how do I hit them...." has an answer in which either blade work or footwork is the emphasis. The trouble with relying on blade work is the action has too many possible outcomes - think of all the possible combinations that could occur in a compound attack. Do you want to get there, absolutely, but good footwork is the key to both strong 'simple' fencing and being able to pull off fancy compound actions through multiple steps.

If I understand your nuance here, you're saying that BECAUSE the movements are the ones best suited to the purpose that the student will naturally discover and gravitate towards them if they are consistently placed in a situation where they have to use them, right?

The student is being constantly corrected (gently) towards the technical goal - they will perhaps feel that they worked it out themselves, but that is just a bonus.

If so, I disagree. Students tend to keep trying what works RIGHT NOW, at the expense of learning what's going to work LATER. If they haven't developed the right mindset, as soon as that technique stops working, they bail instead of trying something new.

If a student can step and lunge they can step-lunge or step-step-lunge or any other combination. If they can do a single disengage they can do twenty. Bear in mind that blade actions get simpler, not more complicated, the higher you go. Glides and froissments may work if an opponent is willing to give you time on the blade - but that just doesn't happen with better fencers. In contrast the footwork gets more and more important. Something about foundations perhaps?

I wonder how the system works with quiet and frustrated students? If they don't believe that they can figure out the problem that keeps getting put in front of them?

Again you seem to be under the misunderstanding that there is no teaching structure in play - there is.

I think we're saying the same thing here, but I'm missing some bit of nuance. What do you mean by "purpose is explicit not implicit"?

How does a student get to understand the fundamental problem that before you begin an action you do not know what the opponent will do?

To succeed you must read the clues as you begin your action. Most technical lessons begin with an explanation of what to expect and what you might want to do and why etc etc. Nothing that prevents a student learning how to apply all that in a bout - but you can end up turning what is perhaps the most important ability to develop into a secondary skill.

There is an element of discovery that is important to the teaching process. Skills stick best if the student just "happens" to stumble upon them.

Which is exactly what the approach is about; guaranteeing that the student "happens" to stumble on them.

I would argue that technique dictates the range of tactical options and should therefor be concentrated on before moving into tactics.

How do you separate technique from tactics without turning tactics into a secondary concern or dull theory?

I also think you are underestimating the degree of technical/tactical skills which can be conferred by complex footwork in combination with simple blade actions.

Good discussion though. Thanks.

Indeed. Although we seem to have driven off the more knowledgeable so I'll quit.

[Allen Evans]

Still, with the "just hit them" approach, the lesson, especially with eager teenagers, often degenerates into a bout. The student saying, "why can't I do action X instead of what we're supposed to be working on? I like action X. It's easier!"

In these sorts of situations, I usually explain that we're working on a particular action because the student may find an opponent who is only vulnerable with that particular stroke.

Often the student will fight with me a little bit and try to do the action they want to do. Since most of them are pretty transparent when they try to do this, I can usually shut it down and score against them.

Allen Evans

[darius]

My criticism of the coaching technique described above is that it causes the student to keep working on their best tools at the expense of the other tools that they could be learning and improving. To paraphrase, "If your only tool is parry/riposte, every problem looks like second intention".

Why only work on their best tools? Some weaknesses are more easily diagnosed in a cued lesson setting, and some are more easily diagnosed in a bouting situation. Of course, if the coach is working hard to move, it's harder for them to observe at the same time. Which may remove some element of diagnostic capability.

The idea, as it was put to me, is to "start with where you want them to be, then work backwards." If the motor skills are truly not there, you can remove variables until you get them. But there's nothing that says you can't have absolute realism at low speeds. Even with the tiny kids, the plan is to create attacks that are "designed to hit" and attempt to parry attacks, albeit slowly.

It's not particularly hard to work through those exercises. Just add variables and/or speed.

Jason, you mentioned in your blog that one of the keys to talent is belief created by early success. Does this allow the student lots of early success to build on that the more "fuddy-duddy" style lacks?

