What is it that makes us successful? (Moneyball of fencing)

[RITFencing]

This is a bit of a longwinded post, perhaps it belongs in my blog but I'd really like to encourage more discussion. For those of you who don't feel like delving through the whole thing, my question to coaches is "What do you feel is integral to a fencer's success in competition, and what do you do to develop those things in your fencers?"

Yesterday I fenced a local comp out near the area I grew up in. I didn't lose a single bout all day, even though I'm rusty and out of shape. I'm not starting this thread just the brag, though... reflecting on my day, I think I had good bladework, but not the best of the bunch. Good footwork, but not the best of the bunch. A good variety of actions, good distance, good speed just about everything "good," but not the best of anyone there by any means. On paper, I was certainly not the best fencer there.

So how is it that I won? I'm trying to isolate what I had that others didn't, so I can think of how to transfer that to my students. Here's what I think I did have:

1) Desire to win. I wanted it, and I wanted it bad. I wasn't there to goof around or make friends, I was there to win, I think more than anyone else present. I also kept this in mind in practice in the weeks beforehand, doing footwork, hitting a target, asking other coaches to look at me and see what they could see, I kept it in mind while warming up and preparing for the competition, and I kept it in mind between bouts. In short, I was very focused not only while on the strip, but in things leading up to the strip.

2) Size and strength. I was the tallest person there, but only by 2 inches at most, and when my opponents posted with french grips (the last 2 DEs) that advantage mostly disappeared. I was also MUCH stronger physically than most of the competitors, and I defintiely used that to my advantage. Unfortunately, while strength can be developed in fencers, every person has a limit, overtraining for muscle mass can be detrimental and there's not much to be done about developing height. I can teach tall epeeists to exploit it, but I can't stretch people out.

3) Experience. I could probably break this up into several things, but here goes. There were a few other people who have been fencing about as long or longer than I have, and having the experience and introspection to recognize what I need and really understand what was going on, beyond "use action X to beat action Y" seems to really help, as well as the ability to deal with nerves (at one point I was down 14-12 in a DE; not insurmountable but hardly a place anyone wants to be in.) I also knew when to hold on to a key action I knew I could score on once or twice until a crucial moment, rather than just let it go at 3-4. Conversely, in the final, my much less experienced opponent let a double happen that was nearly mmine occur in priority, and then after we began fencing again, did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Once I saw it coming again, getting that single was child's play. Haveing the knowledge of the game and how the blades work also allowed me, a few times, to do some unorthodox things that I would normally have been scared to try. I also had a very good idea of where I was in terms of fencing ability, and what i was good at, and I was able to use that to great effect against much more technically proficient and fast fencers.

4) Meanness. This sort of fits in with desire to win; I wasn't malicious, but I wasn't nice on the strip either. I screamed and yelled to psyche myself up in between touches while coming from behind, I was willing to get one touch up against passive defenders and counter attackers and then stand around in my warning area and wait, I was willing to make many, many destructive parries and beats against physically weaker fencers who held french grips by their pommels, I was not afraid of causing corps a corps with a smaller fencer, I was unafraid to deal with the ref when I thought they were making mistakes, and I had no problem taking a bit of extra time to straighten my blade when I needed a minute. I did not cheat (I do not consider winning by cheating to be winning; to me there's not much difference between that and buying a gold medal from a trophy shop) or intentionally break rules, nor was I deliberately hurtful, but winning was priority one, and I was unafraid to use everything at my disposal to do so. Come to think of it, being an experienced competitor helps out there, too.

That's about all I can come up with that really set me apart from the rest of the field. It's very interesting to me not be the fastest, the best technician, the most physically fit, etc, fencer in the competition, and still come out on top.

Perhaps it was strategy. I can't call it tactics, because tactically, I didn't have a very complex game, and many of my touches were actions of opportunity with a rather open ended plan. I could definitely do more to develop my ability to create a plan and carry it out. I use the term strategy to imply more of an overall plan, not something for specific touches. I think, in retrospect, that I was able to identify specific areas where I had an advantage over an opponent, and exploit those advantages during each bout.

As stated before, I'm curious what other coaches and fencers have found to be really important to winning in competition? I'm not talking necessarily about having a perfect lunge, or knowing a specific counter action to every action (though these can be great things in and of themselves.)

To abstract this further, I often see (especially in epee) a young, athletic fencer with very nice technique and sensible ideas lose to an older, slower fencer. I think this really demonstrates how deep the game goes. To see this illustrated, watch the difference between a cadet men's epee NAC and a division 1 men's epee NAC. While there are some young turks who do very well in div 1, the younger ones seem split between fencers who like to wait for the opponent, and fencers who like to charge the opponent. Not right off the line, but neither one pays attention to the set up of each touch nearly as much as the big boys. Either go get em, or let em come. Who cares when?

