Are you teaching the "Wrong Stuff"?

[MdA]

I was talking to Bob Hurley at practice yesterday. I know what you are thinking….there goes MdA ….namedropping again. But, I mention Bob because people know him, and he made what I think is a very important point. For those of you that don’t know Bob, he is the father/coach who has appeared a couple times in recent FIE “Escrime” magazines, in his crumpled red baseball cap, and purple warm-up suit…coaching his daughters Kelley and Courtney to cadet and junior world epee championships. He said that conditioning is the most important thing for fencing….not just endurance…but the ability to perform explosive, powerful, agile movements with the legs and body. This affects the bladework. He said what many of us already know. At the highest levels of fencing….the bladework is different than at intermediate levels.

I was thinking of this in relation to threads in this forum like this…

Problems with Prime against fleche in epee

and

"Useless" techniques

and probably even

Backward lunge in epee...Useless?

Bob and I agreed that if your fencers are not in good physical shape, you will overcompensate by teaching them complex bladework….that they will never need at the higher level. So the question is, if you don’t develop good physical conditioning and footwork…are you teaching the “wrong stuff” in your lessons?

[keith]

Oh I think it raises a far more basic problem - if your students aren't junior world champions then you are coaching the wrong thing.

[Allen Evans]

Interesting. I had a discussion with a coach recently (whose name I won't drop) and we were discussing the differences between men's and women's epee at the Junior and Cadet level: specifically that Women's Epee is characterised by very few blade preparation or set ups, and relies on simple manuevering and explosive actions. We don't see this as the case in Men's Epee at the level of Cadet and Junior, in which the blade actions seem more involved and "deep".

It might be the case of the "wrong stuff" for one weapon is not necessarily the "wrong stuff" in another?

AE

[noodle]

Interesting. I had a discussion with a coach recently (whose name I won't drop) and we were discussing the differences between men's and women's epee at the Junior and Cadet level: specifically that Women's Epee is characterised by very few blade preparation or set ups, and relies on simple manuevering and explosive actions. We don't see this as the case in Men's Epee at the level of Cadet and Junior, in which the blade actions seem more involved and "deep".

It might be the case of the "wrong stuff" for one weapon is not necessarily the "wrong stuff" in another?

AE

really? i kind of view it as the opposite. but thats speaking as a fencer, not as a coach.

[Inquartata]

Meh, conditioning may be "the most important thing" in epee. I mean, you have to endure all that bouncing in place, and holding the weapon out there for 9 minutes for one or two touches...

When I first started fencing, I was only a year out of the Army. Ranger battalion, so my conditioning was passably good. I should have mopped up everyone I faced within a few months, I suppose, but oddly enough, no such thing. I got trounced by pasty overweight smokers for years and years...

[emagdnim]

I personally find that physical training is one of the most important aspects of fencing as well as any other sport, not because it is more important than any technical skill but the fact that it allows you to execute that skill with better results. The proper parry doesn't matter if the fencer can't lift their foil.

But the fencer's level of physical fitness is up to the fencer. Bob Hurley is in the position to train his daughters and watch their nutrition almost 24 hours a day; where as most coaches have to leave the responsible decisions up to the fencers when they walk off the piste at practice and back to their everyday lives. I would LOVE it if my fencers ran a mile every morning, got a good breakfast, did yoga, and didn't smoke half a pack a day but thats really beyond my control. That being said I give my fencers the physical conditioning I recommend but at fencing practice they're there to learn how to fence, not there to receive fitness training advice.


Thats just my little humble opinion on the matter.

[darius]

I think conditioning is actually a bad word for what Mr. Hurley expressed -- "the ability to perform explosive, powerful, agile movements with the legs and body". The problem with that word is that it tends to connotate cardiovascular endurance, which isn't a horribly big deal for fencers. (Thus, the smoking!)

But the words that Hurley uses afterwards: explosive, powerful, agile, give you some hints. The ability to apply force to the ground very quickly is key to fencing; most fencing coaches pay at least some lip-service to plyometric training (even if they don't know what it is). The elite coaches I've discussed this with definitely believe that strength training of some sort is important to fencing.

Agility comes from coordination, and there's the other question; can you control your limbs independently? This goes beyond foot actions, but a lot of what we do at NWFC, especially in the youth and phys-ed classes, is running through exercises that develop divisibility of attention and independence between hands and feet.

