Gia Kvaratskhelia Foil Coaching Clinic in San Antonio – April 3-5, 2009

[Allen Evans]

I have watched the video several times (thanks, by the way, for posting this MdA). I think my first impression on watching this clip, was that as a warm up lesson it seemed very fast to me. I did like the emphasis on precision, and I thought that while some of the cues were artificial, they weren't any more so than some other high level coaches I have seen giving lessons, especially with the coach's emphasis on speed of reaction and execution, and the feeling that the coach needed to "overload" the student (was this appropriate for a "warm up"?). While the cues might be a point of argument if the lesson had been billed as a tactical one, I don't really see a need to quibble about them in the context of the distance and the lesson. Like others, I don't like the strong release on the blade after the hit, but it's often a habit (I still do it myself sometimes) and it wasn't used to excess.

I, too was very struck by the distance being used used for the attack-in-preparation action. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, though I couldn't deny that in the context of that distance, the actions were well cued. As Jason says, the lesson lacked any differentiation in tempo -- though that may again be the result of the lesson being a "warm up" and not "tactical".

All in all, I was impressed with the technical skills of the coach giving the lesson (and the student taking it), but it left me vaguely uncomfortable, for reasons I couldn't quite articulate. It might have been the distance, or the speed, I just wasn't sure.

After thinking about it over night, I decided I had fallen into a common trap: making a decision about a lesson based on having watched a few minutes of it being performed. I have always felt that it is very difficult to judge a lesson based on a brief excerpt or snapshot of a few actions out of context. There are a lot of questions that have to be asked before anyone could actually judge this lesson. What happened before the tape started rolling? Where is the coach taking this lesson -- especially the attack in preparation action -- later? What is the coach trying to accomplish here, and what work has he done with the student before? How does this warm up fit into where the lesson is going: tactically or technically?

I don't think you can discuss a lesson adequately without knowing the answers to these questions. I hope more video will be posted, and I would invite MdA to give any discussion that was made before the lesson started -- or based on his own knowledge of the coach -- that might put the video segment in a more complete context.

[darius]

the feeling that the coach needed to "overload" the student (was this appropriate for a "warm up"?).

Some coaches do extremely easy lessons to warm up their student. Far less common, other coaches do extremely hard ones. After all, if you can deal with the coach, those fencers aren't going to pose much of a threat. I may get flak for this, but either way is probably just fine, as long as it's what the student is used to and produces the desired result, in that the student is properly prepared (physically and mentally) for what's next.

I, too was very struck by the distance being used used for the attack-in-preparation action. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, though I couldn't deny that in the context of that distance, the actions were well cued. As Jason says, the lesson lacked any differentiation in tempo -- though that may again be the result of the lesson being a "warm up" and not "tactical".

At that distance, I just don't think too much about variation of tempo. It could be done, but why? If you're within extension distance, and not attempting to 1) hit 2) take the blade 3) go away 4) draw a halt (corps-a-corps, off the strip, passing), you're more likely to be scored upon than to score. To me it distills the essence of attack-in-prep, which is poke when your opponent is getting closer without trying to hit you. I'd expand the concept (and then expand the distance) later.

I don't think you can discuss a lesson adequately without knowing the answers to these questions.

You can discuss it. One can even critique it, but I'd refrain - a more productive idea would be to look at the lesson and try to model for yourself how you'd expand on the ideas. (This isn't really targeted at you, Allen, but more as an idea for anybody interested in learning.) Even better, take those thoughts and post them here - with the number of solid coaches reading this, you're bound to get good feedback.

darius

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by darius

me it distills the essence of attack-in-prep, which is poke when your opponent is getting closer without trying to hit you. I'd expand the concept (and then expand the distance) later.

One of the things I've noticed about a lot of European trained coaches (oddly, enough I haven't seen this so much with the very few Chinese coaches I've observed) is that their lessons often evolve from a very close distance "representation" -- if I can use that word -- of a concept that is later expanded out to a broader tactical idea.

I assumed that this was what happened in the AIP drill done in the warm up. MdA (or anyone else attending) is that correct?