I'm starting to ramble a bit, so I'll just leave it here. If anyone else has ideas or observations, or anything to add to or disagree with in my post, I'd really love to hear it.

[Allen Evans]

Didn't Paul Soter say that the reason he found épée interesting is because the best fencer didn't always win?

AE

[epeelion]

Varies a ton from person to person. For me, for instance, I have to psych myself down a bit before tournaments. Dwight Smith, on the other hand, thrives on anger and overflow of emotions.

I also fence way less in the week preceding a tournament. I CANNOT go into a tournament burned out or tired of fencing. I have to be looking forward to it.

The physical and technical preparation is more uniform, I think. But tournament management and psychological preparation are as, if not more important, and these have to be personalized from fencer to fencer.

[keith]

Didn't Paul Soter say that the reason he found épée interesting is because the best fencer didn't always win?

AE

I think the guys who bet on Goliath muttered something similar.

The other variable people tend to ignore is that if there are 64 competitors you only have to win 6 bouts to win the competition. Good (or bad) matchups in the DEs can account for a lot.

or

Even if half of the entrants could kick your saggy butt from one end of the strip to the other it is still possible to win.

[RITFencing]

Didn't Paul Soter say that the reason he found épée interesting is because the best fencer didn't always win?

AE

Yes, he did.

I'm wondering, though... if the better fencer lost, were they really the better fencer?

That's why I made an allusion to moneyball in the title; for anyone who never heard of it, it's a book that came out a while ago explaining why teams with worse numbers for things like batting averages end up doing much better; finding out that things like on base percentages could be even more important. I'm wondering if the fencer we perceive as "worse" isn't actually better at things we don't easily see.

[Goldgar]

One thing that I've noticed that makes a difference, which is one of the benefits of experience, is just being comfortable with the situation -- whatever the situation is. If I'm up, if I'm down, if my opponent is aggressively attacking or passive, if he's technically skilled or wild and crazy ... it's all okay, I know how to fence in this situation.

Being comfortable like that keeps me from trying so hard I screw up. I think that air even communicates itself to the opponent, making them less likely to try things that *might* work, because they think they *won't* work.

How do we coach fencers for this, since it is so much derived from experience? One way is through model bouting: setting up artificial situations and letting fencers deal with them, over and over. "You're two touches down with 20 seconds left in the bout" ... that sort of thing. I imagine most coaches do this.

Also we can become model opponents, though it's not as easy as it sounds. Certainly I can't turn myself into a 6'7" left-handed, pommelling, speed demon. But I can look around the club for fencers that fall into various categories, and do a little match-making. On a larger scale, one could look at the pool of fencers in the whole region, and suggest that one's student actively seek out fencers whom it would be good experience to fence (either by visiting their home club or by attending competitions they're likely to be at). I must admit, though, that I haven't yet done that sort of matchmaking.

[RITFencing]

I should also qualify some of my statements... I didn't have the best technique or anything there, but that doesn't mean that my technique was BAD. I was still more mobile than most, had better bladework than most, and had better tactics than most. I'm wondering how a fencer who should have been in about the 80th percentile ended up winning. I don't think this is an isolated incident, and I'm not willing to chalk it up to epee being random. I wonder these days about how random epee really is, and how much can be attributed to things that can be trained but are overlooked by many coaches.

Another way to put it is the difference between knowing how to fence and knowing how to win. Yesterday, I knew how to win better than other people who knew how to fence better than me. That's a quality I want to be able to pass on to my students.

[RITFencing]

One thing that I've noticed that makes a difference, which is one of the benefits of experience, is just being comfortable with the situation -- whatever the situation is. If I'm up, if I'm down, if my opponent is aggressively attacking or passive, if he's technically skilled or wild and crazy ... it's all okay, I know how to fence in this situation.

Excellent point; even though I was nervous for my last 3 DEs (15-14, 15-14, 12-11) I was able to recognize and deal with the situation and overcome my fear better than someone who has not already been in those situations many, many times.

[jBirch]

How were your "fencing eyes"?

I've seen two significant factors in more experienced competitors (especially coaches):

1) You can see the patterns developing before the other fencer does. This gives you a much better ability to exploit the openings when they arise.

2) You understand how important controlling the bout is.

This is usually overcome by simple skill and greater athletics in the "better fencers". But if it's close, then the experience advantage really outshines.

BTW, I'm sure simple luck plays a part. If you won 14-15 after being down 14-12, then you got lucky at least once or twice. A crucial touch, even a lucky one, can make a world of difference if it's gotten at just the right time.

But congrats anyways!

James.

[oiuyt]

I'm wondering how a fencer who should have been in about the 80th percentile ended up winning.

my last 3 DEs (15-14, 15-14, 12-11)

How big was the event? In a 20-person event you were 1 touch from an 80th percentile finish (assuming that going undefeated in pools was sufficient for a seed that would place 5th had you lost the L8 bout).

It's not random, but there's a significant chaos factor. Very small changes can have a large impact.

