No sleeve? The best coaches in the country use it, and personally I feel that the sleeve helps to develop a good feel for the hit. Many sleeves are actually hard to hit, Aladar sometimes pulls out a slippery sleeve to make it harder. Aside from that, there is to consider that a solid hit to the inside of the elbow can be painful WITH the sleeve, let alone without.
I also have the feeling that trying to repeatedly hit a regular jacket or glove could develop that bad habit of "jabbing" kind of like hitting the hanging golf ball multiple times.
I would stick with the sleeve if doing arm hits. I sometimes don't use it if doing shallow hand feints/body hits.
__________________
"Preparation is the soul of tactics. And tactics are the soul of fencing."-Aladar Kogler
Having taken lessons from Michael as well as a number of other top level coaches and regularly fencing his students, I can't say they are any better to the hand than other fencers of the same level from training without a sleeve.
With all due respect to M. Marx - and his personal accomplishments as a foilist... take that as you will.
I can assure everyone reading that eschewing the sleeve by an epee coach is a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE, NO GOOD VERY BAD (credit: Judith Viorst) idea.
If for no other reason, there is the question of your personal longevity as a coach. In a single lesson you are dealing with, literally, hundreds of hits to the arm. I don't care how 'sissy' the hits are... this is not good personal policy. period. Especially, considering that a typical evening involves multiple lessons with students of varying ability and control.
Please... don't do this.
Oi, lord, this is funny. Considering Michael's past tendencies to delegate lessons to his "better" students, I'm not sure personal longevity is an issue for him. I also would never give a lesson without a sleeve, the exception being a rare request when a student wants to verify that the weapon would click on a un-sleeved target. It does, when the action is done right, and the student merrily goes back to hitting the sleeve with confidence.
Having taken lessons from Michael as well as a number of other top level coaches and regularly fencing his students, I can't say they are any better to the hand than other fencers of the same level from training without a sleeve.
Thank you. Michael's ego, however is better off probably due to an added "mystery" of his methods.
Yikes! I had no idea I was entering the realm of apostasy by not wearing a sleeve all of the time.
Lots of great coaches wear sleeves, agreed. Lots of bad coaches wear sleeves, also true. I'm not sure that either statistic means anything.
Mr. Epee: points well taken. But considering how many touches get fenced by fencers without sleeves on, without any health concerns, is the danger to a coach overstated? It's true a coach takes many more hits (and in a much more focused target area) than a fencer does, so there is some concern. When I do have students that hit hard, I wear a sleeve. Certainly if I notice that I'm sore, damaged, or otherwise hit hard by students, in the course of lessons I'll return to wearing a sleeve.
Further apostasy on my part (and not due to some evil coach, but my own observations). I don't teach the inside the elbow hit except in certain circumstances (and then I wear a sleeve). Most advanced fencers just don't give you that target, and I try to make my presentation of the blade real enough that my students don't get it very often, either. So most of the hits I take are to the hand and then, if necessary, to a deeper target (I wear full leg protection. I have been hit hard in the kneecap and the thigh as a fencer and coach, and it's no fun).
Is the technique to hit someone with a sleeve the same as to hit a real opponent (who, we presume, is not fencing with one on)? Well, perhaps thats the real rub for me, and the one I'm least sure about. On the face of it, that seems a little difficult to accept. I'd like to hear further discussion on that, if someone is actually a skilled enough writer to put the technique into words (not easy).
Certainly, the lesson is not the bout. And while an argument can be made that a lesson in certain situations should be as much like the bout as possible (which would seem to exclude a sleeve) that's not always the goal of the lesson. When replicating a bout isn't the goal of the lesson (for instance, building confidence in the hit) perhaps wearing a sleeve makes sense. When it is the goal, perhaps going without a sleeve makes sense.
After a few months of this, I'll have a better idea of which and when.
Thank you. Michael's ego, however is better off probably due to an added "mystery" of his methods.
Really? Having attended a couple of coaching clinics given by Michael, I can say that he seems happy to explain what he does and why he does it. In this case, there's no mystery. He asserts that the coaching sleeve is bigger and easier to hit. (That seems obvious.) He likened practicing hand shots against a coach who was wearing a sleeve to practicing shooting a basketball using an extra-large hoop. Just practice with what you're going to have to "hit" in the actual game.
Of course, the real question is whether it matters. That is, if students always perform equally well on strip no matter whether the coach wears a sleeve during lessons, then the coach might as well wear the sleeve for the additional protection. Michael gave some anecdotal evidence of improved accuracy for hand shots from students who practice against a coach without a sleeve, but I don't think that there has been any well-controlled study to explore and verify this assertion.
