2008 - USOC Olympic Coach E-magazine, Fall Issue

[acaba]

I am on an interesting coaching distribution list, and another issue was sent out today:

2008 - USOC Olympic Coach E-magazine, Fall Issue

I really enjoyed the article titled "PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE". It really illuminated why my previous coach (I. Vitebski) did some of the things he did. I only wished I had spoken Russian, so I could have gotten more from my lessons! The principles of blocked vs. random practice seemed to fit how he coached. We never did 50 of the same parry-ripostes; he always forced me to constantly change, modify, or react to what he was doing. The scope of a particular 'set' he usually limited to 3-6 specific actions, but he always forced me to either choose a different one, or react and supply the correct action. In the course of a 25 minute lesson, he usually had me perform about 5-7 different 'sets' of actions. During the lessons, I never felt that I had 'learned' the skill before he moved to the next one, but now I see that this is a very profitable method of training.

The subscription page is at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/ if anyone is interested.

Aaron

[epeelion]

My coach does the same thing. It's worth noting, though, that there are different types of lessons. Many lessons are simply drilling/technique based. After all, it's not like your coach can have you react with a six-closeout to an invitation if you've never practiced it...

Generally, my coach;s lessons have three main phases: the warm-up, the "tuning" or preparatory phase, and the main phase. The warm-up is self-explanatory. The "tuning" phase is where he has me perform technique based action-actions that I likely won't use on a bout but that tine my awareness and my feel for the blade. In the main phase he will usually do more of the "sets" (six bind preparation, eight, four, second, second beat, etc.) and introduce decision making. Earlier lessons involve more tuning and preparatory movements, while now my lessons involve a bigger "main" phase because he spends much less time correcting me in the earlier phase of the lesson.

Wow, that was a tangent. Sorry...

[Allen Evans]

I'll second the E-magizine. It's kind of a fluffy at times, but it gives some good windows into "best practices" for sports.

Another interesting article in this issue was the pipeline approach that US Water Polo is taking towards their National Teams.

AE

[Mo]

Originally Posted by epeelion

My coach does the same thing. It's worth noting, though, that there are different types of lessons. Many lessons are simply drilling/technique based. After all, it's not like your coach can have you react with a six-closeout to an invitation if you've never practiced it...

Wow, that was a tangent. Sorry...

E.L.,
This is precisely a point I have been trying to make for a while and you did it a lot better. Coaching CAN be very important and it is.
However, there are kids that learn so well visually that they mostly need to see an action rather than be told about it especially if the coach is not that great at doing said action.
Visual learners, ie people who learn by seeing more than anything else can pick up subtle actions they don't even realize they learned.
That is why it is so vital and necessary for fencers to be exposed to all levels of fencing in their early years. The young visual and or spatial learner seriously needs to see to learn, not have it sort of drilled in them by a coach.
Early in my daughter's fencing days, she had wonderful people she got to fence on a daily basis. It made a lot more of a difference than the coach.
Sticking kids in an "age group" is the way to burn out fencers. Let them mix it up and see what happens.
There is this 9 year old girl who lives up the street from me who really loves pottery. I have been "teaching" her. Mostly I just show her what to do. She is a natural. What I say to her goes right over her head but the things that I show her, like how to center, how to open, stick in her head like glue. She completely amazes me. She can't remember the terms but she really remembers how to do it. I avoid telling her too much and just let her see it and then do it.
It works amazingly well.
The Momster

