Foil lesson cues

[AaronK]

Sorry J, I've been out of town for the past couple days but going back to your request (explain that lesson style a little more)...

It does fall into line with what people had written following that (I only skimmed though everyone's post just now so forgive me if I am rehashing the conversation).

You were doing it correctly, however as you realized you have to add on to the lesson because there is no incentive for the student to NOT simply push you off the piste or hit you- which may be an ideal fencing situation, but one that few opponents are going to present.

You could go in one of two directions:
1. You will make attempts to hit on your student's forward step just as they are doing to you. There should be incentive enough for them to stay at the correct fencing distance, not getting too close. Also if you parry at a certain, consistent speed- providing a small window to find the correct timing to hit you directly while punishing a late action with a riposte- you can enforce the right timing/distance.
2. Instruct the student to hit you on a forward step ONLY under certain conditions (that may happen in a typical opponent for that student). This could be attack on a forward step following a change of the opponent's hand position from high-low; attack only after the opponent (or coach since we are talking about a lesson) makes two consecutive steps forward, etc. Since this is a little more cue-like, it may feel more familiar. Again I would allow the student to maneuver at will (not following), and enforce the correct timing by parrying.

If the student isn't able to hit you (because you are parring every attack) then slow down the motion of the parry so that they are just barely hitting you (this takes a lot of practice on the part of the coach, but no reason why we can't get better as our students do). If the student isn't able to hit you because you are able to see the correct distance to attack first, you can always adjust the speed of your reaction to a level that will challenge the student rather than simply defeat them.

The bottom line is that I was recommending that the coach always act as a fencer would act. The lesson builds on the idea that you are teaching the student to find the distance/time to hit. That's actually really easy...too easy as you said: there needed to be a reason for the student to close to a specific distance at a specific moment, without getting too close.
How would a fencer punish this? By hitting their opponent first or stopping the attack. From this moment you have the basis for all kinds of lessons:
1. The student is learning the correct moment to make a compound attack (because you are parrying at the right time).
2. The student may learn how to draw out your counter-attack to score with a second-intention parry-riposte.
3. You could be teaching the student to make a counter-riposte as a secondary action, or as a second-intention if they planned on the first attack failing (because they are not able to get around your parry).
4. Etc.

[jBirch]

This has been weighing on me the last little while...

The system, I think, presupposes that the coach is always going to be a better fencer then the student.

If the coach can see the technical mistake, but can't exploit it as a true opponent would, can they correct it?

James.

[Jason]

This has been weighing on me the last little while...

The system, I think, presupposes that the coach is always going to be a better fencer then the student.

If the coach can see the technical mistake, but can't exploit it as a true opponent would, can they correct it?

James.

The coach does not need to be better than the student. However, he must have a certain base level of skill. A "coach" who doesn't really know how to fence can not do much in a lesson to create bout-like conditions.

A coach who is a capable fencer will be able to create real conditions and execute his own actions competently enough to benefit even those students who have surpassed his own skill.

One of the elements of a "real" approach to coaching that seems to confuse you is that the lesson is not simply the coach fencing the student. The student may have limits on what he may or may not do, for example. At first the student may have to execute an action in place, then on the coach's real movement, then picking the appropriate time while moving. With limited options, the coach should know what mistakes to expect. Further, the better the coach knows his students, the easier it will be for him to anticipate certain errors.

Additionally, corrections should involve a verbal component as well. Verbal communication is always important, no matter what other methods the coach is employing.

Let's say your fencer is preparing too much during the attack he's practicing and you didn't think to hit him in preparation. No big deal. In fact, the first couple of times you might not want to hit him anyway. You just tell him that he was preparing too much and he should finish sooner (if the student is a beginner, you should also tell him why). If, after you've made the verbal correction, the student continues to make the mistake and, now expecting it, you're still unable to hit him, you're frankly a pretty abysmal coach and might want to go back to taking a few lessons yourself.

You don't need to be better than someone in order to hit him.

I would recommend you read Czajkowski's book, Understanding Fencing, to learn more about this kind of methodology.

[Allen Evans]

In the past I have scored against "A" and "B" saber fencers while making correcting actions in lessons, despite never having been never more than a "D" level saber fencer (though it's not as though I have no fencing skills what so ever -- I was a decent epee fencer when I fenced competitively).

It's important to remember that there is a bifarcation here when teaching: either you are teaching fencers worse than you (in which case, you should be able to challenge them quite competantly) or you are teaching fencers better than you (who should be skilled enough to be self correcting and only need to be reminded of mistakes in a general way).

Certainly with my best foil fencer ("A" rated, National Points holder, National finalist), I can't always hit him when I would like. But even when I don't score against him, I can surprise him with real actions that make him scramble to avoid getting hit. He's experianced enough to know that in these situations, he's made a mistake.

