Foil still a standard?

[cplmontana]

Hi,

I'm a member of a college fencing club in Montana. In the past it has always been "Semester of foil, move onto other weapons if you want to at the end of the semester". However, lately the opinion of "Start with whatever weapon you want, right off the bat" has been brought up in meetings. The club is kind of divided on this.

So, my questions are these. What is the standard anymore? Are people still using foil as a starter weapon? Or have they become so specialized that it's best to begin with the weapon you want to fence?

Any feedback or thoughts are helpful.

Thanks,
cplmontana

[Bryn Ralph]

At this juncture in fencing (American), fuzzy logic now demands that it no longer matters which weapon one commences instruction.

I am a believer that the classical manner of instruction (Italian) is in the following order: foil, epee, sabre. The European logic is sensible: learning the basics of fencing with the foil first. If one follows fuzzy logic, then anyone can commence epee instruction with no fundamental understanding of the various parries learned during foil instruction. And sabre instruction without the foil basics becomes problematic.

Americans, being fiercely independent, choose and pick --the WalMart approach-- without investigating the history of fencing, especially from the Renaissance period. The current cultural trends tend to blind the potential student from the reality of swordsmanship and the associative and colourful historical developments.

My instructor earned his maestro di scherma certification in Rome during WWII after having received his instruction in America; thus, his influence on my fencing training was rigorous and quite demanding. And I bring his influence into my classes here in Texas -- always mindful of any new pedagogical and/or technological advances as related to swordsmanship. Obviously, I do not apply the same rigours and demands that my instructor and friend applied in fencing; I would lose my students to other forms of martial arts.

So there it is. Pursue fuzzy logic -- or classical thought -- in terms of fencing instruction;however, the consequences of one's choice is inevitable.

As a caveat, pursue the manner of instruction that will ultimately take your students towards life-long training in fencing. [I am mere singular voice in the wildness of fencing.] My students would tell you that I am pre-Jurrasic in the field of swordsmanship -- but I have affection for each and everyone -- and they have discovered that even old dinosaurs have teeth. Grin.

[Inquartata]

I have been taking a sort of informal poll of top US men's sabre fencers, whenever I have the chance at NACs.

So far, the top fencers have overwhelmingly reported that they started in sabre. I think only three or four went the "foil first" route ( and one of those was forced and hated it ). Another learned sabre first, but from a foilist. I'm not sure how to count that one.

So it begins to look like, empirically, there is no advantage, in terms of success, to the "foil first" method. It would be interesting to see if the same holds true for women's sabre, in which the US has had such success. Does anyone know which route Ward, Zagunis, the Jacobson sisters, Wozniak and the other top ladies have taken?

Anyway, I take Campbell's view: "Follow your bliss" and doors will open to you. Life is too short to waste any of it on a sporting activity you don't enjoy just because some old European---who probably just accepted it blindly himself, because it's what HE had to do---thinks it's better. I can't think of any general fencing skill that is easier learned with a foil in your hand than with an epee or a sabre instead. But you CAN learn a lot of stuff doing foil that you'll have to UNlearn if you later decide to switch to one of the other weapons. ( And by "learn", I mean make so habitual that unlearning them may give you a good deal of trouble. )

[Zilverzmurfen]

The European logic is sensible: learning the basics of fencing with the foil first.

This is not at all standard "European logic". It entirely depends on what country, or even what area of that country, you live in.

[Allen Evans]

Decisions about which weapons to begin training in should be made more on the basis of available coaching, opportunities for competition, and club resources than any American myths about what the Europeans do.

[cplmontana]

I have been taking a sort of informal poll of top US men's sabre fencers, whenever I have the chance at NACs.

I can't think of any general fencing skill that is easier learned with a foil in your hand than with an epee or a sabre instead. But you CAN learn a lot of stuff doing foil that you'll have to UNlearn if you later decide to switch to one of the other weapons. ( And by "learn", I mean make so habitual that unlearning them may give you a good deal of trouble. )

If you hear from more top fencers, I'd love to hear the results.

And those are my thoughts as well. And the people who are against it the most are the people who have been doing it for about two semesters...our most senior members think it's a great idea. I guess you're right about "what you've been taught can really stick in your brain as right."

[MHS Fencer]

The usefulness of teaching only one weapon first is that if you have a separate beginners program, then everybody's at the same level, and depending on the size of the class one or two people can teach it. If everybody starts out in their desired weapon, then it uses up more coaching resources. Of course, if the club's geared more toward one-on-one instruction and has the ability to teach all 3 weapons, then it's probably preferable to do whichever weapon you want, but most clubs aren't blessed with such plentiful resources.

[MdA]

The usefulness of teaching only one weapon first is that if you have a separate beginners program, then everybody's at the same level, and depending on the size of the class one or two people can teach it. If everybody starts out in their desired weapon, then it uses up more coaching resources. Of course, if the club's geared more toward one-on-one instruction and has the ability to teach all 3 weapons, then it's probably preferable to do whichever weapon you want, but most clubs aren't blessed with such plentiful resources.

This is exactly the point. Do you have a coach for each weapon...or are you doing it all yourself?

[MdA]

If you are one coach, trying to teach all three weapons, you get into the “Jack of all trades, Master of none” syndrome. If you are trying to support all three weapons in your club, it is difficult for the coach to specialize (even in their best weapon) and take their fencers to a high level.

