"ManPlate" for coaching hand?

[Inquartata]

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?

Here's another: "It's a bad plan that admits of no modification."

I'm inclined to rely on the experience of someone whose life has depended on it being correct. As opposed to that of someone playing a game. Or for that matter that of someone making money from telling someone how to play a game...

What you seem to want is for me to accept non causa pro causa anecdotal evidence.

"It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years."

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

This is a tempting retort when one is making no headway meeting one's burden of proof in a debate. I understand your frustration at not being able to convince me of something you believe with your whole heart and mind to be true, but I think that it edges rather close to ad hominem argument and little more...

Of course, no can stop you from adding that one to your other unproven beliefs.

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.

Here's the problem, as I see it, with plans in sabre, at the speeds at which sabre moves: It depends on your opponent doing what you want him to do. If he does, great. If he doesn't, maybe just continuing with your plan will succeed anyway---but maybe it won't, and maybe it will even be apparent to you that it cannot. At which point, you have just entered the realm of open-eyes reactive sabre whether you wanted to or not. Plans can be just that fragile. And it strikes me as counterproductive to build on a fragile foundation. Unless you are really just a lot better than your opponent, you're going to be forced into eyes-open phrases pretty often anyway; why not just accept that as your competitive model?

Now, if you're so superior to your opponent that you can make him react just as you wish by force of will, sure, plan away. I mean, I've done that, too. Who hasn't? But as general [/i]modus operandi[/i] against good opponents? I don't see how it can work enough to make the game worth the candle.

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.

Well, maybe we're not that far apart, after all. I have no argument with that as you have elaborated it. Naturally you want to have an idea of what you'd like to happen, rather than to just let the opponent dictate everything from beginning to end. It's just not what I understand by "to follow a plan". Maybe it's just a semantic difference...

Of course, this is all fencer-dependent. Some are purely intuitive and others want everything mapped out.

Of course.

I'm curious how much detail you offer when strip-coaching, on average. Is it "Take a soft half-step in, feint retreat, feint go, go", for example? Or is it "Bring him in, make him hesitate, go"? Or is it just "Set up the AIP"? Or even just "Play with the distance"?

[Inquartata]

Awright people, quit feeding the Inq.

Be still! Inqy hungry.

[Allen Evans]

I'm curious how much detail you offer when strip-coaching, on average. Is it "Take a soft half-step in, feint retreat, feint go, go", for example? Or is it "Bring him in, make him hesitate, go"? Or is it just "Set up the AIP"? Or even just "Play with the distance"?

It seems strange to ask for details about something that "doesn't work".

[VorpalCat]

Be still! Inqy hungry.

Aw, I have a bagel for you if that will help. With lots of brightly colored sprinkles even!

[Inquartata]

It seems strange to ask for details about something that "doesn't work".

Why?

( plus stupid characters )

[epeelion]

Because why should you care?

It depends on the fencer, anyway. Some like to have actions mapped out or specific details given, some prefer just encouragement, some prefer general reminders. For the guys on my team, it was almost always just a reminder to keep moving.

[prototoast]

Of course.

I'm curious how much detail you offer when strip-coaching, on average. Is it "Take a soft half-step in, feint retreat, feint go, go", for example? Or is it "Bring him in, make him hesitate, go"? Or is it just "Set up the AIP"? Or even just "Play with the distance"?

In my experience (which is neither as a coach or a high level competitor, but has involved useful strip coaching), the best strip coaching points out an unrealized weakness in the opponent, and occasionally a proposed solution. In between those particularly worthwhile bits of strip coaching are usually things like "keep moving" or "smaller steps." Those occasionally might cause the fencer to focus on lapsing technique, but the best "bang for the buck" I've gotten out of strip coaching has been from the former type.

[darius]

I'm curious how much detail you offer when strip-coaching, on average. Is it "Take a soft half-step in, feint retreat, feint go, go", for example? Or is it "Bring him in, make him hesitate, go"? Or is it just "Set up the AIP"? Or even just "Play with the distance"?

Like all things, it depends. If I have a fencer that's systematically making a mistake or playing into an opponent's strength, I'll target that mistake by asking them for an action or preparation that fixes the problem. I'd rather be general than specific; if I can help put the fencer in the place where they can either predict, see, or force their opponent's response (be it the right distance, the right line, the right psychological state, the right place on the strip, etc), then I've had a positive effect on the outcome.

