"Useless" techniques

[MdA]

....
You're right, though, about so many fencers not having much depth to their games. This is not because they haven't been taught antiquated techniques, however. It's because they haven't been taught enough about modern fencing.

I take that to mean, they haven't been taught enough "useful" technique.

[MdA]

... Can the fencer who learns all the odd parries and strange footwork and sees fencing with a keener eye compete at the same level as one who has practiced relentlessly and perfected the more applicable techniques? Or maybe a better question is, why wouldn't a fencer want to learn all there is to know and pick up these other oddities on his own or at least ask about them?

If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would rather become an A-rated fencer first....then take the rest of my life to learn all the odd parries and strange footwork. That is the way I teach my fencers.

[Jason]

Also, I have watched Ed Korfanty do it against...I think it was Steve Mormando, but I may be wrong there. Certainly it was toward the finals of a Veteran NAC...

Of course he did. As I said, it is neither useless nor uncommon. However, I doubt that Steve suddenly froze up, unsure of what to do. Using a guard in five has a lot more benefit than a "surprise factor".

[Phrogger]

I would agree that time spent perfecting fewer techniques (and focusing on one weapon) is a surer path to success than learning all of the obscurities. Interestingly, the book I frequently reference, Epee 2.0, claims that in youth a fencer should be given as broad a fencing education as possible, and only become a specialist in one or two moves once he/she has been fencing for at least 5 years or so. I think that bears some consideration, but it may not be rooted in practicality for most of us.

As an adult fencer teaching other adult fencers (I won't call myself a "coach" just yet), I spend the most time teaching/drilling the essential moves, and I think the obscure ones are somewhat useless in this context (unless one is seeking a specific strategy against a specific fencer).

For a high-level coach, starting with a youth in the optimal age range, knowing that he will have many years to mold this fencer, It may be of benefit to teach him as many different moves as possible, and encourage him to try them in both practice and competition. Teaching fewer moves in theory might bring early success, but a kid might then be afraid to move away from what works and try something new.

What drives me batty is a coach that insists on teaching things like parry prime and inquartata that just don't belong in a beginner's class at a rec center fencing club. (Feel free to let me know if these moves actually work for you!)

[Jason]

I take that to mean, they haven't been taught enough "useful" technique.

Absolutely.

Not to mention: useful concepts, tactics, strategies, psychology, etc.

Interestingly, the book I frequently reference, Epee 2.0, claims that in youth a fencer should be given as broad a fencing education as possible, and only become a specialist in one or two moves once he/she has been fencing for at least 5 years or so. I think that bears some consideration, but it may not be rooted in practicality for most of us.

What you're talking about is different than the question of teaching "useless techniques". There is definite value in--I'd even argue a necessity for--giving fencers, particularly when they start as kids, a broad fencing education. Only teaching a couple of things to (possibly) bring quick early success robs the student of their future potential. That kind of teaching is too focused on competitive success which, when training children, ought not to be a major focus.

However, adult education is something different. If you're teaching adult beginners, then there can certainly be an argument for a "simpler" fencing education.

What drives me batty is a coach that insists on teaching things like parry prime and inquartata that just don't belong in a beginner's class at a rec center fencing club.

This happens a lot: a coach not understanding order of progression in his teaching. It's retarded. I once had a "coach" ask me to help teach her class second intention counter-riposte when they didn't even know how to lunge yet. Retarded.

[RITFencing]

You're right, though, about so many fencers not having much depth to their games. This is not because they haven't been taught antiquated techniques, however. It's because they haven't been taught enough about modern fencing.

I think what a lot of the younger fencers lack is an understanding of the interaction between the opponents. Some of them are fast as hell, have quite good technique, a solid textbook sense of tactics and a good feel, but they're not old enough to have a real ability to get inside someone's head. Watch Junior Men's Epee and then Senior Men's Epee. The seniors have a much better understanding of the setup for their actions, and will take more time to trap and counter trap while the juniors are more likely to just run and gun through the bout, or simply wait for the opponent to do so.

I'm not saying that there is no attention paid to setup or to the opponent, just that it lacks the sophistication that a lot of older fencers are capable of. I'm not sure whether it's a lack of fencing experience, a lack of life experience or both.

