"ManPlate" for coaching hand?

[prototoast]

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?

How about pitch selection in baseball. While in some cases this is done by agreement between the catcher and the pitcher, a lot of pitchers get their calls from a coach in the dugout and they throw it.

Football is the same way. Coach calls the plays. In fact, most team sports are that way.

While you demand proof, and me claiming very specific instances where my coach gave me specific advice between touches, and I got a touch as a result isn't good enough for you; I must remind you that some advantages may be imperceptible. If you, as a fencer have a 50/50 chance of getting any particular touch without a coach, and a 51/49 chance of getting any particular touch with a coach, that difference will not be apparent to the casual observer, and yet it is very real, and in the long run could determine a crucial victory.

[darius]

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.

Really? Because that's absolutely NOT what you want to do. If you're giving specific advice, you'd better create the same context!

For example, if my fencer makes an strong attack to the chest from close distance, and is hit on a parry-4, riposte, I might tell them, "Same preparation, but finish to flank." If they start from further away, make a different preparation, or even start slowly in an attempt to give themselves time to disengage, the opponent's response might be different, causing the action to fail.

darius

[erooMynohtnA]

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...

One time I was scorekeeping, and timekeeping a saber bout. During the break before the third period, it was 14-13. Instead of the standing around that had been happening before I wanted the kid at 14 to score so we could all be done.

I asked him if he knew what a flunge was, and he did. I told him to flunge and feint head then finish arm. Realizing he would just do that off the line and fall way short, I told him to also take two small steps to get closer.

At the command fence, he took two steps forward, feinted head, flunged, and hit the other guy on the arm. No one was more surprised than I was that he had coincidentally come up with the exact same plan as I had and had scored completely without any outside help, thus proving that coaching is useless.

[darius]

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.

Here's the thing; I could care less about your verification. I'm bothering to argue on the Internets for 2 reasons:
1. I'm kinda bored due to a post camp week off.
2. Some young coach might actually listen to you. (Then again, I'm fine if they go and do the science.)

How is this relevant to whether a coach's advice can be detrimental or not? And she couldn't have done that on her own?

What is relevant is that the coach was coming up with the action (sometimes quite disjointed from what was happening from the flow of the bout), and the student would immediately perform that action. Which is why my role was somewhat irrelevant, but why not give my student the information about what action was coming next (since I had it)?

Another example of defective strip-coaching, much easier: At a Cadet NAC, one of our epeeists was fencing to make the 32. She was scoring by grabbing the blade and hitting on a fleche. The opponent's natural response was to pull her hand back and out of the way (which was a pretty smart move, but she hadn't quite figured out the execution of the counterattack). Her coach, instead, told her, "You need to threaten her hand! Keep your arm out!" Despite the fact that it was against her instincts, she followed his exhortation, every time. This made for a much easier win.

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

In football, the quarterback is the 'general', communicating the play to 10 other players, all of whom have very defined roles. And yet, the coach's perspective is considered valid and acted on.

Fencing is a team sport; the parents who write the checks, sport-specific coaching staff, strength & conditioning coaches, medical professionals, are all part of a fencer's development. To a lesser extent, referees and opponents are as well. The culmination of all these influences is what happens on the strip - if everybody on the team has clear knowledge of their role and how it fits in the big picture, it's better. (In my opinion. Other professional fencing coaches may feel differently.)

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...

If your eyes are closed, it's hard to see evidence. Just today, I wandered into NWFC to see one of our coaches telling a rank beginning camper, "If you don't want him to parry, try to go around the blade," and showed the kid a disengage. The kid did some footwork, moved around, and tried it, making the disengage, which careened off-target.

If that works with an 8 year old whose first day of fencing is today, don't you think there's a possibility that it might work with highly-skilled athletes with whom one works 3-4 times/week in one-on-one situations, and observes in practice multiple hours per week?

Yes. Why, do you think?

Because that's what the IOC tells them to do. You can look at the prohibition of marijuana to know that not every substance on that list is a performance enhancer or masking agent!

Try drinking enough caffeine to trigger a drug test -- it won't help your performance one bit. Sure, your perceived exertion will be low, because you'll lose too quickly to break a sweat.

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.

Ah, so that's how fencers get better faster, by being "thrown wholly onto their own resources?" Guess coaches shouldn't give lessons or run practices, then. Or if a fencer is making a consistent mistake in practice, I shouldn't help them with the solution.

On strip, some fencers are better left-alone, and some coaches are better off leaving their fencers alone, but taken to the extreme, your ideas of how to develop an athlete are absurd. Are you a teacher of any kind?

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?