By restricting fencing actions, setting up specific scenarios which you have fore knowlege of, and limiting the student's footwork, a coach can usually teach a fencer quite a bit over their own skills, and use real actions to do it. Often the only secret is to make sure that the fencer rather than the coach is doing most of the work.

Allen Evans

[jBirch]

Hmmmm...

I still don't get it, even though I understand both of what you and Jason are saying.

A tangent: NFL, NHL and MBA players are coached by some very excellent staff. What do they work on?

I doubt very much that the batting coaches pitch to their "students". Nor do offensive coaches tackle theirs. Nor do goalie coaches shoot at theirs.

Why is fencing different?

James.

[AaronK]

I would concur with everyone above, the fencing coach does not need to out-fence their students: merely be able to execute the fencing scenarios they are coaching. The reality (cue or not) the coach will get better at whatever system of teaching by practice right alongside their student.
I would also use myself as an example: I was not anywhere near as skilled as some of the foil fencers I have given lessons to. I have never been higher rated than a "D" in foil, yet I have improved the skills of both beginners and national team-level fencers (while using- for lack of a better term- "cueless" lessons). I have improved the skills of fencers I have coached using a more traditional lesson giving method- though I have found the former yielded better results.
Where the coach is highly likely to be better than the student is in observation and the ability to multi-task the attention: the student only need to observe the lesson from their own perspective. The coach is not only in control of their own actions, but probably observing more of the student's performance than the student is able to (unless we are dealing with a highly experienced student).

Another merit of this is that a coach who is practicing fencing actions rather than cue-ing movements can continue to improve their own fencing, rather than exchange coaching skills for fencing skills. So even if we are worried that we can't execute a skill well enough for a lesson, as you continue to give lessons in this manner, your skills should improve to the point where it doesn't matter who you are giving a lesson to. (And so long as we understand that the coaches role isn't beating their students in a match, then I will stand by that last statement).

James,
I would offer that Tennis coaches may hit against their students in a lesson. I think it's difficult to make an analog with individual sports and team sports.
I know that the only reason my Judo coach refrained from demonstrating with individual athletes was that the risk of him getting injured (and his rate of recovery being in his 50's). He did often demonstrate the wrestling/matwork moves one-one-one (individual lesson) because it was much lower impact the body (than throwing).
I think that it is more likely that coaches are more active in individual sports than they are in a team sport.
NBA/NFL/MLB, etc. coaches are often more "manager" than coach- their roles often involve appointing the coaching staff more than hands-on coaching (though most of them are still involved in coaching). Also in pro sports there are some other dimensions such as public relations that a coach may have to address.

[jBirch]

I want to think more on what you're saying Aaron, because I still don't think I understand it well enough.

There are a couple of sticking points to me...

1) I give a style of lesson with realistic movement and simple cues. The student is responsible for executing the correct action at the correct time/distance. As they advance, the movements become more difficult to follow and the cues harder to distinguish from the real thing.

Ie// If I want to focus on parry riposte in the student, I'll make an extension/lunge to target while both static and moving. We start static and correct the position/transition, move into simple, slow movement and gradually get faster/tighter. During the movement phase, the student is keeping lunge distance and I'm initiating the attack. As the student improves, I'll make more and more effective attacks, complete with more and more intricate foot and blade preparations. At the extreme, the student is holding distance, I'm making my best attacks and they are parry/riposting to the correct targets.

Is this what everyone means by the "realistic lesson"?

2) I too occasionally correct egregious errors with the proper exploit. However, usually I use a simple, "NO!" and "YES!" to indicate incorrect and correct actions. I don't want the student to start to react to my exploit: I want them to concentrate on making the initial action work.

4) It seems to me that there is a balance in the private lesson. Enough antagonism to be effective, without so much as to be disruptive. I don't think anyone is advocating starting the lesson at full speed and complete freedom are they?

5) Technical execution is important to me. It needs to be worked on in tandem with distance/time. Slowing the lesson right down and getting rid of all the extraneous noise is the best way to work on technique.

Thoughts?

James.

[MdA]

Wait 'til you get older. If your a good coach, all your fencers will be better than you

[AaronK]

James,
I'm just going to give a quick reply now and I will address your questions in more detail later (I have to run off to go coach in about 5 minutes).

One thing that I am going to mention quickly is that just because the lesson is composed of fencing movements rather than coaches cues doesn't mean that the coach must forsake verbal communication- it still critically important.