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Mo

E.L.,
This is precisely a point I have been trying to make for a while and you did it a lot better. Coaching CAN be very important and it is.
However, there are kids that learn so well visually that they mostly need to see an action rather than be told about it especially if the coach is not that great at doing said action.
Visual learners, ie people who learn by seeing more than anything else can pick up subtle actions they don't even realize they learned.
That is why it is so vital and necessary for fencers to be exposed to all levels of fencing in their early years. The young visual and or spatial learner seriously needs to see to learn, not have it sort of drilled in them by a coach.
Early in my daughter's fencing days, she had wonderful people she got to fence on a daily basis. It made a lot more of a difference than the coach.
Sticking kids in an "age group" is the way to burn out fencers. Let them mix it up and see what happens.
There is this 9 year old girl who lives up the street from me who really loves pottery. I have been "teaching" her. Mostly I just show her what to do. She is a natural. What I say to her goes right over her head but the things that I show her, like how to center, how to open, stick in her head like glue. She completely amazes me. She can't remember the terms but she really remembers how to do it. I avoid telling her too much and just let her see it and then do it.
It works amazingly well.
The Momster

For practice, yes.

For competition, no. Fencing is hardly the only sport who restricts athletes to age-groups for competitions.

But, then, its a pretty common theme for parents to complain about it.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by oso97

For practice, yes.

For competition, no. Fencing is hardly the only sport who restricts athletes to age-groups for competitions.

But, then, its a pretty common theme for parents to complain about it.

Actually it didn't affect my kids, one was already 13 when he started and the younger was allowed into local opens anyhow.

Back then everyone thought the rule applied to events like Sectionals, Div 3 and Div 2, etc.

Local meets where there are both men and women in the mix were allowed.
The first kewl trophy my daughter ever won was when she was 11 in the Nick Toth Open at the USAFA. She was the highest placing woman. She won a glass Falcon on a wood base. She took out a lot of Zoomies in the process.
Some kids are ready and need the stimulation of fencing older people with more experience. Not all of them are and if they are in a local meet, the people fencing them can just take it easy on them and consider it paying forward for the advancement of fencing.
There is nothing magical about turning 13.
Some kids are ready to start fencing older people very early on. If they aren't allowed they get frustrated and burn out. Everyone needs to be challenged.
HA
The Momster

[Allen Evans]

The problem with rules is that everyone is expected to obey them, even if you think they don't apply to you.

AE

[darius]

...even if they're bad rules.

LVS made something like top 16 at Pomme one year, and wasn't allowed to fence the next. While I'm against the mindset that we must push them HARD, NOW, I think there should be enough flexibility in the rules to accommodate those who are truly exceptions. (Jr points is too hard - Cdt points seems reasonable!)

Of course, such things would be fine as long as we had an extremely deep and broad youth circuit, but if opens are all your tiny division has, aspiring high-level fencers need to be accommodated.

darius

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

The problem with rules is that everyone is expected to obey them, even if you think they don't apply to you.

AE

These rules were from 7 years ago. Did the "no fencer under 13" rule in USFA sanctioned events even exist then?
Again, the people that ran local open meets, everywhere in the country, let younger kids in any open if they signed up for it.
Not that many kids did sign up for them but the fencers that did, usually did a good job.
Maybe the issue is not following the "rules" but using common sense when determining which meets a kid can enter.
I agree that cadet points should be enough to determine that a youth fencer can fence in opens. If they can get points in an under 17 category surely they can fence in local opens if not NAC events like Div 2 and Div 1.
Everyone is worried about pushy parents, I know they are out there. HOWEVER , most kids know where they stand and if given the choice they will make the correct one.(At least the second time)
The Momster

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Mo

Again, the people that ran local open meets, everywhere in the country, let younger kids in any open if they signed up for it.
Not that many kids did sign up for them but the fencers that did, usually did a good job.

In my previous Division, before this rule was strictly enforced, many young kids fenced in opens, the result of the coach in one large youth club taking his kids to every tournament. Again, not a lot of youth fencing in the area, and the argument was made that the interaction was good for the kids and they had no other opportunities to fence.

Most of the kids did NOT do a good job. There were many complaints to the Division Board from the adults having to fence very carefully to avoid hurting a 10 or 11 year old, and from parents who felt that the adult fencers should let the kids be "more successful" in bouts in order to give them confidence. Some kids were hurt (none seriously) and adults got frustrated.