In some ways, I think it may actually be worse for early success than students who are trained in extremely militaristic environments and then given rote mechanical lessons. You'll see the fencers who have tactical awareness but not the fine motor skills lose to bizarre variations of grab-and-jab at the youth levels. As one gets into Cdt/Jr, those who spent time developing their game have more success.

darius

[jBirch]

Why only work on their best tools? Some weaknesses are more easily diagnosed in a cued lesson setting, and some are more easily diagnosed in a bouting situation. Of course, if the coach is working hard to move, it's harder for them to observe at the same time. Which may remove some element of diagnostic capability.

I agree and to me, this is the big downside of "bouting lessons" as the pre-eminent teaching style. In fact, I tend to think of each of these lesson styles as tools to teach the student. So you need them all, not just one.

In my salle, I teach bouting skills strip-side or in games and technical skills in the classic individual lesson or drills.

But I also vary the speed, rhythm, precision and distance during the individual lessons and restrict the bouting lessons to certain skills (or set them up with other students who will accentuate the lesson).

I also agree strongly with the notion that footwork is the key to fencing. Bladework is a significant second to that. But I'm not so sure I buy the logic that says that "footwork will just happen". I'm convinced that the unique constraints of fencing lead to the need for trained footwork for real excellence. So while you can INITIALLY discover some elements of movement and timing, you need to continually remain vigilant against laziness and bad habit. Things that only a skilled external eye can discern.

The idea, as it was put to me, is to "start with where you want them to be, then work backwards." If the motor skills are truly not there, you can remove variables until you get them. But there's nothing that says you can't have absolute realism at low speeds. Even with the tiny kids, the plan is to create attacks that are "designed to hit" and attempt to parry attacks, albeit slowly.

I don't understand this fully. Could you rephrase?

In some ways, I think it may actually be worse for early success than students who are trained in extremely militaristic environments and then given rote mechanical lessons. You'll see the fencers who have tactical awareness but not the fine motor skills lose to bizarre variations of grab-and-jab at the youth levels.

True, though the mobile athletic ones tend to prevail more often over the "one hit wonders".

As one gets into Cdt/Jr, those who spent time developing their game have more success.

Indeed, though I think that this is a truism: ANYONE who spends time developing their game should be better then someone who doesn't in the long run.

James.

[darius]

I agree and to me, this is the big downside of "bouting lessons" as the pre-eminent teaching style.

With practice the coach can probably improve that diagnostic ability. When I got to NWFC, I expressed to Michael that it was easy for him to say, "Did you see that mistake?" when he was observing the lesson and I was working hard just to keep the foilist's tip off me during their first action! Of course, over time, you get better at perceiving the little details. What the coach has to grasp is what the resolution of the mistake is -- for example if the fencer is angulating with the wrist/arm rather than disengaging with the fingers, their point takes a vector that travels off-target to the arm.

I tend to think of each of these lesson styles as tools to teach the student. So you need them all, not just one.

Agreed - I'm in favor of any method that will help students learn (within ethical boundaries). Whether it's realistic or not. Throwing balls in the air to stimulate divisibility of attention isn't realistic. Nor is squatting heavy pieces of iron. But they're all pieces of the pie, aren't they?

The idea, as it was put to me, is to "start with where you want them to be, then work backwards."

I definitely didn't make this clear.

What I've been taught is to concentrate on the fencer making the correct choice of action, and then going back and refining the technical details. This stems from the theory that speed and distance are the primary factors in generating an opponent response, with technique being third.

If the motor skills are truly not there, you can remove variables until you get them.

It's rare that I'll go all the way back to "if I do this cue, you do this motor skill" (except maybe for a warm-up). Rather, I'd like the fencer to execute the motor skill on their own time - standing still first, then with me following their movement, then with me making increasingly antagonistic movement.

darius