I had a similar conversation with an anonymous coach recently...hey, wait!

[jBirch]

I was talking to Bob Hurley at practice yesterday. I know what you are thinking….there goes MdA ….namedropping again. But, I mention Bob because people know him, and he made what I think is a very important point. For those of you that don’t know Bob, he is the father/coach who has appeared a couple times in recent FIE “Escrime” magazines, in his crumpled red baseball hat, and purple warm-up suit…coaching his daughters Kelley and Courtney to cadet and junior world epee championships. He said that conditioning is the most important thing for fencing….not just endurance…but the ability to perform explosive, powerful, agile movements with the legs and body. This affects the bladework. He said what many of us already know. At the highest levels of fencing….the bladework is different than at intermediate levels.

I was thinking of this is relation to threads in this forum like this…

Problems with Prime against fleche in epee

and

"Useless" techniques

and probably even

Backward lunge in epee...Useless?

Bob and I agreed that if your fencers are not in good physical shape, you will overcompensate by teaching them complex bladework….that they will never need at the higher level. So the question is, if you don’t develop good physical conditioning and footwork…are you teaching the “wrong stuff” in your lessons?

Since Inq seems to be floating around, I'll quote the fallacy in your logic here: assuming the premise.

If we assume that ALL fencers will go to the "Highest Levels" then you're right...but by simple definition not all will. Many of these "useless" manouvres add flavour to the lesson. I mean, if the student isn't really interested in doing the work, maybe a lesson with a bizarre parry combination will engage them a little more.

James.

[MdA]

I think conditioning is actually a bad word for what Mr. Hurley expressed -- "the ability to perform explosive, powerful, agile movements with the legs and body". The problem with that word is that it tends to connotate cardiovascular endurance, which isn't a horribly big deal for fencers. (Thus, the smoking!) .....

Your right...what he refers to (and I did the same thing) as Physical Conditioning...is really non-fencing specific training....like you mention in your post...although endurance training is still important...and they do a lot of it.

[MdA]

...If we assume that ALL fencers will go to the "Highest Levels" then you're right...but by simple definition not all will. ...
James.

IMO you can't assume that they won't go the "Highest Levels". If you do you might just waste a fencer's time for a couple years...or lose them alltogether.

I have tried it both ways in the past at different clubs. I kill them with conditioning....and I lose over half the class.

I make it easy... with bizarre parries...and I end up with a room full of geeks.

The coach who is running a successful program/club/team must select the methods that will suit his fencers/customers. My point is that you need to know the difference.

[jBirch]

IMO you can't assume that they won't go the "Highest Levels". If you do you might just waste a fencer's time for a couple years...or lose them alltogether.

I have tried it both ways in the past at different clubs. I kill them with conditioning....and I lose over half the class.

I make it easy... with bizarre parries...and I end up with a room full of geeks.

The coach who is running a successful program/club/team must select the methods that will suit his fencers/customers. My point is that you need to know the difference.

Ah, but this where the quality of the coach comes to play. A good coach can quickly determine which are likely to be on each path...and can tailor the environment accordingly. Really good coaches, can set up clubs that are excellent at both the "geeky" aspects AND the "jock" aspects.

And really, it's not that hard to do.

Where I really get irritated with the suggestions lately is that there seems to be a tendency to force a binary either/or situation. There is a synergy (man, I have to stop reading business literature) between the two groups that can serve to make each better.

As an example, nobody would expect a 9 year old to train 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. And yet, if that's all that your club offers, then you're doing THOSE wee fencers a disservice. Much better are the environments that do what they do well and can stream the fencers at the appropriate times into the more appropriate classes.

James.

James.

[KD5MDK]

really? i kind of view it as the opposite. but thats speaking as a fencer, not as a coach.

I've watched hundreds of bouts of Cadet and Junior epee in both genders and the men are using FAR more blade actions than the women. The women are mostly using distance and timing to attack or counterattack, but not binds and so forth, in general.

Of course foil is the opposite.

[Allen Evans]

I've watched hundreds of bouts of Cadet and Junior epee in both genders and the men are using FAR more blade actions than the women. The women are mostly using distance and timing to attack or counterattack, but not binds and so forth, in general.

So -- given that my observation has some validity -- I wouldn't say that the male epee fencers at the Cadet and Junior levels are less "conditioned" than women at the same levels.

