Foil still a standard?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

So you would suggest that a fencer get poor (or even harmful) lessons in a weapon they like (from a coach not very skilled in teaching that weapon) rather than useful lessons in a weapon they might not have initially come to club to fence? Even if those lessonsl allow them to transition quickly to their weapon of choice later?

Should I warm up my Latin?

( Ask yourself whether those are really the only choices. )

investing in a year of bad lessons to get instruction in a weapon you enjoy is going to ultimately cost two or three years later down the road to unlearn all those bad habits picked up during the formative years of training.

Is that somehow worse than getting good lessons in a weapon you hate, and building in habits that it will take you years to unlearn once you do get to switch to the weapon you really wanted to do?

Not to mention wasting the instructors two or three years

A-HA! Now the real motive comes out!

But seriously...aren't the instructors being paid for their time? By the very students who are not being allowed to choose how they spend the time for which they are paying?

[Allen Evans]

I'll answer this:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

( Ask yourself whether those are really the only choices. )

With this:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Now, if you are the sole coach, and you absolutely cannot teach anything but foil, and you tell your students quite clearly that you will only be doing foil, they can make an informed decision.

Which is pretty much what I was getting at.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Is that somehow worse than getting good lessons in a weapon you hate, and building in habits that it will take you years to unlearn once you do get to switch to the weapon you really wanted to do?

Whoops! I'll answer your latin with my mathematics. Suddenly you've put a bunch of boundry conditions on the problem that didn't exist before. I thought we were talking about people who want to take a beginning class in fencing. If you're going to change the problem to one of a fencer (or group of fencers) who suddenly arrive at a club or class already hating a weapon they've never fenced, well, of course they shouldn't be started in that weapon.

I would still argue however, that if the fencing skills are properly built in any of the weapons during the first year, they are pretty transferable between the weapons, and no long term damage is done. Of course, we can find examples that would prove or disprove this statement galore so this may be a point we can't agree on.

However, I would further argue that if skills are poorly taught during the first year of training, they can take a very long time to untrain, even if the student remains in the same weapon but switches to a better coach. I actually see this with saber quite often. Again, anecdotal (and sometimes painful) evidence on my part.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But seriously...aren't the instructors being paid for their time? By the very students who are not being allowed to choose how they spend the time for which they are paying?

Coaches are not only being paid for their time but, also, one would hope, being paid for their professional judgement and ethics. I know that often you've painted coaches as mercenary no-nothings, but I always hoped that you were joking. This statement might imply your belief that a coach has no obligation but to take a student's money and give a lesson, even in a weapon he or she might not be qualified in, simply because a student wants instruction in that particular weapon.

I think somewhere in your postings you've mentally jumped tracks from what a coach can teach to what a coach wants to teach, and interpreted my post much differently than it was intended.

[Allen Evans]

...and I'll add another point there...I believe my points are valid no matter WHAT weapon the class starts with, including staring the class in saber.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

what I was getting at.

With that specific and limited case I have no quarrel. There is nothing else that can be done.

I thought we were talking about people who want to take a beginning class in fencing.

Well, let it be so: Again, unless the coach can only teach foil, why default to foil?

If you're going to change the problem to one of a fencer (or group of fencers) who suddenly arrive at a club or class already hating a weapon they've never fenced, well, of course they shouldn't be started in that weapon.

I was thinking more along the lines of knowing which weapon they want to do. I think that they should in this case...be allowed to start in the weapon they want to do. I don't think that lessons in a different weapon will ever be very "useful" to such a student.

I would still argue however, that if the fencing skills are properly built in any of the weapons during the first year, they are pretty transferable between the weapons, and no long term damage is done.

The basic skills, yes, as I have said. But I believe these to be only those which do NOT require the use of a weapon: footwork, distance, timing, etc. Once you begin teaching parries and attacks and the like, you have entered the realm of specialization, IMO. I know sabre fencers who STILL react to the unexpected with attempts at foil parries, relics of their early foil training, for example.

Coaches are not only being paid for their time but, also, one would hope, being paid for their professional judgement and ethics.