Sometimes it's just giving them feedback about the referee. A certain ref from the LA area is exceptionally liberal with right-of-way; if one starts forward, it's an attack. No problems whatsoever, but the fencer needs the information not to attempt to go in preparation (even if they're doing it correctly by my eyes), but to instead make the opponent fall short or parry.

Other times, it's giving them feedback about their performance: "That action is good, but you need to be a little closer to make it work."

More rarely, there's a very specific action that I am confident will work given both my fencer's skillset and what I'm seeing from the opponent...and I think the probability of that opponent's response is not likely to change.

Like most other skills, these are learned. Our coaching staff provides feedback and communicates with our fencers during open bouting in practices and during drills. If we put them in a mindset to act on our feedback during practice, why would it be any different in competition? (It might be harder, of course. But that's why you practice it!)

Now let me ask you this? Why do you think strip-coaching is ineffective? Is it just because it's in our self-interest to perpetuate that it's effective? Might it be a little teeny bit effective? How about detrimental? Can a coach have a negative effect on a fencer?

darius

[Inquartata]

Now let me ask you this? Why do you think strip-coaching is ineffective?

Several reasons.

1) It has never helped me.

2) I have never observed an unmistakeable link between a coach's stripside advice and a touch. You claim to have done so, other people claim to have done so---I have never done so. This makes me wonder if there isn't a large element of...what did someone call it? Confirmation bias?...involved. Maybe a bit of the self-fulfilling prophecy as well.

I watch a lot of sabre. I watch the other events at NACs I attend, right to the end. So I've watched a lot of strip coaching, from a point of neutral observation, being involved neither as coach nor fencer. And I just haven't seen it "working". I conclude, absent evidence to the contrary, that the placebo effect has entered the picture.

3) From an organizational perspective, I wonder why the FIE and the various national federations, which are so concerned with setting rules to establish a level playing field and to ensure that no competitor is disadvantaged---as by the opponent taking performance-enhancing drugs, for instance---has never so much as questioned whether the practice of permitting strip coaching falls into this category. I mean, fencer A has a fellow team member coaching him, or perhaps no one at all, while his opponent B has his country's top national coach helping him? Or B's best national coach is acknowledged to be much better than A's country's best coach? And this is a level playing field, if we assume that stripside advice is effective? This is not permitting the disadvantaging of one competitor?

It seems to me that this is either because (a) Coaches control the FIE and the rule-making processes and do so to their own advantage, or (b) It is recognized at some level that in fact strip coaching is not effective, so why not allow it if it makes everyone feel better?

Is it just because it's in our self-interest to perpetuate that it's effective?

The possibility has not escaped me. Most of the things we do spring from self-interest. ( I'm an economist at heart, remember? )

But I would doubt very much that it's a conscious calculation for most coaches. More along the lines of the subconscious need to see one's role, one's work and one's passion validated making one see what one wants and expects to see...

How about detrimental? Can a coach have a negative effect on a fencer?

I am sure that coaching can affect the fencer's mood, for either good or ill---you can take that as "a teeny bit effective", if you like, though I'm not sure how this could be done reliably or predictably. And it all depends on the fencer's susceptibility to praise, exhortation, scolding, excitement, approval/disapproval of a respected authority figure, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not sure that mood translates to fencing better or worse, though...I am inclined to doubt it.

[epeelion]

I'm not sure that mood translates to fencing better or worse, though...I am inclined to doubt it.

You don't think a change in mood can have an effect on one's fencing?

...

......

Wow.

[darius]

1) It has never helped me.

You could be one of those people it doesn't help. There are students that we wind up and let go.

2) I have never observed an unmistakeable link between a coach's stripside advice and a touch. You claim to have done so, other people claim to have done so---I have never done so. This makes me wonder if there isn't a large element of...what did someone call it? Confirmation bias?...involved. Maybe a bit of the self-fulfilling prophecy as well.

Confirmation bias cuts both ways!

That burden of proof's pretty hard. I've never observed an unmistakeable link between going to the weight room regularly and breaking a personal lifting record, either, but they do seem to correlate enough in my experience that if I want somebody to be stronger, I send them to the weight room.

I watch a lot of sabre. I watch the other events at NACs I attend, right to the end. So I've watched a lot of strip coaching, from a point of neutral observation, being involved neither as coach nor fencer. And I just haven't seen it "working". I conclude, absent evidence to the contrary, that the placebo effect has entered the picture.