With all respect to Bob Hurley, I can't help that think that there is something more going on here. Not that I don't think that explosive power, agility, and the coordination of hand and leg actions are not important, but there is a tactical and perhaps mental/emotional approach to the weapon that differs between the two sexes.

However, I'm sure that the realization that men and women are different is not a big surprise to some of the members of F.net.

AE

[Durando]

Lookit, I'm going to open up a whole smelly kettle of stuff that will probably attract Mr Epee, who will make outrageous and hysterical remarks....

It's not a new observation that women are coached differently by some coaches. By differently I mean "worse" than their male counterparts. This difference is routine in our club, unfortunately, but such discrimination isn't necessarily due to sexism. We have one female épéeiste who is top twenty-ish nationally in her division and is a fantastic attacker, which fact is routinely attributed to her character.

That is, our coaches coach to the perceived character of our fencers. Which is unavoidable. It is also unavoidable that this leads to unfair prejudices in how to teach a given student. Such prejudices, while perhaps latent, can cripple tactical and technical development.

I don't know a lot about how the National Women's Epée team is coached over here but their fencing exhibits none of the timidity which unfortunately dulls most regional-level women's épée.

[telkanuru]

Heh, yeah, I'd imagine telling someone like Flessel that she doesn't attack much might get you severely hurt.

In the US, though, I can't help but wonder if the coaches have a lot to do with it. This is just pure conjuncture on my part, but it seems to me the German/Russian/Polish style/system coaches running around than there are French/Italian Style coaches. I think this is especially evident when looking at how our high level fencers and seeing which nationalities they look like, in broad strokes.

[MdA]

I did not intend this to become a discussion about how to coach women’s epee, but perhaps this can be applied to the other weapons…eventually as we develop. The Hurleys fence an international style of women’s epee…as we have already mentioned …more physical and athletic. It is also obvious that it has been successful in the USA…evidenced by their domination of the cadet/junior/Div 1/NCAA events and point standings. They generally wade thru the competition at most domestic events…in all three categories.

So why hasn’t this approach been more widely adopted by US coaches? Durando mentions a “timid” approach to women’s epee at the local levels. I see a few other top women’s epee fencers who are using this more athletic approach…but they are just not at the level of the Hurleys….probably less international experience. But, I think Durando has a good point. Are coaches responsible for this lack of aggressive, athletic approach…or is it just the personalities of our fencers?

[DangerMouse]

I don't think this is an issue of coaches not accepting the importance of physical conditioning for explosive actions. I think this is a cultural issue in the US. Fencing and many other olympic sports here are treated differently by the general populace than in Europe. Just about every European club I have visited is part of a larger sports center that includes, at a minimum, judo, taekwondo, and dance. Many of the people who fence are athletes that have trained in some other sport throughout their lives. It is easy to take someone who is used to general athletic training and help them become explosive.

In contrast, the vast majority of beginners I deal with discover fencing via role-playing, video games, or some other romanticized notion of the sport. If they have been active in another sport, it is usually something along the lines of aikido, which heavily emphasizes technique over physical fitness. It is hard to convince a (previously) non-athletic teenager that they will be a better fencer if they run or do some other workout outside fencing and even harder to convince them to stick to a highly structured workout program to build explosiveness.

[Durando]

It is also obvious that it has been successful in the USA…evidenced by their domination of the cadet/junior/Div 1/NCAA events and point standings. They generally wade thru the competition at most domestic events…in all three categories.

I think I can boil this difference down into one concept. Or at least as a wannabe prévôt, I'm going to try. High level épée touches depend on one essential aspect: the ability to change direction at exactly the right moment. In order to do this you need a very strong thigh on your nondominant side. The tactical discussions that we can have about distance and tempo are all predicated on this ability. Fiddly bladework, in my opinion, is an effort to make up for an inability to score a touch by breaking distance and tempo.

[D'Art]

Isn't that you just coming up with the old adage about good bladework being a poor substitute for good footwork? Now to get it to sink into my drink-addled head and practice what I preach...

[Durando]

Isn't that you just coming up with the old adage about good bladework being a poor substitute for good footwork? Now to get it to sink into my drink-addled head and practice what I preach...

Doubtlessly. I doubt very much that I could contribute anything truly original on the subject. But the addage doesn't account for adapting footwork solutions to an opponent in the same way the idea of a change of direction does. Tell an attacker that their footwork has to be good doesn't necessarily mean that they'll commit to the attack at the right moment or distance.