[Sean Butler]

Probably both. From my experience, young fencers treat fencing more like a performance sport. They are so well trained to perform each action flawlessly, and with speed and timing, that they focus on this performance almost exclusively. This insulates them from the complexities of the mind game, which they haven't yet had the chance to experience, and helps them perfect the physical tools they will need to win at higher levels of competition.

So, I guess I am saying that I think it is good that they start out that way. It shows them the limits of their purely physical game as they start to break through to the next level. Eventually they will have to realize personally the need to engage the intellect to win. But I think it takes someone beating their primarily physical game before they make that realization.

[jBirch]

One comment to add to this already excellent discussion...

...are we assuming that all fencers will have the same goals?

James.

[Phrogger]

.are we assuming that all fencers will have the same goals?

I think the obvious answer has got to be no. In an ideal world all teachers would work with their students to reach the student's goals, whether that might be getting on a varsity team, going to the Olympics, or just having fun. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of coaches out there are imposing their own goals on their students. Why is that last one (just having fun) so hard for some coaches to take? (I'm talking of course about a club environment, not a team where winning is in the coach's job description.)

[Jason]

I think what a lot of the younger fencers lack is an understanding of the interaction between the opponents. Some of them are fast as hell, have quite good technique, a solid textbook sense of tactics and a good feel, but they're not old enough to have a real ability to get inside someone's head. Watch Junior Men's Epee and then Senior Men's Epee. The seniors have a much better understanding of the setup for their actions, and will take more time to trap and counter trap while the juniors are more likely to just run and gun through the bout, or simply wait for the opponent to do so.

I'm not saying that there is no attention paid to setup or to the opponent, just that it lacks the sophistication that a lot of older fencers are capable of. I'm not sure whether it's a lack of fencing experience, a lack of life experience or both.

I agree, but I feel the bigger problem, with respect to a fencer's depth, is an over-emphasis on competition with youth fencers. A couple years ago, I heard a coach (from a club not far from you, actually) tell a group of Y12 fencers that they ought to be fencing 800 bouts in competition a year. While this is an extreme example, there is so much emphasis on youth competition at many clubs that the result is a bunch of kids who never learn more than a few tricks or only the most simplified shadow of fencing. Most of these kids end up never really learning how to fence.

[Schiavona]

One comment to add to this already excellent discussion...

...are we assuming that all fencers will have the same goals?

James.

And yet, I think the answer is yes. At least in the inmediate, most broad sense. Don't all fencers want to win the bout they're fencing? Shouldn't all coaches work with their fencers to make that happen?

[Inquartata]

Of course he did. As I said, it is neither useless nor uncommon. However, I doubt that Steve suddenly froze up, unsure of what to do. Using a guard in five has a lot more benefit than a "surprise factor".

True enough, but that was the effect in the instances I mentioned, and since it definitely got touches it scarcely seems 'useless'. Somehow, though, I suspect that it would be lumped into the category of 'useless actions' by a lot of coaches nevertheless.

NB I don't recall how Steve reacted, but SOMEone Ed used it on at that tournament just came into distance and hesitated. Ed just hit him in the head without even stepping in. That's what made me decide to try it. Sometimes an easy touch is rather welcome.

And yet, I think the answer is yes. At least in the inmediate, most broad sense. Don't all fencers want to win the bout they're fencing? Shouldn't all coaches work with their fencers to make that happen?

Certainly some coaches seem inclined to try to force pegs of all shapes into the round hole. There are certain things mine keeps trying to get me to do which simply don't work for me. So I do them in lessons and then forget about them. But why can't a coach just take an experienced fencer's word that something doesn't work and move on to the next technique?

Maybe this is the opposite of not teaching useless techniques?

[Schiavona]

Certainly some coaches seem inclined to try to force pegs of all shapes into the round hole. There are certain things mine keeps trying to get me to do which simply don't work for me. So I do them in lessons and then forget about them. But why can't a coach just take an experienced fencer's word that something doesn't work and move on to the next technique?

A good coach would listen to you, or at least talk to you about what they're trying to do with you.