Even if you think that it's the placebo effect at work (ie. the coach's presence makes the student feel like they're being helped, thus they are), then one could justify strip-coaching. In a sport where 100ths of a second matter, any little squeaky performance gain may be worth it to the stakeholders.

Have you seen coaches being detrimental to the fencer? Berating them until they lose it completely? I have, which leads me to conclude that a coach's presence may have an impact on the fencer.

Now, the coach's perspective is often more similar to the ref's than the fencer's perspective. Which means that the coach has an entirely different set of visual information than the fencer.

So, if a coach has different information, and they can have an impact on the fencer, there is a possibility that they could convey that information to the fencer, no?

You can argue about whether or not it's worth whatever the fencer pays for the privilege, and whether a coach is effectively transmitting the information in an actionable way. But I don't see how you could say that strip coaching cannot be effective.

From an organizational perspective, I wonder why the FIE and the various national federations, which are so concerned with setting rules to establish a level playing field

Actually, there was a rule against strip-coaching on the FIE books. It may still exist, but it's not enforced in Europe, and there was a lot of anger when American coaches suggested that they strike the rule in the US so that we could conform to the realities of modern int'l fencing.

Federations are anti-drug because they have to be to conform to IOC / USOC standards. As far as a level playing field goes, each coach has the same amount of access to the athlete. There's nothing that says that athletes need the same amount of fast-twitch fibers, same nutrition and same genetics either.

darius

[Inquartata]

Confirmation bias cuts both ways!

No doubt.

I've never observed an unmistakeable link between going to the weight room regularly and breaking a personal lifting record

1) Sure you have.

2) That sort of result is confirmed by many properly-designed studies by medical and exercise professionals, not just by a vague sense that 'it MUST be so' or by a stock of suggestive, but not probative, anecdotes. Increases in muscle mass can be measured and tracked; with the effects of advice it's much harder to do that.

Have you seen coaches being detrimental to the fencer? Berating them until they lose it completely?

Only after the bout. I have seen a few coaches be hyper-critical scolds on the strip, but I have not seen it make a difference. The very few times I've seen this happen were instances where the fencer was already failing miserably despite high expectations that he would do well, and afterward continued to fail miserably...

But I don't see how you could say that strip coaching cannot be effective.

Even were it to be admitted that it was possible, it does not follow that it happens or is likely. It is possible that we will be invaded by extraterrestrials tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that it has ever happened or will ever happen...

There are just too many possible points of failure, IMO, for this to be happening. The coach can fail to be clear enough; even if he is the fencer can fail to understand; the coach can be clear but fail to give the right advice ( because coaches are not infallible, either ); the fencer can understand but fail to execute; the opponent can negate whatever change a fencer might try to make; etc. Too many dice throws in there for me to buy the coaching=point scoring linkage without evidence that anything but simple statistical coincidence is at work.

As far as a level playing field goes, each coach has the same amount of access to the athlete. There's nothing that says that athletes need the same amount of fast-twitch fibers, same nutrition and same genetics either.

darius

Then hey, as long as they all have the same access to performance-enhancing drugs, they should be permitted to take them. The proof that they are effective is much higher than that for the effectiveness of strip-coaching, after all.

But this isn't really about outside factors; it's about outside help from another person. Imagine showing up to take your SAT's or the GRE with a "coach" and expecting to have him be able to help you during the test. This IMO is what strip-coaching is...

[Inquartata]

You don't think a change in mood can have an effect on one's fencing?

No.

Wow.

Your incredulity does not a refutation make.

[prototoast]

But this isn't really about outside factors; it's about outside help from another person. Imagine showing up to take your SAT's or the GRE with a "coach" and expecting to have him be able to help you during the test. This IMO is what strip-coaching is...

Fencing will have truly arrived as a sport when the coach signals in every action to the fencer between touches.

[michaelheggen]

How about detrimental [strip coaching]? Can a coach have a negative effect on a fencer?

Most definitely.

I saw some instances of horrible strip coaching at both Summer Nationals and JOs in Y14/Cadet/Junior women's épée. Fortunately, they were in the minority, but they made me (as a fencing coach) cringe—and no doubt most of you have had the same experience.

• Coaches having temper tantrums strip-side because their fencers weren't doing whatever it was that they wanted.

• A coach haranguing his fencer with words like, "10th place? Is that what you want? Cause that's what you're gonna get!!"

• A coach that said I-don't-know-what to his (clearly outclassed) fencer during the first one-minute break and then walked off, leaving his fencer sobbing as she put on her mask to try to finish her bout; she cried through the rest of her bout (which she lost, badly) and he was nowhere to be seen.