Finally, the coach was quietly told to keep his kids out of Opens, and that he was putting his kids at risk. I'm sure the enforcement of the Y13 rule came as a sigh of relief for many people facing this problem in their Divisions.

There are exceptions to the rule -- like Becca Ward. But who gets to decide who the exceptions are? Who protects the kids who aren't ready from adults who think they are? Sweeping rules disadvantage those kids that are ready, as both you and Darius point out. But the vast majority of kids at my club aren't ready to fence adults in competition, even those that have been fencing a year or so.

I think this illustrates some of the problems the USFA leadership faces that no one appreciates. There is a tug-o-war on both sides of issues like this, with good arguments for each side. What seems to have happened in the past is that rules have been made. Then, quietly, exceptions have been granted. The exceptions are discovered and fingers are pointed. Much excitement and shouting.

Hopefully as we go forward, better rules can be made.


AE

[darius]

Hopefully as we go forward, better rules can be made.

That's it. I think the test of whether a rule is just is to look at the outliers -- if they're hampered by it, I'm not necessarily concerned with the majority. After all, isn't it my job to produce outliers?

Of course, I wouldn't push a kid into competition until I'm convinced that they'll be successful at it; by successful, I mean they won't get hurt physically or emotionally, and they'll come away with something (even if it's a bunch of bruises and a large dose of humility). Given that we have enough youth opportunities in Oregon, it's not the issue it was in Western NY, but I want to be really sensitive to the needs of the outliers -- after all, they're the Becca Wards of the future, right?

darius

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by darius

That's it. I think the test of whether a rule is just is to look at the outliers -- if they're hampered by it, I'm not necessarily concerned with the majority.

There's an inherent flaw in most of these rules, and you've pointed it out. Americans are very suspicous of anything that might smack of creating a class system of elite and non-elite members, yet this is what sport -- at the level we are talking about -- is the most concerned with. Look at the howling from people on this board about continuing to restrict access to Division I events. Even though most of the people who post on F.net can't even begin to fence at that level, they still feel that they should be allowed access to these events.

On occasion we (the collective "we") do attempt to create these class situations, but usually the problem is only pushed down one level, since, after creating it, then everyone decides that they -- or their child -- fits the discription of being "excellant" or "talented" or what ever the criteria is.

So perhaps we don't need better rules. Perhaps we need to continue to build fencing in the US to a level at which it becomes challenging for everyone, at all levels. That's going to take a lot longer, unfortunately, and there isn't a guarentee that it's going to happen at all.

AE

[darius]

I'm concerned with "social mobility" in those situations; does the barrier make sense? For Div 1 events, I used to believe that restricting it to Bs and above wasn't cool -- after all, I could win the odd DE in a Div 1 when I had a C, and upgrading your rating was impossible in Western NY, because you'd always have to go through Gabe Sinkin...to win the event and earn a C.

Now, however, the size of those events has become prohibitive, which limits our options; 100,000 sq ft of convention space is easier to find than 150,000. I like the idea of limiting Div 1s to people on the points list (+ top 64 jrs, + top 32 cadets) and people who earn their "tour card". Qualifying events could be regionalized and standardized similar to the SYCs (well, with more of them), with a top group earning a tour card for 2 seasons.

As far as the folks who don't like it -- well, they should be concentrating on the regional qualifiers. Like the SYCs, they could travel to other folks' qualifying events if they wanted. You don't hear golfers whining about not being able to play the PGA tour, because the qualifying tournaments are hard enough.

darius

[Allen Evans]

This is pretty similar to a the outlines of a plan I presented when the Tournament Task Force was looking for iimput. Most of the feed back I got from fencers was very negitive. They felt that they paid their dues to the USFA, and they should be able to fence at all the levels of competition, even though most of them were flying thousands of miles and not making it out of the pool, or losing their first DE.