-B

[remistress]

As the OP knows I am neither a coach nor an epeeist, but I'll give this a go. I think one often overlooked quality in high level fencers is what I'll call intuition. To some extent fencing seems like a betting game: I'll bet that the fencer will do X, or even, if I do Y it will make the fencer do X. As you become more experienced your predictions of these scenarios becomes more accurate and if proven wrong you have the ingrained ability to change your plan mid-stream. I think experience also plays a huge part: knowing what your strengths and weaknesses are...and even more importantly what to DO about them, knowing which hills to die on when dealing with referees, and knowing what it feels like when your nerves are having an adverse effect on your fencing and what to do to change that.


I think it'd be interesting to see if it's possible to have new somewhat inexperienced fencers watch a bout and see if they can see who is doing what to whom. I think that like refereeing, people's eyes might be able to be trained to see these things happening. The next step would be to see if they can identify these things while bouting/taking lessons. I also think there is merit in not only telling people they are good at certain actions...but why they are good actions in those specific circumstances.

My .02

[epeelion]

If you won 14-15 after being down 14-12, then you got lucky at least once or twice.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

[darius]

I'm wondering if the fencer we perceive as "worse" isn't actually better at things we don't easily see.

...which is why characterizing a fencer as "worse" or "better" is somewhat meaningless, in my mind, except when you need a really broad tool.

You could look at a fencer as a series of skills, all of which are modified by physical and emotional traits. As a coach, you want your student to exploit matchups which favor them, and either steer the opponent away from their strengths or facilitate those strengths and then take them away.

So in a case where you don't have one glaring weakness (80th percentile in each category), doesn't that make you a good candidate to win? Because if somebody has a superior matchup in one category (speed or technique -- but even this is broad, you could break it down to specific actions), and you have the ability to recognize that and create situations where the touch is determined by another attribute that favors you, that seems like a winning formula.

darius

[telkanuru]

I've always interpreted Paul's saying to mean that the more technically proficient fencer doesn't always win. While this is true of the other weapons, IMO in epee you can get much farther on a basic, primal drive.

[jBirch]

I don't think this is necessarily true.

What I mean here is that there is a "moment" when the bout turns around for the losing fencer in a case like this. A lucky touch or a careless mistake on the opponent's side or the fortunate chance that the opponent "gacks" when they're about to win or an injury or something.

In epee at least, at 12-14 it's the leading fencer's game to lose rather then the trailing fencer's game to win. If the trailing fencer does win, it's not usually anything they've done per se, but rather something that happens in the other fencer.

So, RIT's actions have really no bearing on the outcome at that stage and it's meaningless to analyse what "worked" at that point from a coaching perspective.

He got lucky and didn't fritter the opportunity away.

James.

[Jason]

So, RIT's actions have really no bearing on the outcome at that stage and it's meaningless to analyse what "worked" at that point from a coaching perspective.

Fabulously incorrect.

[Dev]

So, RIT's actions have really no bearing on the outcome at that stage and it's meaningless to analyse what "worked" at that point from a coaching perspective.

I think the only way you could possibly say this with a straight face is if RIT stood motionless at the guard line at the command "fence", and his opponent helpfully walked onto his point. On three consecutive actions.

[catwood1]

I think the only way you could possibly say this with a straight face is if RIT stood motionless at the guard line at the command "fence", and his opponent helpfully walked onto his point. On three consecutive actions.

Or if RIT stood there and the opposing fencer literally turned and ran away 4 times in a row!


(Not that far from what sounds like best choice if facing RIT with a sword in his hand... )

[jBirch]

Fabulously incorrect.

I disagree.

James.

[Hauptman]

Epee, to me, is a game of precision; he who makes mistakes loses.

Speaking as the "older, slower" fencer, the key for me in epee is how many mistakes will my opponent make. With experience comes the ability to see opportunities, and to create opportunities. In an old bit of research I remember a comparison of young and old typists in which there didn't seem to be a diminishing of speed with increased age. The key was that the older typists were able to read much farther ahead on the page and so had fewer pauses and hesitations in their typing.

In addition, there is the piece of mind, the focus, the confidence that only experience can bring. I don't rattle easily, or get stage fright, performance anxiety, or whatever you want to call it. Without a doubt that was different when I was younger. It is often very easy to throw a younger fencer off their game, especially when they think you shouldn't be a challenge as an older, out of shape, fencer.

Finally, there is the depth of your game. I can attack, I can counter, I can mess with their distance, I can use every action in the book at the most opportune moment (sometimes completely instinctually). But I'll never overpower them. If they don't make any mistakes, and I can't knock them off their game, I won't have a chance.

Now how do you coach for these things? Damn good question. I've tried to help friends and fellow fencers improve their game for years, as well as watched coaches do the same. The only thing I can say for sure is that every person is different. They will get it (or not) in their own time, often with no apparent rhyme or reason.