"ManPlate" for coaching hand?

[Inquartata]

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.

Now you see the sort of groupthink with which I must deal when I say that drills are a waste of time, or that strip coaching is useless, or that screaming accomplishes nothing, or that there is no real gain from canting tangs, or that you can both "work on things" and try to win in practice bouts, etc, etc, etc...

"Good coaches all do X, therefore, X is good, and not-X is stupid and bad!"

Remember Socrates!

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...

Thank goodness most of us don't live in Epee world, where fluky results are a way of life!

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.

Whereas you just sound like your sacred cow has been tipped by a bored teenager...

sentiment de fer - the true holy grail of fencing.

Pfft! Everyone knows that the holy grail of fencing* is a scream which unfailingly convinces the referee that it was your touch.

*In the 2/3 of the sport which make up the majority. What it might be in Epee world, none can tell. Unless it's boring the spectators to death.

[keith]

"Good coaches all do X, therefore, X is good, and not-X is stupid and bad!"

Might as well claim that all coaches are easily swung by fads, leaping from bandwagon to bandwagon one might say.

In fact I will.

[Inquartata]

In fact, you did.

[epeelion]

that strip coaching is useless

Simply false.

Anyways, you still don't get that if there seem to be good reasons for A, and a vast majority of successful people do A, there should be a good convincing reason to deviate from A? Just being different from the crowd doesn't make you special (or right), sweetie.

That's right, I'm so bored I let Inq, bait me again.

[GrimRiposter]

OK, I came in late on this one. I was having too much fun in San Diego. I did want to put my suggestion in since I've been in the same place as the original poster.

I was getting hit both on the back of the hand and in the hollow of my wrist. While neither were hard hits, given enough of them they did start to hurt. I went to a Goodwill and got two pairs of black leather dress shoes. Both were very plain, very old and only cost me a couple of dollars. I cut the tongues out and the leather over the toes off. I put the tongues down where the hits were arriving and use the rest of the leather as a patch over it. I took both gloves (left and right handed) to the shoe repair shop in the mall and the guy stitched them down for about $4. He was a fencer, though, so I might have gotten a deal. They are Absolute coaching gloves and three years later are still doing great. My new sleeve does a better job of protecting those areas, but when I work without, the patches are nice.

Just my two cents.

The Grim Riposter

[Inquartata]

Simply false.

With bated breath we await your proof. As opposed to your mere counter-opinion.

if there seem to be good reasons for A, and a vast majority of successful people do A, there should be a good convincing reason to deviate from A?

Congratulations, you've just proved that there's no reason not to be a Christian and a Republican! Well done!

Just being different from the crowd doesn't make you special (or right), sweetie.

Would be much more forceful if it addressed anything resembling my actual argument.

That's right, I'm so bored I let Inq, bait me again.

[/quote]

Eeeeexcellent.

[Inquartata]

I took both gloves (left and right handed) to the shoe repair shop in the mall and the guy stitched them do

It's axiomatic that there's no business like shoe business.


Sorry for the arch comment, don't worry, this interlude won't last.

[prototoast]

With bated breath we await your proof. As opposed to your mere counter-opinion.

Couldn't you possibly imagine a scenario where a fencer is fencing and his coach tells him an action to do that he (the fencer) hadn't thought of and that action is successful? I know that's happened to me. That sure seems like a use for strip coaching. What's wrong with that?

[oiuyt]

It's axiomatic that there's no business like shoe business.


Sorry for the arch comment, don't worry, this interlude won't last.

Now we get to the sole of the matter.

While a fencer can draw himself up by his bootstraps, it can be easier with the assistance of an experienced coach.

Or you can continue to be a heel, give no quarter, wag your tongue, and continue to deny the upper hand that can be provided by an external expert.

-B

[epeelion]

With bated breath we await your proof. As opposed to your mere counter-opinion.

You claimed strip coaching is categorically useless. I have witnessed and experienced at least one case in which strip coaching was a key element in enabling someone to win, by their own admission. I'm aware that you say these things to make the point that nothing can be proven, but don't insult my intelligence.

You may say that I can't prove that strip coaching was what did it. Just like I can't prove that drills are useful, or that lots of other things that make sense are true. I also can't technically prove you're an idiot, but I'm pretty comfortable with that theory. Declaring all strip coaching useless seems to me to be a pretty big claim, no? Care to at least support your assertion?

Congratulations, you've just proved that there's no reason not to be a Christian and a Republican!

Err, no, as there are good convincing reasons not to be. Also, a vast majority of people are not Republican or Christian. In the world, that is, not just the US.

How are politics or religion at all a good analogy for sports , again?

Would be much more forceful if it addressed anything resembling my actual argument.

If you want to lie to yourself, be my guest. It's quite evident you get pleasure from specifically going against what current prevailing opinion is, because it draws attention and makes you feel important. Most people grow out of this after their teenage years.

Oh,

Thank goodness most of us don't live in Epee world, where fluky results are a way of life!

::sigh::

[Inquartata]

Couldn't you possibly imagine a scenario where a fencer is fencing and his coach tells him an action to do that he (the fencer) hadn't thought of and that action is successful?

Of course I can imagine it. But then, I can also imagine little green men from Mars. Imagining something is not proof that it actually exists...

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it works in foil or epee, where there is time to ponder things while you're waiting for something to happen and in the case of epee waiting, and waiting, and waiting ). Things move too fast in sabre, though. I have never seen an unmistakeable causal link between a coach's advice and a successful touch in sabre.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't happen. It just means that it wants proof...

[Inquartata]

Now we get to the sole of the matter.

While a fencer can draw himself up by his bootstraps, it can be easier with the assistance of an experienced coach.