I agree with your comments in the quote above, Darius, and I think that one of the real skills lacking in many American coaches is the ability to "expand the concept (and then expand the distance) later". The next step in giving a good lesson past a technical skill is exactly what you describe. It's certainly a weakness of mine, and I would have been interested to see if this lesson expanded on the AIP drill in the clip that we saw, and how that was done.

Originally Posted by darius

You can discuss it. One can even critique it, but I'd refrain - a more productive idea would be to look at the lesson and try to model for yourself how you'd expand on the ideas.

Sorry, poor choice of words. Yes, you can discuss the lesson, but for me, without knowing what the lesson is trying to teach (sometimes it's not always obvious) tossing a few critisims out ("the coach was too close", "the lesson was too fast") doesn't make any sense. That's what I was getting at.

Funny story: I was at a strong regional competition quite a few years ago, and a coach I knew was giving this very strong and fast warm-up lesson to one of his kids, who was just pummeling him with flicks from all sorts of angles (early 1990s event). It was quite the odd "warm up" for this kid, and I asked the coach about it later.

"Yeah, it was pretty fast, and probably a little too hard. But did you see all those other kids watching? Now they think he's a monster. We probably won't have to fence a hard bout until the four."

So, sometimes knowing the context of the lesson makes the lesson all come together.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by darius

At that distance, I just don't think too much about variation of tempo. It could be done, but why? If you're within extension distance, and not attempting to 1) hit 2) take the blade 3) go away 4) draw a halt (corps-a-corps, off the strip, passing), you're more likely to be scored upon than to score. To me it distills the essence of attack-in-prep, which is poke when your opponent is getting closer without trying to hit you. I'd expand the concept (and then expand the distance) later.

When the AiP should come, and how you control the movement to create the situation, will vary with the way the opponent is preparing. In the case of this lesson, the coach has very little variation in the way he prepares. The result is then that the student is not developing a real ability to execute--or a true understanding of--attack in preparation.

There is no such thing as a fencing exercise where variations in rhythm, speed, timing, etc., doesn't matter.

[darius]

When the AiP should come, and how you control the movement to create the situation, will vary with the way the opponent is preparing. In the case of this lesson, the coach has very little variation in the way he prepares. The result is then that the student is not developing a real ability to execute--or a true understanding of--attack in preparation.

But there is no controlling movement to create the situation, as spoken of previously. In this case, the distance is set. The preparation is known. As such, I believe that the lesson should happen fast - the student operates in a very close space with no room for error.

This is where judgement without context is problematic. The next step in this lesson could be for the coach to make different preparations vs attacks, and the student to select properly. Or the distance could expand, giving the coach more time to change their preparation into an attack if the student is not ready to hit in time. If that happened, would this clip seem so awful to you?

There is no such thing as a fencing exercise where variations in rhythm, speed, timing, etc., doesn't matter.

But ask yourself, do you have to vary all the attributes all the time?

darius

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by darius

But there is no controlling movement to create the situation, as spoken of previously. In this case, the distance is set. The preparation is known. As such, I believe that the lesson should happen fast - the student operates in a very close space with no room for error.

This is where judgement without context is problematic. The next step in this lesson could be for the coach to make different preparations vs attacks, and the student to select properly. Or the distance could expand, giving the coach more time to change their preparation into an attack if the student is not ready to hit in time. If that happened, would this clip seem so awful to you?



But ask yourself, do you have to vary all the attributes all the time?

darius

Tried to rep this, but couldn't.

It seems like if you're doing something so simple and defined, with no variation, then why not do it close and fast? If there were more variation of speed / tempo / preparations, then I don't think that distance would work. But, if you're only doing that 1 prep, with the student not controlling the distance, then I think close is fine.

[MdA]

Haven't kept up with the latest discussions...but here is the next clip in the lesson sequence. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V9Le-naIxM

[Jason]

Originally Posted by darius

But there is no controlling movement to create the situation, as spoken of previously.

Exactly. This is a problem.

If that happened, would this clip seem so awful to you?

