Coaching Paradigm...

[Hauptman]

Something JBirch said in the Foil Cues thread got me thinking. Other than the historical tradition, are there solid reasons for use of the standard coaching paradigm used in fencing? I'm referring to the one-on-one simulated bouting/drilling format that we see.

Other sports that are equally technique intensive utilize a coach observing and correcting interaction from the sideline, even as they control/limit the action.

So back to JBirch's question; why is coaching in fencing different from most other sports? Is it merely tradition, or is it superior to other coaching methods?

[noodle]

Other sports that are equally technique intensive utilize a coach observing and correcting interaction from the sideline, even as they control/limit the action.

and you think that doesn't happen in fencing, as well?

[epeelion]

There's also the fact that fencing is a direct one-on-one adversarial sport. You see things akin to private lessons in boxing, wrestling, and other martial arts as well. The technique is specifically designed to hit one opponent, and thus the most effective way to learn it is to practice it against an "opponent".

But yeah, to support what Noodle said, what do you think strip coaching is?

[noodle]

But yeah, to support what Noodle said, what do you think strip coaching is?

i wouldn't just limit it to strip coaching, either. i can think of a ton of things that fit the description above.

[epeelion]

To be sure, that's just one example. Watching you free fence, psychology, fitness training, etc. Tons of stuff a good coach should do for his/her students.

[catwood1]

I think it gives the the most control over what the student's opponent is doing. In football, the coach can't be all 10 people on the defensive side if he is doing an offensive drill.

Also, many of the other sports, physical fitness is such a necesity, a coach couldn't accomplish as much by replacing the opponent. In fencing, the coach doesn't need to have a high level of fitness to be able to replicate many fencing motions.

Although I want to see John Madden go out and school a cornerback coming off the line...

[Allen Evans]

In every combat sport I've participated in, there has always been an element of drilling/bouting/sparring/simulation against an individual coach or instructor, the only exception being in pistol shooting (!).

In this, I don't think fencing is too different than other combat sports. Where fencing IS different (at least here in the States) is in the larger emphasis on the individual lesson rather than a balanced approach of lesson, group drills, and individual skill perfection.

Allen Evans

[Sean Butler]

Interesting, Allen. I am tempted to agree based purely on what I have seen in most cases. However, the coach of Columbia University immediately preceding George K., Louis Bankuti, had a slight variation which made him intriguing. He gave individual lessons, like just about every coach, but when the student was done, it was the student's job to find someone with whom he could continue to practice the lesson. Finally after 20-30 mins of drilling with another fencer who was taking turns with you, the next step was to use the technique sucessfully a few times in a real bout. Bankuti would watch you and then after the bouting would suggest some improvements to your tempo, balance, timing, etc., with that new skill.

This 3-step approach to the individual lesson was pretty effective at skill acquisition and retention. I know this is probably what most coaches try to do just instinctively, I think with Bankuti I just found it interesting that it was a requirement that we do things this way.

[Allen Evans]

This approach is very similar to my exposure to other martial arts: 1/3 time with the coach, 1/3 time in drills, 1/3 time in sparring. I think there is a lot of emphasis on lessons in many US clubs because it makes for a pricing structure that the coach can justify for fees. But that's an unsubstantiated opinion on my part.

Allen Evans

[epeelion]

Aladar does the same. Lesson, then ideally (the system he had back in Austria and Chechoslovakia (sp?)) all students drill the actions done in the lesson together. He even used to pair up his top seniors with his top juniors.

[jBirch]

In every combat sport I've participated in, there has always been an element of drilling/bouting/sparring/simulation against an individual coach or instructor, the only exception being in pistol shooting (!).

In every other martial sport I've been involved in (Aikido, Judo, Kendo, Wrestling) it's usually me and another student working together with the coach correcting both of us. Sometimes the coach would demonstrate, but usually that was it.

Private lessons were very rare (and very precious because of that).

I would mention though, that we had a lot more junior-senior pairings than I usually see in most clubs...

James.

[MdA]

I taught boxing for a few years. I couldn't give four boxing lessons in one night. Most effective was to let the students pound on each other...or the bags...with the coach stepping in to correct hand, arm or footwork. Demos correct technique ...but slow-mo punches with the coach...no full speed punches. Too much risk of injury to the coach.

[RITFencing]

This approach is very similar to my exposure to other martial arts: 1/3 time with the coach, 1/3 time in drills, 1/3 time in sparring. I think there is a lot of emphasis on lessons in many US clubs because it makes for a pricing structure that the coach can justify for fees. But that's an unsubstantiated opinion on my part.

Allen Evans

That's part of it. I also feel that there's a sense among the fencers in the US that once they reach a certain point, there's nothing for them in group drills, and they should only be doing lessons and open bouting, with maybe the odd bit of conditioning or footwork thrown in.