I'd say that any coach with half a brain and one eye knows that one size DOES NOT fit all and will taylor lessons to fit the student.

My 6'3" 62 year old student doesn't get the same lessons that my 4'8" 12 year old student gets, and yet my goal is the same with both-to help them win bouts.

[jBirch]

There is a saying, "If you need to hammer a nail, find the man who's only tool is a hammer".

James.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Somehow I'm getting the idea that you guys are thinking about this too much.

Practice the techniques that you're going to use in competition.

Besides, most fencers practice plenty of useless techniques on their own. I seriously doubt they need a coach to help them with that.

[oiuyt]

Besides, most fencers practice plenty of useless techniques on their own. I seriously doubt they need a coach to help them with that.

The coach is there to help them practice the RIGHT useless techniques.... :)

-B

[Allen Evans]

Somehow I'm getting the idea that you guys are thinking about this too much.

Practice the techniques that you're going to use in competition.
.

We think about this too much so you don't have to! :-)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

What drives me batty is a coach that insists on teaching things like parry prime and inquartata that just don't belong in a beginner's class at a rec center fencing club. (Feel free to let me know if these moves actually work for you!)

My first coach did not teach the inq to me - I read about it in a book from the 20ies. I then proceeded to try it out in training, and do it in competitive bouts. I do not think that anyone else in Northern Sweden at that time hade any inkling about this move, so I got a bunch of bonus points from it, even against those who were better than me.

Same story with the counter-tierce in opposition riposte, when done at the same time as quick footwork. I have won several bouts where that single sequence has given me all, or nearly all, of my points.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[MdA]

As far as introducing so-called useless technique in your lessons and classes. This may have been said before in this thread …and I was going this way again in the thread on Sabre Lesson Plans
I think it depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to give your fencers a well rounded fencing education….then go ahead and introduce whatever useless technique you want. If you are trying to coach competitive fencers than I think you need to be a little more specific…and of course this depends on what your fencers want…someone already mentioned tailoring your lessons and lesson plans. I think this works best.

I have been teaching and coaching at an "Epee Only" club for the last two years. I have a few foil fencers…and we use one strip but the primary focus of the club is competitive epee. We don’t even have a saber in the club….sorry, that is really sad, but it is the truth. I know because I had a student ask me about saber the other day and I couldn’t even find one to show him.

This is the first time that I have coached in a single-weapon club. In the past, I have always been in clubs or high school/college programs that catered to all three weapons. My experience has been that I have never been in a club that did all three well.

I can now see the value of the single weapon approach for clubs that are focused on competition as well as overall physical fitness and conditioning. Even though I teach one of the weapons that in not the focus of the club…I can see the benefits of this system. I fill in for the Head epee coach occasionally but I follow his program of instruction for epee.

In the two years that I have been giving foil lessons at an epee club, I have rarely had a beginning or intermediate epee fencer ask me about something in the foil lessons. I have never had anybody ask me to give them foil lessons….understand that I am not actively recruiting foil fencers. Once or twice, I had a kid or a parent ask me what the yellow light is for on the foil strip. I think I explained ROW one time to a beginning epee fencer after he asked a question. He gave me a blank stare…thanked me politely…and happily went back to his epee bout.

The advanced epee fencers will often discuss tactics and technique that they see in my foil lessons...and we will sometimes try the same in epee. This is what I would expect from advanced fencers and coaches.

I think this whole discussion represents something I learned in my other career…Software Engineering. It’s called “information hiding”…basically it means don’t give a customer information he doesn’t need or doesn't want. In some cases, you may process it for them, in the background, and deliver it in another format (in this case epee). This takes skill and planning by the coach...rather than delivering a laundry list of blade actions common to all three weapons.

I have always been a proponent of a well rounded fencing education…but for fencers who are just starting out, I have to agree with Jason and recommend you “consider what concepts, skills, and abilities are necessary.”

[MdA]

......
... In some cases, you may process it for them, in the background, and deliver it in another format (in this case epee). This takes skill and planning by the coach...rather than delivering a laundry list of blade actions common to all three weapons.

Trying to pull these two threads together...I think Darius is saying the same thing here.