Who said it seemed so awful to me? I'm drawing attention to the problems but, as I noted in an earlier post, there are some very excellent elements present as well.

But ask yourself, do you have to vary all the attributes all the time?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Varying the rhythm, speed, and timing of both the coach's and student's movements would improve these exercises. Are you asking if I think that a coach should try to improve his exercises all the time? The answer is yes.

[edew]

Originally Posted by MdA

But I agree with Adler and Jason, if you want to train under realistic conditions then both the coach and the fencer should wear full protective fencing clothes and the attacks and remises should be as realistic a possible.

Nervousness: this is the beginning of the lesson. You will see in later sections that Nick warms into the lesson. There is no doubt that it starts at “high tempo” but that’s his style.

Indeed, there are lesson times where both fencers should get hit. Like working on simultaneous attacks (and not flinching).

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Jason

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Varying the rhythm, speed, and timing of both the coach's and student's movements would improve these exercises. Are you asking if I think that a coach should try to improve his exercises all the time? The answer is yes.

I think the question was alluding to the observation that while during the course of a lesson its appropriate to do the variations of rhythm, speed and timing, there are often times where a student is having a difficulty with an action, or its being presented for the first time, and too many variables can overload the student and not foster learning.

I myself often times use a "blocked, serial, random" method, where we start with an action at a specific distance and tempo, and drill it to get the fundamentals down (Blocked). Then, we'll go through a few of the more common permutations of either distance or tempo, explaining how it could vary (Serial). Then we'll do a more open phase where the student will both need to adapt to different distances, tempos, and rhythms, as well as use those tools himself (Random). Of course, I sure as heck can't say I made this idea up myself, as its a key concept that was central to my coaching training, and is used across a broad array of sports disciplines.

Note: there are many uses of the Blocked, Serial, Random structure...

I've found it be a good mechanism for "expand the concept (and then expand the distance) later." But I'd be curious as to what other teaching structures might be use.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by catwood1

It seems like if you're doing something so simple and defined, with no variation, then why not do it close and fast? If there were more variation of speed / tempo / preparations, then I don't think that distance would work. But, if you're only doing that 1 prep, with the student not controlling the distance, then I think close is fine.

In fact, for this particulal lesson, at the distance that it is being taught at, it's the only way the lesson is going to work. The coach is making a classic foil mistake: preparing at a distance he should be attacking in. The student scores against this, and rightly so.

However, I watched the video a few more times and it struck me that by working so close, when the coach wanted the student to escape an attack, the coach's attack actually had to be slower than the preparation he was making. This was the only way to enable the student to escape. If the coach's attack had been at the same speed of the preparation, the student would have been scored against every time. This fast preparation and slow attack strikes me as backwards, not so?

This distance forces an artificial tempo into the lesson (perhaps this is what Jason was angling towards in his comments?), which ultimatly keeps the lesson at a level of technical execution demanding a high response time, high concentration and very strong physical skills from the student.

As Jason says, these are excellant elements to have in a lesson, but at first glance the lesson seems to be much more than that.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by oso97

.....
I myself often times use a "blocked, serial, random" method, where we start with an action at a specific distance and tempo, and drill it to get the fundamentals down (Blocked). Then, we'll go through a few of the more common permutations of either distance or tempo, explaining how it could vary (Serial). Then we'll do a more open phase where the student will both need to adapt to different distances, tempos, and rhythms, as well as use those tools himself (Random). Of course, I sure as heck can't say I made this idea up myself, as its a key concept that was central to my coaching training, and is used across a broad array of sports disciplines.

Note: there are many uses of the Blocked, Serial, Random structure...
.....

This is a good point. So is the lesson in the clip...and the follow on "Episode 4" Blocked, Serial, or Random in its structure?

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

....
However, I watched the video a few more times and it struck me that by working so close, when the coach wanted the student to escape an attack, the coach's attack actually had to be slower than the preparation he was making. This was the only way to enable the student to escape. If the coach's attack had been at the same speed of the preparation, the student would have been scored against every time. This fast preparation and slow attack strikes me as backwards, not so?

They are both mistakes. The student is supposed to take advantage of both. As you say...the coach is facilitating the student with the slow attack.