So even in tennis, where there are so many variables (I'd argue, more than fencing) due to the size of the court, relative placement of the players, angle and spin of the ball, coaching is considered effective! And if you notice, tennis players get up-in-arms about it! There are controversies about top players who receive coaching, coaches who deny doing it, etc.

It could be that somehow, coaching in tennis, where you have to shout over a much greater distance, and have all these variables (do you worry about wind in fencing?) is effective. And somehow in fencing, because fencers have some weird hearing issue or genetic anomaly which affects their ability to take coach advice, it's ineffective.

Or it could be that the FIE doesn't care. What would Occam do?

darius

[Inquartata]

How about pitch selection in baseball. While in some cases this is done by agreement between the catcher and the pitcher, a lot of pitchers get their calls from a coach in the dugout and they throw it.

Is there any indication that that has a higher rate of success?

That something is done is not evidence that it's effective!

And baseball is a team sport. Fencing is not.

Coach calls the plays. In fact, most team sports are that way.

Same question, same comment.

IMO the value of coaches when it comes to directing performance is vastly over-rated in all sports. As teachers, well, that's another kettle of fish.

While you demand proof, and me claiming very specific instances where my coach gave me specific advice between touches, and I got a touch as a result isn't good enough for you

Because this is the perception of an involved party, not an objective observer.

must remind you that some advantages may be imperceptible.

I'd argue that in fencing "imperceptible" amounts to "nonexistent".

The rest must wait until the weekend.

[darius]

While you demand proof, and me claiming very specific instances where my coach gave me specific advice between touches, and I got a touch as a result isn't good enough for you

Because this is the perception of an involved party, not an objective observer.

In this case, an objective observer would have LESS information than the competitor. The competitor should know that he was acting on information from the coach or not.

In your view, if a waitress tells me not to touch a plate because it's hot, the fact that I don't is merely coincidence. After all, I'm an involved party, there's no clinical study that shows the causation between waitress instruction and diner action. It's also a conflict-of-interest, because having unburned customers is in the best interests of servers. Servers should stay quiet - it's best for the development of diners.

darius

[DangerMouse]

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...

How did you arrive at the number 30? How would you randomize your samples? What test of statistical significance is this based on? Why does the advice have to be specific for your test?

Obviously your background is not in research design.

[Dev]

@Inquartata: All right. That's it.

Neither the fencer nor the coach involved is considered a valid source of information because they supposedly have a vested interest in perpetuating what you call the "myth" of strip coaching?

But by your own admission, an "objective observer" (uninvolved in the "transaction") would not have enough information, viz an earlier post on a different thread during which Darius asked you to follow a high-level coach throughout a NAC to perform the study yourself (you complained that you "couldn't get close enough" or "couldn't hear").

It seems obvious that the only objective observer you would be willing to accept is yourself (everyone else is too interested in lying to themselves to perpetuate fencing dogma, apparently), and you can't do it, so either:

a) strip-coaching is worthless because you say it is and that's all that matters, or

b) you're an idiot who has argued himself into a corner.

What would Occam do, indeed?

[Allen Evans]

What would Occam do, indeed?

Leave this thread, and Inquartata, to their own devices.

[griffindm]

Leave this thread, and Inquartata, to their own devices.

As the OP in this thread, I totally agree with Allen. Too much thread drift, nothing more to say that would change anyone's mind.

[epeelion]

As the OP in this thread, I totally agree with Allen. Too much thread drift, nothing more to say that would change anyone's mind.

Boo! Spoilsport! Booooo!

It's actually quite fun to watch someone else bash him into looking like an idiot.

I'd also like him to respond to Darius' last longer post. I suspect it may be difficult.

[ivlobane]

Leave this thread, and Inquartata, to their own devices.

Lol, at first glance, I read that as:

"Leave this thread, Inquartata, and commit suicide."

[Inquartata]

Really? Because that's absolutely NOT what you want to do. If you're giving specific advice, you'd better create the same context!

1) Why? All I am after is a strong apparent advice-execution-success link. If such a link can be seen between different sorts of actions, so much the better. ( Unless you're looking to establish the effectiveness of just one specific piece of advice in one narrow set of circumstances, that is. )

2) You may have misunderstood what I meant by "randomized". I meant with regard to subjects. That is, ideally I'd want to see strong correlations between advice and points scored using a number of different fencers from various clubs and areas: that is to say, not just 30 results with the same fencer-coach pair, or 2 pairs, etc. ( It would probably be ok to use a fairly select group of coaches, but I think that 30 or more fencers should be the goal. )

For example, if my fencer makes an strong attack to the chest from close distance, and is hit on a parry-4, riposte, I might tell them, "Same preparation, but finish to flank." If they start from further away, make a different preparation, or even start slowly in an attempt to give themselves time to disengage, the opponent's response might be different, causing the action to fail.