This kind of behavior makes me wonder just why it is that these people are coaching—especially when young people are involved. Is it truly for the athlete? Are these people trying to relive past competitive glory through their athletes? Or do they just enjoy screaming at 15-year-old girls and making them cry in public?

To get back toward the already-threadjacked subject (as opposed to the original subject of Alice's hand protection—remember Alice?), yes, strip coaching can certainly have an effect on the fencers—for better or worse.

But I saw a lot of strip coaching that (even when well intentioned) seemed to be being done because the coach simply felt like he or she had to somehow be involved. I think these fencers would have been better off if their coaches had just kept quiet. That said, there were also a few coaches who made well-timed comments that may have helped their fencers—if for no other reason than because the fencer knew that she had someone rooting for her.

Perhaps the motto of fencing coaches should be, "First, do no harm."

Actually, there was a rule against strip-coaching on the FIE books. It may still exist, but it's not enforced in Europe, and there was a lot of anger when American coaches suggested that they strike the rule in the US so that we could conform to the realities of modern int'l fencing.

Is this the USFA rule (also widely unenforced) to which you are referring?

t.82 "During bouts (between the command 'Fence' and 'Halt',) no one is allowed to go near the strips or to give advice to the fencers. At no time is one allowed to criticize the Officials or thier descisions[sic], to insult them or to attempt to influence them in any way."

-Mike

[DangerMouse]

Several reasons.
2) I have never observed an unmistakeable link between a coach's stripside advice and a touch. You claim to have done so, other people claim to have done so---I have never done so. This makes me wonder if there isn't a large element of...what did someone call it? Confirmation bias?...involved. Maybe a bit of the self-fulfilling prophecy as well.

The statistician/graduate student side of me wants to know how you define "an unmistakeable link between a coach's stripside advice and a touch." You keep coming back to this, but I don't see how you can define an unmistakeable link.

[darius]

1) Sure you have.

Not by your standards. The mechanism by which muscle hypertrophy occurs isn't fully understood. Where's that 'unmistakeable link'?

2) That sort of result is confirmed by many properly-designed studies by medical and exercise professionals, not just by a vague sense that 'it MUST be so' or by a stock of suggestive, but not probative, anecdotes. Increases in muscle mass can be measured and tracked; with the effects of advice it's much harder to do that.

It's generally harder to design experiments which study behavior. Which is why psych is considered a pseudo-science by many.

Only after the bout. I have seen a few coaches be hyper-critical scolds on the strip, but I have not seen it make a difference.

Remember the hullabaloo over the fencers from French Guyana who managed to fence Div 2 despite being Bs from years past (and thus ineligible)? Their coach is an incredibly loud Francophone ... she was fencing one of my students, and would shout out, in French, exactly what she wanted her fencer to do. The fencer would immediately attempt to do that action off the en garde line, with little to no preparation.

Of course, you can dispute this as anecdotal, n=1, whatever, or claim that no medical professionals have studied this linkage. The outcome of the bout is irrelevant, as was my role as a rival coach. If the fencer wasn't taking the advice of the coach, it would have been harder to game-plan...but in this case, all that was necessary was to listen to the coach, and tell the action that was coming to my student, letting her come up with the counter-action on her own. It could just be 'coincidence' that this happened, just like it could be 'coincidence' that the NFL quarterback runs the play his coach tells him to run.

My ability to mathematically prove that strip coaching is effective from the given that 0 does not equal 1 isn't there. Of course, you've yet to prove that it isn't, but you have admitted that it's possible to have an effect. Baby steps.

Let's go with your list of points of failure:
- The coach can fail to be clear enough.
- Even if he is the fencer can fail to understand.
- The coach can be clear but fail to give the right advice.
- The fencer can understand but fail to execute.
- The opponent can negate whatever change a fencer might try to make.

Too many dice throws in there for me to buy the coaching=point scoring linkage without evidence that anything but simple statistical coincidence is at work.

See, here you've admitted that a coach CAN have an impact, but you're quibbling about how significant it could be. None of these points of failure are dice throws...they are behavior, and behavior can be learned and practiced. So, ignoring the opponent being able to deal, does it make sense that if you eliminate these points-of-failure, the coach can affect a tactical change in the fencer? (I'd argue that a technical change is difficult, because you're stuck with the technique you have.)