The other common problem is that you assign one of the weapons to a less qualified coach

[cplmontana]

The way we run it is: senior members instruct the newer fencers--and it's not just university members. Members of the community assist as well. So, right now, we've got a B saberist teaching saber, and a former B foilist with 16 years of experience teaching foil. And epee just kind of falls together.

So, the thoughts I'm getting are: it's best to focus on one weapon if you have the resources. If not, starting and focusing on one are fine. Is that mostly correct?

[Inquartata]

But see, that putting "coaching resources" before what the students want. This IMO is the wrong priority...

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. But this is seldom the case. More often, the coach just wants to teach everyone foil...at least for a while. And that desire usually traces back to "because that's how I learned", or "because that's just how it's done".

If the coach is able to teach epee and/or sabre "later on", he's able to teach it from the outset. If not, that's another situation altogether.

I can see MHS's class argument. Then the only question becomes "Why is it ALWAYS foil for classes?"

[thekoby]

If you are one coach, trying to teach all three weapons, you get into the “Jack of all trades, Master of none” syndrome. If you are trying to support all three weapons in your club, it is difficult for the coach to specialize (even in their best weapon) and take their fencers to a high level.

The other common problem is that you assign one of the weapons to a less qualified coach

This is exactly the point. Do you have a coach for each weapon...or are you doing it all yourself?

MdA nailed my problem right on the head. I have someone who can teach sabre, however, they aren't doing a very good job in my opinion. My college club starts with foil first, then let's the student choose which weapon they would like to learn fully. I do, however, restrict students. Once they have chosen a weapon (foil, epee, or sabre) they must complete 3 semesters worth of lessons both from the instructor of the weapon (in most cases, me) and through private lessons (either me again or through another club nearby).

I have no advice as to what should be done first or how you do it. In a few of the books I've read they tell you to do progressive learning; Foil, then Epee, then Sabre. If I had the skilled instructors available at my club, I would probably allow new students to pick what weapon they wanted to learn and start them with that, rather than foil.

[RITFencing]

All other things being equal, I would say that sabre is, IMHO, generally the best weapon to start someone in if you had to pick one of the three for everyone that walks in your door.

Sabre is the easiest weapon to put a light on with, can function with a minimum of fine motor control skills, has the most simplistic tactics (especially for beginners) and is always exciting.

That being said, a fencer can become good no matter what weapon they start in. What matters more is that a good foundation is laid down, not only technically and tactically, but also with the student's attitude, expectations, work ethic and enjoyment. Furthermore, very few clubs actually have all things being equal between all weapons.

[cplmontana]

The ideal situation for us would be: new students come in, get a week or so of each weapon, and then pick from there which weapon they want to follow up on. If they want to do two or three, that's fine. But I see them picking one or two to focus on.

So, what I'm wondering: how does this sound? Is this a recipe for disaster?

[MdA]

The ideal situation for us would be: new students come in, get a week or so of each weapon, and then pick from there which weapon they want to follow up on. If they want to do two or three, that's fine. But I see them picking one or two to focus on.

So, what I'm wondering: how does this sound? Is this a recipe for disaster?

This is a disaster. Beginners need to stick with one weapon. It really doesn't matter which one. I suggest you start with your best instructor and have him/her teach their best weapon.

[Bryn Ralph]

Follow MDA on this. The initial weapon in which the beginner picks up will influence the student's fencing acumen. And, yes, by all means select the best instructor who knows how to instruct in that specific weapon.

[cplmontana]

Okay. Go it. I just don't want to feel like we're shunting the new fencers into a particular weapon/direction.

Or should we ignore what they say, and say this is how we do it?

[Allen Evans]

I want to emphasize an important point here: use your best instructor, not your best fencer, to determine the weapon you offer. It's an important distinction.

Tell your fencers that this is the weapon you start everyone with, but, if they wish in the future to try another weapon, there is plenty of time to do so. A year or two in one weapon has rarely hurt anyone when they have switched to a different weapon.

[Inquartata]

I want to emphasize an important point here: use your best instructor, not your best fencer, to determine the weapon you offer. It's an important distinction.

Absolutely. They are very different skill sets.

Arguably, I am the "best ( sabre ) fencer" at my club, at least since the Great Purge ( don't ask ). I make an awful teacher, though, and not just because I know nothing of pedagogical methods---lesson plans and all that---but because I am impatient, too garrulous and inclined to hold forth on theory and amusing anecdotes instead of showing and explaining actions...and in short all of the same reasons why I do not drill!

There are people who can be both good fencers and good coaches, but the combination is not that common and cannot be assumed.

Tell your fencers that this is the weapon you start everyone with, but, if they wish in the future to try another weapon, there is plenty of time to do so. A year or two in one weapon has rarely hurt anyone when they have switched to a different weapon.

But with this part I cannot agree. Had I met with that attitude at my fencing club, I would either have found another or possibly not gone on with fencing at all. Retention of students is also a desideratum, and for a student who already knows what he wants that is imperiled by trying to drive him into the round hole regardless of his shape...

That "year or two" comes out of HIS life, after all, and whether or not it "hurts" him is really his decision to make, IMO.

[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?

Hmmm...I can see where there would be some logic in your belief. I might counter argue, however, that 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.

Not to mention wasting the instructors two or three years while that happens (but I understand your inclination to discount that time).