I agree that moving slower will increase the accuracy of the student's movements. If the impediment to improving accuracy at speed is psychological- then building confidence by slower movement may be the answer. If the issue is technical then the student must be trained at the speed they will need to perform at (I imagine that complex execution of a motor skill is speed-specific, just as strength and endurance are).
That being said, there is a difference between teaching a new skill and perfection or refinement of an existing skill.

If I have a chance I will tape a few minutes with a student to illustrate what I am talking about by my methodology (it is difficult to explain some things without being able to show them).

[MdA]

....
NBA/NFL/MLB, etc. coaches are often more "manager" than coach- their roles often involve appointing the coaching staff more than hands-on coaching (though most of them are still involved in coaching). Also in pro sports there are some other dimensions such as public relations that a coach may have to address.

There is also a manager aspect to being a top fencing coach...outside of lessons. In the USA, a good coach should know the USFA Athlete's Handbook like the back of his hand.

S/He needs to know the qualification path for his fencers and all the dates for point events...national and international. This should be used to build a training and competition schedule...as well as a travel budget...to let the fencer ...or the parents...know what it will take to accomplish goals.

[AaronK]

MdA,
Very true, a coaches job is not limited to the grunt work on the floor. My perception of coaches of professional sports is that the majority of their time "coaching" is relegated to administrative duties (much the same as my stint as NCAA coach- about 20% of my job was "coaching" the other 80% was managing the team: budget proposals and ordering equipment, play schedules, travel & hotel, arranging meals, organizing the facility for home matches, etc.).

[darius]

1) I give a style of lesson with realistic movement and simple cues. The student is responsible for executing the correct action at the correct time/distance. As they advance, the movements become more difficult to follow and the cues harder to distinguish from the real thing.

Ie// If I want to focus on parry riposte in the student, I'll make an extension/lunge to target while both static and moving. We start static and correct the position/transition, move into simple, slow movement and gradually get faster/tighter. During the movement phase, the student is keeping lunge distance and I'm initiating the attack. As the student improves, I'll make more and more effective attacks, complete with more and more intricate foot and blade preparations. At the extreme, the student is holding distance, I'm making my best attacks and they are parry/riposting to the correct targets.

Is this what everyone means by the "realistic lesson"?

First, I'd say that that shouldn't be your most extreme. At the most extreme, the student shouldn't be holding distance, but extending and contracting it, trying to draw your attack; you should be attempting to make your best attack in a time that would catch (and thus hit) them.

Mostly, this progression isn't too different than I might use. What I might to is give them distance freedom earlier, though; I don't use the idea of "following" distance much past the warm-up part of lessons. I'd also probably add the idea of compound parries early, to really get the student used to moving their feet until they get the parry.

2) I too occasionally correct egregious errors with the proper exploit. However, usually I use a simple, "NO!" and "YES!" to indicate incorrect and correct actions. I don't want the student to start to react to my exploit: I want them to concentrate on making the initial action work.

That's fair, but we work from a different perspective. Namely, "there's no mistake until somebody gets hit." Mostly, I play by those rules, but if we're working on acquiring a very new skill, trying to build confidence, or I have to give immediate feedback, I'll discard that. In my mind, I'd like the student to fence every touch out -- that doesn't stop us from talking about the mistake on the initial action, and still presents a more realistic environment.

4) It seems to me that there is a balance in the private lesson. Enough antagonism to be effective, without so much as to be disruptive. I don't think anyone is advocating starting the lesson at full speed and complete freedom are they?

No - but why not have the student start full-speed with no variables, and then introduce variables as their execution improves? If skill acquisition is speed-specific, that matters. I don't know if it is (note to self: ask somebody who would know), but having students slow down to 25/50/75% speed for several actions and then replicate the action at 100% has been a useful tool.

5) Technical execution is important to me. It needs to be worked on in tandem with distance/time. Slowing the lesson right down and getting rid of all the extraneous noise is the best way to work on technique.

Nobody's advocating doing it 100% speed with all variables; merely that you behave as a fencer would behave. Even if your student is 6 years old, if they lunge at you, you should go to parry (at a slower speed if necessary). If you parry, you should riposte. Basically, as a coach, you should behave as a fencer would, and change the speed to allow the fencer to attain the appropriate amount of success to keep their motivation level high.

One of the exercises Michael would make me do when I first started coaching at NWFC was the following: I'd have a specific task (student initiates an absence of blade attack. Coach can counterattack, student should finish. Coach can make a false-counterattack, student should recognize and disengage. Coach can run away off-balance, student should pursue hard and hit - coach is allowed any defensive movement.), and a specific number of touches the student should score (ie. "They should beat you 15-4." or "They should beat you 15-10."). What I would have to do during the lesson was adjust the level upwards to allow the student the correct amount of success while still maintaining realism.

darius