Do you watch lessons at competitions?

[jBirch]

Because coaches often deal with students who are too stupid to tell the difference between a lesson and a bout?

Actually, it's because of the fear that the student would start to react to the click as part of a trained response. They aren't continuing the phrase because they are, unconsciously at least, waiting for the click.

Jason believes that any use of the click creates this risk and doesn't offset that risk with any real gain.

MdA and I seem to think that the click, in moderation, is just fine and that it serves a useful, though kinda lazy, purpose of signaling to the student that something non-fencing is about to happen.

We all seem to agree that "spastic clicks" really do create a stupid trained response while ensuring that the lesson is slower then it ought to be (as the coach is madly clicking away).

The discussion is a little more thoughtful then simply "stupid, mindless students", though we all know you guys can be remarkably dense at times. *grin*

James.

[Sean Butler]

Some would argue that any action in a lesson that is not completely identical to a bouting action should never be done...

Russian Coach: "Lesson? Vwat iz lesson? Vwe fence, you pay me!"

[MdA]

"Avast ye scallywags and sassypants! Here be another reason to click by me pyrate Cap’n MdA …a.k.a. Mad’dog Archembeau” Commodore Barbossa

It is a good idea to adopt standardized cues in you lessons because it will ease the transition of your fencers to other coaches. One of your responsibilities as a coach is to teach your students in a way that will allow them to continue with their fencing education. This includes working with other coaches at camps and clinics, on college or national teams, or upon eventual relocation. It is no secret that American college coaches observe fencers when taking lessons at NACs. They are looking for fencers that can transition easily into their training program. It does no good for a coach to develop their own system of weird cues in isolation from the rest of the coaching community. You may be developing fencers who are “uncoachable”…by other coaches.

I also think JBirch sums things up rather well.

[Adler]

[I]
It is a good idea to adopt standardized cues in you lessons because it will ease the transition of your fencers to other coaches.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that a coach should be trying to produce "coachable" fencers and be prepared to cooperate with national squad, college coaches etc I disagree with this as a pro "click" argument.

The main disadvantage of the "click" in this situation is that it makes the lesson less easy to read by the outside observer especially if it's over used.

For example if a coach is giving a lesson on beat attacks with parries ripostes and counter riposte whilst "clicking" after each successful hit it can become confusing as to why some hits are landing and why others are not.
This is especially important when dealing with junior coaches.

It's amazing how something as trivial a "click" can stir up so much controversy.

[MdA]

....
It's amazing how something as trivial a "click" can stir up so much controversy.

Aye matey, aven't yet got to the mizzenmast.

[Inquartata]

Interesting note. I see a discussion going on here, where one person in particular is making logical, reasoned commentary, and *gasp* evolving his views.

Another person though, is just never, ever wrong and never seems to need to consider alternate viewpoints...

Hey, now, I haven't even been posting on this thread! Well, until now.

I do believe that I have often before heard the theory propounded that "top coaches do X, therefore X must be effective/better than not-X". It's not that uncommon around here. Sounds like a variant of cum hoc ergo propter hoc to me, but who knows? I'd bear the clicks just to be trained by some of the guys mentioned.

The coaches of my experience have never used any cues, FWIW. Not that any of them are of the level of Nazlymov. ( Primary is a disciple of Korfanty, have taken a few lessons from D'Asaro Jr. ) I would worry about them training in a Pavlovian response, but then I'm not a coach...

[telkanuru]

The coaches of my experience have never used any cues, FWIW.

. . . . . . .

[Allen Evans]

It's Inq. he was born before they invented cues.

AE

[epeelion]

Hooo boy...

You know, I hear some coaches make their fencers do drills to practice bladework. I mean, that's, like, so totally, like, not how it really happens in a bout, right? So, like, it must be useless.

[epeeslasher]

It is a good idea to adopt standardized cues in you lessons because it will ease the transition of your fencers to other coaches. It does no good for a coach to develop their own system of weird cues in isolation from the rest of the coaching community. You may be developing fencers who are “uncoachable”…by other coaches.

I don't like this line of reasoning. A widely accepted fencing action may not necessarily be an effective fencing action or 'cue'.

A while ago I had a coach who insisted I always keep the point on target for my 4 parry and reposte with opposition. I couldn't accomplish this in lessons (or bouts) at the speed he wanted so the coach would slow down and make the inside-high line attack unrealisticly slow (his cue for this action). When I went on to bouts, he noticed my 4 parry always ended with the point outside the other fencer's target and drilled me every time I took a lesson with him to do this parry the 'proper' way (even though my parry-repostes were succeeding in my own way).

I guess my problem with the above quote is that the emphasis is on creating trainable fencers, not on making the fencers better.

Having said all that, I think the clicking of the blade as a release is a good way to give the student some positive reinforcement at least in the beginning. It may not be a realistic fencing action but psychologically it gives the student some feedback.

[telkanuru]

Well, the real problem you seem to have is that it assumes competent coaches, but w/e.

[oiuyt]

Having said all that, I think the clicking of the blade as a release is a good way to give the student some positive reinforcement at least in the beginning. It may not be a realistic fencing action but psychologically it gives the student some feedback.

So does saying "good".

Or popping an M&M in their mouth every time they hit you.

Or, better yet, work on intrinsic motivations. They work better and last longer.

Another book recommendation:
Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn.

-B

[Inquartata]

. . . . . . .

Meaning, those tappings of the blade to indicate when the student should release or what have you. That sort of thing. They tell you what they want you to do, you do it, then they correct what you did.

It's Inq. he was born before they invented cues.

And before billiards, even.

[KD5MDK]

Or popping an M&M in their mouth every time they hit you.

-B

So much for conditioning. Of course, the time needed to take the mask off would slow down the lesson a lot too.

[Dev]

There's a way around everything. I'm thinking CamelBak + Chocolate Milk + Well-aimed flicks to the back = motivation!

[catwood1]

There's a way around everything. I'm thinking CamelBak + Chocolate Milk + Well-aimed flicks to the back = motivation!

Thats awesome.

Although the coach who misses is now punishing a correct action with a broadside to the shoulder plus a splash of chocolate milk...

:-/