I think he is challenging the student a little more...with the fast preparation.

[Allen Evans]

Interesting, could you expand on this, MdA?

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Interesting, could you expand on this, MdA?

I think this goes back to Adler’s point about the distance being too close. I think most us agree that the distance is uncomfortably short for the student….hence the high tension/intensity of this drill. As you point out….if the coach executes the attack at full speed…at this distance….the student would be hit every time. So in order to facilitate the practice of the AiP….the coach needs to take a little speed off the cue for the attack.

It all has to do with making the drill work IMO. If every cue is to be done at realistic speed then the drill needs to be done at a bout-like realistic (medium) distance. This would give the student the appropriate amount of time/distance to react to any cue. This would make the student most comfortable and allow him time to set it up…which is what I think Adler was getting to. But the students energy and effort would be expended in the repeating the set up actions…and wouldn't allow enough focus on the specific action to be practiced.

This drill is meant to simulate an “uncomfortable” situation for the student (short distance)…or a situation that the student has intentionally created in the bout. But, the coach is still putting pressure on him to make the correct decision. Both cues by the coach are a mistake…as you have pointed out….a preparation at too close a distance…..or a slowly developing attack…at close distance. An attack….even a slow one will be called an attack by the referee. That is why the correct response is to retreat…but the coach is doing it slow to facilitate the drill and allow the student to getaway and continue so that he can work on the AiP.

In both clips, including Episode 4, I like the way Gia keeps score in the lesson with correct or incorrect actions. This makes the drill more realistic and bout-like and makes the student work towards a goal …with direct correlation to using the action (and making it work) in a real bout.

[Allen Evans]

Ahhh....right. But one "mistake" by the coach facilitates the drill (preparing at the wrong distance so the student can hit) and makes sense (its a mistake to be taken advantage of) and the other "mistake" by the coach (the slow attack) is simply an extra action that seems very out of context. There seems to be two different distances and tempos working in this bout, and they are at odds with each other, rather than complementary.

Your explanation points back to my first post about the lesson. It is hard to judge a lesson without knowing some of the context and how the lesson is being presented, and what the coach's goal is. Your explanation would seem to make this lesson a more technical action than tactical, with some decision points and other aspects brought in to bring it to the level of the student and make the lesson a little more "alive".

Please thank the coach and student for allowing you to share this. These are good discussions.

[Mr Epee]

Overthinking:

More dangerous to:

a) the student
b) the coach
c) teh peanut gallery

Discuss.

[Allen Evans]

Unquestioning acceptance of a lesson because the coach has an accent.

More dangerous to:

1. New coaches
2. Their students
3. The cashew gallery

Discuss.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Unquestioning acceptance of a lesson because the coach has an accent.

More dangerous to:

1. New coaches
2. Their students
3. The cashew gallery

Discuss.

With all due respect to Edmund Burke, in this case, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the eminently qualified, result producing, established professional (in the literal sense of the word).

Of course for my own selfish reasons and purile indulgance of comedic effect, I, too, am curious about whether Oso thinks this was a "Blocked", "Serial", or "Random" lesson. No fair helping the vulgar practitioner.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by oso97

I think the question was alluding to the observation that while during the course of a lesson its appropriate to do the variations of rhythm, speed and timing, there are often times where a student is having a difficulty with an action, or its being presented for the first time, and too many variables can overload the student and not foster learning.

I'm fairly certain you are incorrect as the comment was in direct reference to a lesson presented as being for "advanced foil coaches" using a student who is certainly no slouch. Nothing in the material presented suggests that a discussion about how to handle beginners or student having difficulty learning is relevant.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

With all due respect to Edmund Burke, in this case, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the eminently qualified, result producing, established professional (in the literal sense of the word).

Of course for my own selfish reasons and purile indulgance of comedic effect, I, too, am curious about whether Oso thinks this was a "Blocked", "Serial", or "Random" lesson. No fair helping the vulgar practitioner.

I don't believe in "the benefit of the doubt."
However, considering where you may be taking this discussion, I'm willing to be right on board.