Sure. But that doesn't trump the wishes of a paying customer who knows what he wants, does it?

I also find it suspicious that the professional judgement of SO many coaches runs to---surprise!---foil first, despite a lack of any evidence that it produces anything but better foilists...

I know that often you've painted coaches as mercenary no-nothings, but I always hoped that you were joking.

Have I?

I see them as an odd mix of businessman and devotee. But if they are charging for lessons, I think that the customer must have rights, no? The business aspect predominates in that regard, to me. That's not a negative value judgement; I certainly have nothing against businessmen. Quite the contrary, in fact...

This statement might imply your belief that a coach has no obligation but to take a student's money and give a lesson, even in a weapon he or she might not be qualified in, simply because a student wants instruction in that particular weapon.

That's the basic obligation, as I see it, yes. What else should it be?

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I also find it suspicious that the professional judgment of SO many coaches runs to---surprise!---foil first, despite a lack of any evidence that it produces anything but better foilists.

I suspect that teaching foil first occurs because so many coaches are the most comfortable in foil. So, no surprise, it's a self-perpetuating system. All the confusion over saber ROW and methods in the last few years hasn't helped make coaches who teach saber as a second or third weapon all that comfortable with their skills, either. But I may be spitballing here.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That's the basic obligation, as I see it, yes. What else should it be?

I think it's only a small part of the basic obligation of a coach. I think another part of that obligation is not to teach outside of his or her area of competence. If you don't know (saber, foil, epee) should you really be teaching it because someone really wants to "learn it"?

I know your angle is that there should be more saber fencers and more saber fencing, and you see the "Foil First" camp as defeating that at every turn. I certainly agree with you: I think it's silly to start someone in foil simply because that's what the "norm" is.

But I'm not sure I want a lot of coaches suddenly starting saber classes with a weapon in one hand and an open book in the other as they stay a chapter ahead*. We've all fenced the students of those coaches, and I've rarely enjoyed the experience.

AE

*Keeping in mind that this imaginary book might date from the 70's or 60's.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

All the confusion over saber ROW and methods in the last few years hasn't helped make coaches who teach saber as a second or third weapon all that comfortable with their skills, either.

Heh, sabre ROW seems to me to be clearer than foil ROW these days. There's a definite beginning, a definite end, and a way to lose it during an attack. None of those seem to be the case in foil...

Not that any of this really matters with beginners, of course. Just getting them to move correctly and understand proper form and distance is a lot more relevant, at least until they start to compete, IMO.

I think it's only a small part of the basic obligation of a coach. I think another part of that obligation is not to teach outside of his or her area of competence. If you don't know (saber, foil, epee) should you really be teaching it because someone really wants to "learn it"?

Sure. And as I said, I buy that in the limited cases of coaches who really can only teach a certain weapon. If the student knows this going in, he can make an informed decision. If he continues, he knows what he's going to get. I just have a problem with "You can switch to sabre later on if you want, but everyone has to have 6 months or a year of foil first". In this case, the coach is really saying that he CAN teach other weapons, but won't. Which if it were me would quite put me off.

I know your angle is that there should be more saber fencers and more saber fencing, and you see the "Foil First" camp as defeating that at every turn.

That's part of it. But in a wider sense, it's a philosophical aversion to being made to do something because "it's for your own good". Rather the way everyone is up in arms over the "Play and Stay" thing---people like to have choices. I have seen novices started out in sabre who would have been happier in foil or epee, and I take the same view about that...

Which doesn't stop me from teasing them when they switch over later, of course.

*Keeping in mind that this imaginary book might date from the 70's or 60's.

As opposed to that old Alaux foil book.

Happily, there IS a new book on sabre out, by Ed Korfanty's coach. I was not quite able to persuade myself to shell out $30 for it at Nationals, but it will show up on Alibris or ABEBooks before I am too old to get any use from it, I hope!

[darius]

I just have a problem with "You can switch to sabre later on if you want, but everyone has to have 6 months or a year of foil first". In this case, the coach is really saying that he CAN teach other weapons, but won't. Which if it were me would quite put me off.