The counter-argument always presented to me was there were few opportunities for some weapons (specifically, Women's Saber) to fence against fencers at this level. It's a good argument, but I wonder if it's the USFA's job to solve this problem? Or if there is another way to approach it rather than opening up Div I to everyone. Perhaps the Div IA circuit that's always been talked about, with Women's Saber being the first event offered.

I think the USFA is going to have to look at solving specific problems with specific, focused approaches, rather than simply treating all six weapons, and all levels of fencing the same.

AE

[MdA]

Originally Posted by darius

....
As far as the folks who don't like it -- well, they should be concentrating on the regional qualifiers. Like the SYCs, they could travel to other folks' qualifying events if they wanted. You don't hear golfers whining about not being able to play the PGA tour, because the qualifying tournaments are hard enough.
darius

I agree. This will also save travel costs for those concentrating on their regional qualifier.

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

....
The counter-argument always presented to me was there were few opportunities for some weapons (specifically, Women's Saber) to fence against fencers at this level. It's a good argument, but I wonder if it's the USFA's job to solve this problem?

I think the USFA is going to have to look at solving specific problems with specific, focused approaches, rather than simply treating all six weapons, and all levels of fencing the same.
AE

I don't think it is the USFA's job to solve this problem. It is the region or sections job to solve these problems. If your region/section is weak in a particular weapon, you should be able to travel to another regional. This was the idea when we set up the SYC/RYCs. The stronger your region ...the better. We develop USA fencing by developing the regions and the regions work up plans that are specialized for their region. If you need women's foil in your region...then your region works on a plan to promote and develop women's foil. USFA may help with grants and other support...but it should not be their top priority. USFA should be respsonsible for hosting the strongest national events possible.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I think the USFA is going to have to look at solving specific problems with specific, focused approaches, rather than simply treating all six weapons, and all levels of fencing the same.

AE

The National camps will help solve this problem and seem like such an excellent idea.
http://www.fencing.net/news/world/in...s-all-out.html
Seth and Cody are doing this for both women and men's epee. I am sure you have seen the thread.
There is such limited time for fencers to get most out of fencing. A camp would provide days worth of fencing not just some bouts.
My daughter attended a camp at Nellya a while back. She had the best time. She fenced everyone there on a daily basis, male and female.
She said they had so much going on that she felt it was a very good use of her time. Most of the camps she attends don't come close to the quality of that particular camp.
To make weapons really strong, top notch competition in a camp will go a long way.
It is not just the issue of competing but also a chance to fence many quality bouts without having to worry about winning.
The Momster

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Mo

To make weapons really strong, top notch competition in a camp will go a long way.

For the lucky 10-15 people who get to attend...

[Mo]

Originally Posted by oso97

For the lucky 10-15 people who get to attend...

Oso,
You are such a wet blanket.
There are a lot more than that top male and female fencers in each weapon. The camps would be for both genders. Ten or fifteen people would render the camp fairly useless. Try like 35-50.
Stop pooping on my ideas.
Collabortive effort works for almost everything as long as everyone is pitching in. That is the biggest hurdle.
The Momster

[Jason]

National camps have been a staple of training in top European fencing countries for years. Although they can be way over-done, I don't really think there's much risk of that in the US.

While such camps unfortunately can create serious political issues amongst coaches and administrators (which the US surely needs more of...), there's a definite training benefit to the fencers.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Jason

National camps have been a staple of training in top European fencing countries for years. Although they can be way over-done, I don't really think there's much risk of that in the US.

While such camps unfortunately can create serious political issues amongst coaches and administrators (which the US surely needs more of...), there's a definite training benefit to the fencers.

The cure for this??
Neutral ground, no particular coach in charge and the inmates running the asylum.
Fencers know what they need, even younger fencers. The top US fencers definitely know how to run a camp.
There are quite a few natural leaders in the USFA ranks. Let them have their way.

The Momster