Sure, exactly. Reread my initial proposition---that's what I was saying: that I would like to see the fencer carry out the coach's advice exactly, and that if he scored with it I'd take that as a good data point. If he did something different, or had to make some sort of adjustment on his own, I'd want to reject that action even if it scored.

One time I was scorekeeping, and timekeeping a saber bout.

Was this at band camp?

During the break before the third period, it was 14-13. Instead of the standing around that had been happening before I wanted the kid at 14 to score so we could all be done.

I asked him if he knew what a flunge was, and he did. I told him to flunge and feint head then finish arm. Realizing he would just do that off the line and fall way short, I told him to also take two small steps to get closer.

At the command fence, he took two steps forward, feinted head, flunged, and hit the other guy on the arm. No one was more surprised than I was that he had coincidentally come up with the exact same plan as I had and had scored completely without any outside help, thus proving that coaching is useless.

Congratulations---you have "proved" the value of strip coaching...to yourself.

If OTOH the idea is to convince me...well, one unconfirmable anecdote proably isn't going to make much headway.

And yes, I know, you don't care. Irrelevant, as I see it.

I could care less about your verification.

Could you? OK, let's see you do it!

I'm bothering to argue on the Internets for 2 reasons:
1. I'm kinda bored due to a post camp week off.
2. Some young coach might actually listen to you. (Then again, I'm fine if they go and do the science.)

Splendid reasons, IMO.

What is relevant is that the coach was coming up with the action (sometimes quite disjointed from what was happening from the flow of the bout), and the student would immediately perform that action.

Or so you believed. Can you think of any way to confirm it? And why would the outcome be irrelevant?

Which is why my role was somewhat irrelevant, but why not give my student the information about what action was coming next (since I had it)?

You still haven't established that either her opponent's coaching or your reporting of it to your student had an effect on the result, one way or the other, though...

She was scoring by grabbing the blade

I don't know epee, but isn't this illegal? ( forbidden fifth smily )

Her coach, instead, told her, "You need to threaten her hand! Keep your arm out!" Despite the fact that it was against her instincts, she followed his exhortation, every time. This made for a much easier win.

Yes, it's clear that this is apparent to you; but still, it doesn't go far toward convincing me ( for all of the reasons I've mentioned in earlier posts, such as confirmation bias ). It's all very...subjective. Subjective reporting is often unconvincing to doubters. ( Yes, I know, you don't care. But still. )

In football, the quarterback is the 'general', communicating the play to 10 other players, all of whom have very defined roles. And yet, the coach's perspective is considered valid and acted on.

Yes. What is this supposed to establish?

"Generals" are only needed to coordinate the concerted actions of multiple soldiers. In a form of conflict which imitates single combat, generals are wholly otiose ( IMO ).

Fencing is a team sport; the parents who write the checks, sport-specific coaching staff, strength & conditioning coaches, medical professionals, are all part of a fencer's development.

"Development" is not fencing. Fencing is fencing, and only one person does it: the fencer.

I don't deny the utility of any of those things in supporting the fencer, but it's not any of those others who step out on the piste and face the opponent. It's just one person: the fencer. Fencing is not a team sport, as football or baseball are. Trying to adduce anyone who has any effect on a fencer's life as part of his "team" is a real stretch, IMO. Might as well say that the actor who played Zorro in the film that got him interested in fencing in the first place is also on his "team"...

To a lesser extent, referees and opponents are as well.

Ah, you're trying to define "team" to suit your own argument. Fair enough, I am probably doing the same...but I think my definition is a lot closer to standard English usage of the word than yours.

At any rate, I am not obliged to accept that "team" encompasses anyone who has an effect on a fencer's life. So I don't. ( smily )

If your eyes are closed, it's hard to see evidence.

No doubt. But while that's a witty rejoinder, how exactly does it establish that it's proper to "adopt the assumption that something is happening but it's unmeasurable, simply because the possibility of that is non-zero"?

If that works with an 8 year old whose first day of fencing is today, don't you think there's a possibility that it might work with highly-skilled athletes with whom one works 3-4 times/week in one-on-one situations, and observes in practice multiple hours per week?

How many times must I say this? "Possibility", yes; "certainty", no; and IMO, even "probability", no.

Are we really arguing now over whether something is possible? If so, you've won...

But if we're still arguing about whether or not it is happening, past any reasonable doubt---that it's demonstrated fact---then we are still far from there, I'm afraid.

Because that's what the IOC tells them to do.

Yes. Why, do you think?

You can look at the prohibition of marijuana to know that not every substance on that list is a performance enhancer or masking agent!

Because....?