Fortunately that's just you. For people who don't really know any better, it's probably OK. None of the folks who started in college at the U of R really seemed to have any problems transitioning from foil to other weapons.

Some of them came in with a solid idea of what they wanted, but they were adult enough to understand the reality of a 50:1 student to coach ratio. Once we weeded out the non-serious people (around mid-November), it was easy enough to customize the experience. However, I'd say that a few people who absolutely, positively, *NEEDED* to do sabre, after experiencing what it was, ended up in epee. It could be there's benefit in exploring all weapons!

darius

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

.....
.... I know that often you've painted coaches as mercenary no-nothings, but I always hoped that you were joking. This statement might imply your belief that a coach has no obligation but to take a student's money and give a lesson, even in a weapon he or she might not be qualified in, simply because a student wants instruction in that particular weapon.
.....

Pirates

[cplmontana]

We have a solid saber and foil coach. Our foil coach is also comfortable teaching epee, and the rest of us senior members know enough to teach epee. So, that isn't so much of a problem.

Let me spin another idea to you guys. New fencers come in, we briefly explain the three weapons and the basic tactics of each. They go with whatever weapon sounds most fun and if they decide it's not for them, they switch. No problem.

That seems to take everyone's opinion into consideration.

Thanks so much for all your input.

[Allen Evans]

Something a few clubs have experimented with is a short program of "Intro to Fencing" that last for four weeks, and then allowed the students to chose the weapon they want to train in after having been around fencing for a few weeks.

AE

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by darius

Fortunately that's just you. For people who don't really know any better, it's probably OK.

Yes.

Although if there's one person who goes into fencing already knowing which weapon he wants to do, there are almost certainly others.

And I know that there are people who have come into our club, promptly gotten shunted into foil ( surprise ), and after watching sabre for a few sessions decide that they dislike foil and really want to try sabre---but in some cases are forced to keep doing foil and forbidden to do sabre. Some of these have actually left the club in order to try sabre, and it's caused some bad feelings. Bad feelings, especially when avoidable, are IMO Bad Things for a club to have around.

a few people who absolutely, positively, *NEEDED* to do sabre, after experiencing what it was, ended up in epee.

That happens, too. But there's no accounting for the results of mental illness.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And I know that there are people who have come into our club, promptly gotten shunted into foil ( surprise ), and after watching sabre for a few sessions decide that they dislike foil and really want to try sabre---but in some cases are forced to keep doing foil and forbidden to do sabre. ....(snip).....That happens, too. But there's no accounting for the results of mental illness.

Or, it would appear, for coaches/clubs with a bad business model.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by cplmontana

We have a solid saber and foil coach. Our foil coach is also comfortable teaching epee, and the rest of us senior members know enough to teach epee. So, that isn't so much of a problem.
Let me spin another idea to you guys. New fencers come in, we briefly explain the three weapons and the basic tactics of each. They go with whatever weapon sounds most fun and if they decide it's not for them, they switch. No problem.
That seems to take everyone's opinion into consideration.
…………….

This is what we did with the freshman walk-ons, when I was at the USAF Academy…and we had a much more captive audience…..hehehehehe! We started with about 60-75 walk-ons each year and would cut to 20-30. The difference is that we were actually holding tryouts for a competitive NCAA collegiate fencing team rather than teaching an elective college fencing class…or club. The main incentive was that until they got cut, they got to sit at the athletic training tables in the dining hall instead of with their squadrons.

We put all the fencers in one big class for the first Semester (Sept – November) months….conducted grueling footwork sessions and exercises common to all three weapons….lotsa running, hiking in the mountains, and cross-training in other sports like soccer, volleyball, team handball, flag football…and a weird thing called flicker-ball (cross between basketball and football)…weightlifting, coordination exercises….and some basic foil skills ( I know it’s the foil thing again)....but this was more a matter of available equipment for foil...I think we even experimented a little with the other weapons. They also helped set up for fencing competitions and were required to watch the competitions (help with scoring) and also observe varsity practices.