I don't really have a strong personal opinion on this one. I've given lessons both with and without a sleeve, but I certainly don't have the number or level of students as many of the coaches on this thread. Michael's reasoning isn't completely unfounded. I certainly don't see any problem with the kind of experiment that Allen is trying just to see what the results are for him and his students.
epeelion, Michael's coaches don't are normally get hit like that on the inside of the elbow. As Allen said, the coach is normally doing something like extending to counter attack as the student penetrates to deeper target, so you don't normally see those solid hits to a mostly bent elbow.
Last edited by tbryan; 07-28-2009 at 06:18 PM..
Reason: clarity
...the only thing free in life is cheese in the mousetrap...
OK...I'll bite...what is the mousetrap in this case?
__________________
"...you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Capt. Barbossa
Michael's students do not really have higher accuracy, in my experience.
I am also curious as to which high level coaches he has seen give lessons regularly without the sleeve.
It's important for feel, for muscle memory and kinesthetic feeling. I would strongly recommend using it. If we have to make everything so perfectly realistic in lesson, then no foot protector. And hell, the coach's jacket catches the point better also, so away with that. And all coaches should wear knickers, because the point reacts differently to knickers than to skin or shorts or a protector.
I have never seen a high level coach without one, and I know plenty, from Italy, Hungary, Russia, France, Korea, China, etc. Seems like there must be good reason, no? You may think it's an appeal to authority, in which case feel free to ignore all the best coaches in the world. Certainly won't hurt me.
__________________
"Preparation is the soul of tactics. And tactics are the soul of fencing."-Aladar Kogler
Michael's students do not really have higher accuracy, in my experience.
Could you name a coach whose pool of athletes seem to have a statistically significant higher accuracy? It would actually take some research, not just anecdotal evidence to bear that out. I suspect you could come up with a list of the better coaches in the country: Audrey, Michael, Aladar, Kornell, Sebastien, Gago, etc. Maybe some of these coaches have a few students who are French-gripped wrist snipers, but I suspect if you control for the common variables, "accuracy" may even out.
In this case, Allen's actually DOING the experiment. Obviously it may not be 100% controlled over a large population, but if he notices his students' accuracy improve (or get worse!) wouldn't that be an interesting thing to know?
Quote:
I am also curious as to which high level coaches he has seen give lessons regularly without the sleeve.
Michael? Feel free to ask him at any NAC; he's hardly secretive about any of his methods.
Quote:
It's important for feel, for muscle memory and kinesthetic feeling.
I just don't quite get it. If the coach wants to claim comfort, that's fine. If they need a bigger target so the student can hit more of the 1st and 2nd actions in a German or French style lesson, that makes some sense. But where is the evidence that a sleeve is crucial to anything? Can't I still take those shots without "punching" my tip, or is it impossible to do that?
If that sleeve is important for muscle memory and kinesthetic feeling, why does that necessity go away instantly when you go up against an opponent who's not wearing one?
Quote:
I have never seen a high level coach without one, and I know plenty, from Italy, Hungary, Russia, France, Korea, China, etc. Seems like there must be good reason, no?
Unlike Ilya and Herman, I'm not interested in calling people names on the internet. I'm interested in discussing the topic. We could go back and forth saying, "Prove it!" and that wouldn't be productive.
So I'll make a case why you should prove it...
When I think about coaching fencing, I look at how fencing is done (and try to extrapolate to how it might be done in the future). I won't automatically discard deviations from that, but I feel like they need to be justified. It may well be that there's a good reason ... what is that reason?
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
I do much of the armory work for my club and our coach's sleeve in addition to not protecting the hand was also getting so holey that my epee would inevitably find a hole to stick in. Temporary solution (aren't all solutions) was a by chance found pair of women's calf length high heel boots (I know what you're thinking now). But cutting the upper calf part off just above the shoe produced a quality short sleeve which he could push his hand and regular sleeve through. Worked fine to protect the hand until it too had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. Now we're back to looking for another replacement. Perhaps one of the local madonna's of the night will care to contribute her? footwear for a good cause.
When I think about coaching fencing, I look at how fencing is done (and try to extrapolate to how it might be done in the future). I won't automatically discard deviations from that, but I feel like they need to be justified. It may well be that there's a good reason ... what is that reason?
The reason is that many many things are tried, and we can probably all think of coaches who have innovated and had that innovation picked up on. Couple of pretty dramatic examples spring to my mind, others better educated, will probably think of more. On the other hand sometimes doing things different, is just doing it different - better and different are not synonyms after all.
I seriously doubt that Michael Marx is the first coach to work without a sleeve, for all the reasons discussed. If it had a the benefit claimed I suspect it would be far more common, universal perhaps.