[RITFencing]

In every other martial sport I've been involved in (Aikido, Judo, Kendo, Wrestling) it's usually me and another student working together with the coach correcting both of us. Sometimes the coach would demonstrate, but usually that was it.

Private lessons were very rare (and very precious because of that).

My girlfriend does kenpo and competes (or used to) quite often. She went to a studio that gave at least one private lesson a week, and who tended to dominate tournaments locally and nationally (though there are so many national martial arts leagues now that it's becoming ridiculous.)

I've done several other martial arts, though, and none of them were big on private instruction. Since starting to coach and seeing the extremely positive effect that it can have on students, I've begun to wonder why there aren't more karate/tae kwon do/whatever schools that offer them.

[RITFencing]

Here's an interesting tangent to the discussion: What do you think is best taught in group instruction and what do you think is best taught in private lessons?

I find that anything I need the fencer to slow down take time with, such as fine technical correction, specific decision points, sentiment du fer or any new techniques/concepts I want to introduce are best done one on one, but anything that is heavily based on the relationship between the two fencers (most tactical drills that I do) or involves a more general sense of strategy (learning to push and pull the opponent, disrupting the opponent's attack, etc) are done just as well if not better in a group environment. While it is possible for a coach to mimic different types of opponents or become more adversarial in lessons to increase the realism, they can at best mimic different people who are really trying to hit the student. In a group class, different people trying to hit the student are right there.

[Hauptman]

i wouldn't just limit it to strip coaching, either. i can think of a ton of things that fit the description above.

Come on, guys, don't be so literal!! You know what I'm trying to say here.

Of course strip coaching occurs in fencing, but it is far from the primary coaching method that is seen. And in fact, many coaches don't do much in the way of strip coaching at all.

[Hauptman]

This approach is very similar to my exposure to other martial arts: 1/3 time with the coach, 1/3 time in drills, 1/3 time in sparring. I think there is a lot of emphasis on lessons in many US clubs because it makes for a pricing structure that the coach can justify for fees. But that's an unsubstantiated opinion on my part.

Allen Evans

Thanks, Allen, this is the answer I was looking for. The reason we see so much focus on individual lessons is money. I would suspect that coaches that are paid to coach a team, and are salaried, spend much more time strip coaching.

[RITFencing]

Thanks, Allen, this is the answer I was looking for. The reason we see so much focus on individual lessons is money. I would suspect that coaches that are paid to coach a team, and are salaried, spend much more time strip coaching.

... If you already had the answer in mind, why did you ask the question?

Speaking as a person who was once a salaried coach in charge of a large team, I still spent time giving as many private lessons as I could. While I did give fewer lessons than I do now as a club coach, that was because of the truly massive nature of the team and the large amount of group supervision required. When there are 90 kids and 4 coaches, it is difficult to spend a lot of time with any one kid without the other 89 burning down the building.

Ok, I kid on that last part. The kids were great and I still love them to death. However, the point remains; with that kind of structure, it was impossible to give many private lessons.

While money is a major motivator towards private instruction in many cases, that does not remove its significance in a training program. There has been only one coach I've ever heard of who took fencers to an elite level with little or no private work (A Canadian whose name escapes me) and many elite fencers even in other countries get multiple lessons per week (or even day.)

[MdA]

....So back to JBirch's question; why is coaching in fencing different from most other sports? Is it merely tradition, or is it superior to other coaching methods?

I don't think individual lessons are superior to group lessons...in fact it is much less cost effective to do individual lessons....although I think some individual lessons are absolutely necessary for high level fencers.

In fact some famous champions did not take many individual lessons in the later portion of their careers...like Pavel Kalobkov (sp) or Aldo Nadi. Bouting became their lessons...

I think a big part of the reason we coach this way is the elitist tradition of fencing as a sport taught privately to the upper classes. This is how the teaching tradition was developed over hundreds of years. Today...instruction still follows this tradition.

I have said this before...many coaches tend to teach the way they were taught...but if we are going to increase production of fencers....we need to do more group instruction.

And I have seen many elderly coaches teach very effectively from the side of the strip after their knees are shot or their elbows and wrists are stiff...

[MdA]

Here is another bit of my personal opinion. You really need to have your "stuff" together as a fencing coach to give good effective group lessons...or observe pair drills and make good corrections....like Aladar. And it is a lot more work...pre-classwork too!

I think a lot of American coaches like to give individual lessons because it is easier to work one-on-one. You can "make stuff up on the way in from the parking lot" as Allen said in another post. It is more fun for the coach and less demanding of the coach.

See "Crazy Aunt" post

Due to the large number of volunteer/amateur coaches..or imports.... in America, I think our coaches opt for a method that is better (or more convenient) for themselves rather than most effective for their students.