Or you can continue to be a heel, give no quarter, wag your tongue, and continue to deny the upper hand that can be provided by an external expert.

-B

Eyelet you get away with this impertinence for now. But next time we fence you are getting the shank!

[darius]

Things move too fast in sabre, though. I have never seen an unmistakeable causal link between a coach's advice and a successful touch in sabre.

I guess there's no such thing as an "unmistakeable causal link," because if a coach says to do a certain action or preparation, and the student makes that change and successfully scores, that could just be random happenstance.

Given that the sabre game between the en garde lines is often premeditated, one might expect that coach advice would be MORE useful than in foil or epee.

darius

[Allen Evans]

I have never seen an unmistakeable causal link between a coach's advice and a successful touch in sabre.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't happen. It just means that it wants proof...

I would suppose that this is just "sleight of hand" logic, in which the deniability of the statement rest on the fact that you've never seen the link between a successful action and a coach's advice.

I, in fact, have seen this link when -- as a coach -- I have materially effected several saber bouts of my students in the past.

*shrug* You don't like strip coaching personally, and I understand that. But to make the argument that there is no link between strip coaching and a successful touch --ever -- is a stretch, I think.

Allen

[DangerMouse]

Coming back to the sleeve/no sleeve argument, I seem to have more experience as a fencer working with coaches that go both ways than a lot of other people. I worked with Michael Marx for a few months, Sebastien Dos Santos off and on for a few years, and a number of other coaches including Delmar Calvert (who I hear is now at NWFC too). I had significantly less success to the hand and arm (actually fencing, not just lessons) when working with Michael than with Sebastien or Delmar. I attribute this to Michael not being the right coach for me and the communication not working well between us, not the sleeves. Sebastien uses a short sleeve (essentially a leather cuffed glove) and Calvert uses a soft cotton sleeve with a leather welders sleeve over it. Both of these coaches have significantly improved my accuracy to the hand and arm.

Not a statistical study, but as a graduate student with a strong background in statistical analysis, I don't really believe statistics are always the best way to show causality. In my experience, the communication between the coach and student, the drills chosen, and the techniques presented far outweigh the choice to use a sleeve or not. Similarly, Sebastien's lessons follow a philosphy similar to Michael's where they are designed to be very close to bout situations. Calvert's lessons are very technical drill based lessons following a classical French philosophy. Both have been instrumental in my improvement as a fencer in different ways. This is really why I love this sport; there is no one right way to do things and completely different approaches can work equally well.

[epeelion]

That's why I love coaches that alter the types of lessons they give based in the timing during the season. Different lesson types are good at different times for different reasons.

[Superscribe]

Of course I can imagine it. But then, I can also imagine little green men from Mars. Imagining something is not proof that it actually exists...

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it works in foil or epee, where there is time to ponder things while you're waiting for something to happen and in the case of epee waiting, and waiting, and waiting ). Things move too fast in sabre, though. I have never seen an unmistakeable causal link between a coach's advice and a successful touch in sabre.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't happen. It just means that it wants proof...

See, this is silly. The arguement here is not whether or not strip coaching is perfect, only that it offers a significant benefit. Further, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to where the benefit of strip coaching is.

Using a simple test, we can see how sometimes people develop tunnel vision. Sometimes they get prejudiced, and they can see the whole picture. This test can be found here:

http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...ticle&sid=2466

It works. I've done this to verify with two children. So what this illustrates is maybe a fencer has fenced opponents like the 3 squares in the weblink. It's difficult to figure out how to dissect the 3 squares into 4 equal shapes that can be overlayed on top of each other. It's difficult to out fence an opponent with complex tactics.It's hard to try and solve the problem. Let's say the fencer manage, though. Then somewhere along the DE path, they get to an opponent representing the the single square in the weblink. As a coach, you see that it's SO EASY to take apart the opponent. It's so easy to draw five straight lines. It's so easy to solve. The fencer can't see it because of previous experience. The well is poisoned. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE BENEFIT OF A COACH EXPLAINING HOW EASY IT IS TO DEFEAT THE OPPONENT?

I would also like to put forth that strip coaching works best when paired with drilling. Drilling and strip coaching are not groupthink. There are people out there who make a ridiculously good living by trying to overcome groupthink with respect to sports theory (coaches of professional athletic teams, or individual professional athletes). They still use drills, and they still "strip coach".

[Inquartata]

I guess there's no such thing as an "unmistakeable causal link," because if a coach says to do a certain action or preparation, and the student makes that change and successfully scores, that could just be random happenstance.

It's true that it would want a rigorously designed study, as opposed to self-reporting.

Given that the sabre game between the en garde lines is often premeditated, one might expect that coach advice would be MORE useful than in foil or epee.

It is?

You have heard the saying that no plan survives contact with the enemy?

It people are in fact planning entire phrases, in the box or elsewhere, I suspect they are fooling themselves...

[darius]

You have heard the saying that no plan survives contact with the enemy?

I like how you need a double-blind study to show strip coaching's effectiveness but are happy to have a general's witticism serve as proof against?

Might as well agree to disagree, or some pablum, because you've clearly made your mind up.

It people are in fact planning entire phrases, in the box or elsewhere, I suspect they are fooling themselves...

My belief trends to the opposite; if people are trying to go purely open-eyes and just react, I suspect they are fooling themselves, or at very least giving their opponent the first-mover advantage. I train my fencers to go into almost every critical distance moment with a plan, and should things go awry for that plan, be able to change decision. (Of course, this is all fencer-dependent. Some are purely intuitive and others want everything mapped out.)

darius

[VorpalCat]

Awright people, quit feeding the Inq.