I do much of the armory work for my club and our coach's sleeve in addition to not protecting the hand was also getting so holey that my epee would inevitably find a hole to stick in. Temporary solution (aren't all solutions) was a by chance found pair of women's calf length high heel boots (I know what you're thinking now). But cutting the upper calf part off just above the shoe produced a quality short sleeve which he could push his hand and regular sleeve through. Worked fine to protect the hand until it too had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. Now we're back to looking for another replacement. Perhaps one of the local madonna's of the night will care to contribute her? footwear for a good cause.
Drop the sleeve off with a local cobbler. He should be able to put a quality leather patch on the holes cheaply.
Now we're back to looking for another replacement. Perhaps one of the local madonna's of the night will care to contribute her? footwear for a good cause.
Hit up your local fabric stores. The outdoor/upholstery/special fabrics section will have all sorts of options (real and faux leather, heavy vinyls, etc.) that would likely suit. And you don't have to be a sewing genius to replicate that cuff shape. Not as sexy as tearing up old leather boots, I know...
Contrary to what Darius may think, referring to someone as a foilist doesn't necessarily qualify as 'name calling'. This is particularly true when the individual in question is, according to Wikipedia, an 8-time individual US Champion and a 4-time Olympian in foil. It's not an opinion. It's a matter of fact.
When Mssr Marx did make his Olympic epee debut, he did so against Kovacs Ivan of Hungary and was dismissed by a score of 15-6. In the Epee world, that's essentially the same as being told, firmly, that you don't belong there... and really only qualified to the event because you hailed from the host nation.
So, please, let's move on.
Shall we? Yes. Ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen
Mr. Epee: points well taken. But considering how many touches get fenced by fencers without sleeves on, without any health concerns, is the danger to a coach overstated? It's true a coach takes many more hits (and in a much more focused target area) than a fencer does, so there is some concern. When I do have students that hit hard, I wear a sleeve. Certainly if I notice that I'm sore, damaged, or otherwise hit hard by students, in the course of lessons I'll return to wearing a sleeve.
When I wreck my car, put my head through the windshield, and bleed my own blood on the hood, I'll start wearing a seat-belt. Let's not assign the conviction and dedication associated with apostasy to merely giving temporary credence to a particularly poor idea. You, Allen, have fallen prey to the seductive braying of a heretic seeking to define his own brand. No, heretic is the wrong word. This is something different and far worse.
Look, I'll admit it. When I'm fencing, I get hit. I don't get hit as many as some, but still, I get hit. Let's say I'm fencing a crazy round robin event of 21 fencers (5-touch bouts). Even if I'm rushing, ignoring the clock, and loose every match, I'm still only getting hit slightly more than a hundred times over the course of a day long event. As you note, those hits are spread out and vary dramatically in location and force. As a coach, I regularly marshal a counter-attack/parry-riposte routine that results in me getting hit between 150-200 times over the course of 5-7 minutes - depending on student size strength, ability and experience. These hits are all targeted to the hand, lower arm, upper arm, and shoulder. Clearly, a fencer (regardless of ability) practicing or competing will not experience the same level of, let's just say it, physical abuse as a coach during a lesson.
I'm sure it's much more realistic for a professional boxer to practice punching people in the face sans headgear. Realistically, his bouting partners will be wearing head-gear in the training ring. Why? Because they don't want (more) brain damage. Jeez.
And as Epee Lion alluded to earlier, I happen to believe that there is a certain tactile achievement accomplished when hitting the coaching sleeve. I'm positive that over the years the feeling of my blade touching, fixing into, impacting, pressing, displacing, etc. the coaching sleeve contributed to an improvement in my sentiment de fer - the true holy grail of fencing.
__________________ Quit touchin' me, ya freak
F.Net Rule #1: E. L. E. (everybody love everybody)
Hit up your local fabric stores. The outdoor/upholstery/special fabrics section will have all sorts of options (real and faux leather, heavy vinyls, etc.) that would likely suit. And you don't have to be a sewing genius to replicate that cuff shape. Not as sexy as tearing up old leather boots, I know...
Also, your local thrift stores will probably have a good selection of 1970s vintage leather jackets.
<threadjack>
One that apparently previously belonged to a chain-smoking barfly is being made into a new teaching glove for me ($8 worth of materials so far). As someone with long fingers and a big hand, it is amazing to have a glove that actually fits me correctly—and with padding exactly where I want it.
</threadjack>
-Mike
__________________
Michael Heggen, prévôt d'escrime, USFCA, AAI
head instructor, Salem Classical Fencing
an AFL & USFA salle d'armes in Salem, Oregon http://www.salemclassicalfencing.org
...the only thing free in life is cheese in the mousetrap...
). But cutting the upper calf part off just above the shoe produced a quality short sleeve which he could push his hand and regular sleeve through. Worked fine to protect the hand until it too had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. Now we're back to looking for another replacement. Perhaps one of the local madonna's of the night will care to contribute her? footwear for a good cause.
Linear Mode