Just after they started fencing dry foil bouts….the coaches separated the goats from the sheep* (insert appropriate weapon according to taste). Basically, it was like a draft…each weapon coach would pull for the fencers with the qualities they were looking for….Head Coach got the final word.

When we came back for the second semester, they started their assigned weapons. We took input from the fencers…like if there was a legacy who’s Dad had fenced saber…and occasionally we would let someone switch if they were extremely unhappy with their assigned weapon. But, after the first year….they were locked into one weapon. It just wasn’t worth the time and effort to retrain a sophomore (thirdclassman).

This is not a good example of freedom of choice….but it worked.

*Matthew Chapter 25 Vers 33

[Hauptman]

I would like to pose the question of weapon relationships: while I consider saber to be technically very different from foil and epee, I find the technique of foil and epee to be very compatible. Is this a valid comparison?

Personally, I have found foil lessons and experience helpful in my epee fencing. It gives me a larger repertoire of actions and forces me to use them in differing contexts. However my experience in saber felt extremely alien from foil in terms of technique.

My feeling is that the main difference in success with foil versus epee is tactical and not technical. My personal preference for counter action, and enjoyment of PiL and absence of the blade, led me to be much happier and successful fencing epee.

So could a beginning foil class be useful for both potential foil AND epee fencers without sacrificing any long term options for the epee fencers?

[cplmontana]

Thanks MdA...that's what I was looking to hear. We'll probably run something similar, if not quite so stringent--getting them into weapons earlier, letting them change if they really want to... We have a tournament planned about two weeks into the semester, so it would be good exposure for them to see all the weapons in their natural habitat. (cue Steve Irwin voice--RIP)

I think our "weed out" process will be a little more natural. People try it and decide fencing isn't their sport.

Hauptman--I see where you're coming from. Although my experience has been that epee and sabre are similar in that you should use your feet to avoid the attack altogether. Whereas in foil, you can rely somewhat on parries to save yourself from the touch. Maybe this is totally in error, these are just my thoughts...I fence sabre and epee, so maybe my brain is trying to make sense of the mess.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by cplmontana

Although my experience has been that epee and sabre are similar in that you should use your feet to avoid the attack altogether. Whereas in foil, you can rely somewhat on parries to save yourself from the touch.

I'm simply horrified.

[MdA]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I would like to pose the question of weapon relationships: while I consider saber to be technically very different from foil and epee, I find the technique of foil and epee to be very compatible. Is this a valid comparison?
........
So could a beginning foil class be useful for both potential foil AND epee fencers without sacrificing any long term options for the epee fencers?

Yes and yes. I coached in clubs that start beginners in foil and in epee. I have never started beginners in sabre, so I have limited experience in this area.

Foil and epee are both point weapons, so the mechanics of the thrust are the same. The mechanics of the cut in sabre is very different.

IMO if a beginner tries to learn both at the same time, they will not develop enough expertise in either the thrust or the cut.

[cplmontana]

I'm sorry Jason, I think my ignorance is showing.

I've been taught that in sabre and epee parries can work; however, there is just so much target to protect, it's sometimes better to just be out of distance. That almost always avoids the touch. Parry when you're in your opponents distance and are looking for the riposte. Force them to miss by using your footwork, then aim for the counterattack. These are the weapons I focus on.

In foil, the same theory applies. But, with the smaller target area in foil, parries can be more effective.

Obviously, there is no hard and fast rule...

I don't know. I'm probably completely backwards. If this is the case, please let me know. I'm all about the learning.

[thekoby]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Something a few clubs have experimented with is a short program of "Intro to Fencing" that last for four weeks, and then allowed the students to chose the weapon they want to train in after having been around fencing for a few weeks.

AE

I'm a little behind on posting this, but Allen, could you PM me with a general outline of how these 4-week Intro to Fencing would work? I'm trying to increase membership at my club and over the past years I've noticed that many people are dropping out early because they want to do sabre right away, or jump on the strip and start fighting. They don't want to do footwork drills every night or run parry drills once a week. Perhaps what my club needs is a revamp of our methods. I would appreciate some help on this from anybody with experience.

[cplmontana]

Ditto what thekoby says.