The big monkey wrench is, of course, the opponent being able to deal with it. But if the fencer gets to the right tactical idea earlier than they might have otherwise, does it follow that in that isolated, n=1, perfect world case, the strip coaching was effective?

Then hey, as long as they all have the same access to performance-enhancing drugs, they should be permitted to take them. The proof that they are effective is much higher than that for the effectiveness of strip-coaching, after all.

I wasn't making a judgement one way or another. Performance-enhancing substances are banned by the FIE. There's absolutely no proof that those drugs are effective for an open-skilled combat sport such as fencing -- androgenic drugs could help one get stronger due to decreased recovery time, but there's no proven link between strength and winning at fencing. Drugs that boost red blood cell function like EPO would be no help at all!

But this isn't really about outside factors; it's about outside help from another person. Imagine showing up to take your SAT's or the GRE with a "coach" and expecting to have him be able to help you during the test. This IMO is what strip-coaching is...

So there's a moral component to your opposition? If it's barely possible that anybody could have an effect on the fencing, why is it any big deal? There is coaching in-between rounds in many sports.

darius

[Inquartata]

The statistician/graduate student side of me wants to know how you define "an unmistakeable link between a coach's stripside advice and a touch." You keep coming back to this, but I don't see how you can define an unmistakeable link.

I'd accept the results of 30+ randomized samples of instances where (1) the coach gave specific advice (2) the student clearly attempted that specific action immediately after the advice, and (3) it scored a touch.

Informally, my certainty might begin to erode if I actually saw this happen just once...

[epeelion]

I have seen this happen many times.

Could it be possible that, in the same way that we have confirmation bias, you have the opposite? That is, since you already believe it has no effect, you are unlikely to see any effects that might actually be present?

Why do you care if people get coaching if it has no effect?

[Inquartata]

Not by your standards. The mechanism by which muscle hypertrophy occurs isn't fully understood. Where's that 'unmistakeable link'?

Thousands upon thousands of measured correlations. At those numbers it strongly suggests causation.

It's generally harder to design experiments which study behavior. Which is why psych is considered a pseudo-science by many.

I realize that, and that's why I am willing to revise my opinion if presented with a few verifiable results of the sort I just mentioned in my answer to DM, above.

Their coach is an incredibly loud Francophone ... she was fencing one of my students, and would shout out, in French, exactly what she wanted her fencer to do. The fencer would immediately attempt to do that action off the en garde line, with little to no preparation.

How is this relevant to whether a coach's advice can be detrimental or not?

The outcome of the bout is irrelevant, as was my role as a rival coach. If the fencer wasn't taking the advice of the coach, it would have been harder to game-plan...but in this case, all that was necessary was to listen to the coach, and tell the action that was coming to my student, letting her come up with the counter-action on her own.

And she couldn't have done that on her own?

In fact, how do you know she didn't?

It could just be 'coincidence' that this happened, just like it could be 'coincidence' that the NFL quarterback runs the play his coach tells him to run.

Fencing is not a team sport. It does not require a 'general'.

you have admitted that it's possible to have an effect.

Many things are possible, but until I see evidence to the contrary I continue to believe that it is not effectual.

See, here you've admitted that a coach CAN have an impact, but you're quibbling about how significant it could be.

No, I haven't. Again, it's possible that we will be invaded by extraterrestrials tomorrow, but I think the odds approach zero. Just like strip coaching having an effect.

I will not adopt the assumption that something is happening but it's unmeasurable, simply because the possibility of that is non-zero. Absent evidence that something is happening, my default assumption is that nothing is happening and there is nothing to measure...

Performance-enhancing substances are banned by the FIE.

Yes. Why, do you think?

There's absolutely no proof that those drugs are effective for an open-skilled combat sport such as fencing

Uh...

So there's a moral component to your opposition?

Of course there is. I have often said so.

If it's barely possible that anybody could have an effect on the fencing, why is it any big deal?

It presents the appearance of impropriety, which is often indistinguishable from the actuality, as any politician could probably tell you.

IMO it also retards the fencer's development, since he is leaning on a crutch which does nothing real for him.

It also slows down bouts by enabling the well-known coach misbehaviors. If they had to sit off in the stands, as they do in tennis, I think things would go much more smoothly, and fencers would get better faster by being thrown wholly onto their own resources.

There is coaching in-between rounds in many sports.

Such as?

The example many people select as an analogy is tennis---where it's not allowed. Now, if it's not thought to be effectual, why is it prohibited?