Try drinking enough caffeine to trigger a drug test -- it won't help your performance one bit.

And you have evidence of this? Or am I again just expected to take your word for it?

Ah, so that's how fencers get better faster, by being "thrown wholly onto their own resources?"

In bouts? I suspect so...

Guess coaches shouldn't give lessons or run practices, then.

As a coach, you think that those are the same things as bouting?

One is done alone, by oneself; and the others...

Yeah, exactly alike...

On strip, some fencers are better left-alone, and some coaches are better off leaving their fencers alone, but taken to the extreme, your ideas of how to develop an athlete are absurd.

If I may paraphrase a wise man: "I could care less about your" characterization of it as "absurd". ( smily )

Are you a teacher of any kind?

Why?

So even in tennis, where there are so many variables (I'd argue, more than fencing) due to the size of the court, relative placement of the players, angle and spin of the ball, coaching is considered effective!

And prayer is forbidden in schools, too! QED, prayer is effective! ( smily )

And if you notice, tennis players get up-in-arms about it! There are controversies about top players who receive coaching, coaches who deny doing it, etc.

Sure.

Are you averring that that demonstrates that it's effective? Or only implies it? Or...?

It could be that somehow, coaching in tennis, where you have to shout over a much greater distance, and have all these variables (do you worry about wind in fencing?) is effective.

And we're back to "is X possible?" again.

Are you sure we're still in the same argument?

Or it could be that the FIE doesn't care.

Yes, that's a possibility, too.

I'm not sure that that's where the razor cuts, though. ( smily )

[Allen Evans]

No matter what the outcome of this thread, Inq, PLEASE don't entertain a future career in Experimental Design.

[Inquartata]

How did you arrive at the number 30?

Just a rule of thumb. Much less than that and validity of the results are in question due to small sample size.

How would you randomize your samples?

I'd have to think on it. Just establishing the criteria here. I'd want to see a number of different fencer-coach pairs, ideally a lot of them but resources are usually too limited to do things right. The fencers at least should be different one from the next as well. Again, I'd have to think about the details.

What test of statistical significance is this based on?

I'm not designing the experiment, merely establishing minimum requirements for one for which positive results would convince me.

Why does the advice have to be specific for your test?

Because if it's too vague then any point scored can be taken as a successful test. A fencer who scores a touch after hearing advice as vague and general as "Finish!" or "Focus!" has proven nothing...

Obviously your background is not in research design.

So? I was asked what would convince me. Remember?

Feel free to develop a methodology if you feel better qualified and are so inclined.

Neither the fencer nor the coach involved is considered a valid source of information because they supposedly have a vested interest in perpetuating what you call the "myth" of strip coaching?

Correct. But that's not the main objection. Those aspects only influence ( or might influence* ) the main objection, viz., their judgements rely on subjective impressions, not objectively observed behaviors.

* I can think of no way to determine when or if a given coach or fencer might be so influenced. It could be every one, it could be none, it could be any number in between. Hence you cannot really expect me to accept either its absence or its presence as an assumption.

But by your own admission, an "objective observer" (uninvolved in the "transaction") would not have enough information, viz an earlier post on a different thread during which Darius asked you to follow a high-level coach throughout a NAC to perform the study yourself (you complained that you "couldn't get close enough" or "couldn't hear").

Yeah. I doubt that most referees would stand for it.

I suppose it would be possible at a local competition, where referees are less likely to be strict about these things. But one of the arguments is that the supposed effect is more likely to be encountered with high-level coaches ( and presumably high-level fencers ).

It seems obvious that the only objective observer you would be willing to accept is yourself

Not necessarily. However, it would have to be someone who was neither a coach nor a firm believer in the effectiveness of strip coaching. Just someone interested in answering the question once and for all, on evidence, not presumption or faith or habit, etc.

Someone better accustomed to following the scientific method than I would be ideal, in fact.

a) strip-coaching is worthless because you say it is and that's all that matters, or

b) you're an idiot who has argued himself into a corner.

Fallacy of bifurcation AND ad hominem! Well, I guess you've really showed me what a true argument is!

Leave this thread, and Inquartata, to their own devices.

It's actually quite fun to watch someone else bash him into looking like an idiot.

It's not as though I expected to come through this thread unscathed. After all, I have come among coaches to question whether one of their main skills is in fact even worth doing. Frankly I'm surprised that it's been as polite as it has as long as it has.

I note that the responses have become typical, though. From Allen Evans, a gentlemanly withdrawal from what he considers a pointless debate; from Darius, restrained testiness but still a basic civility; from Epeelion, name-calling.

"A tree may be known by its fruit."

[darius]

1) Why? All I am after is a strong apparent advice-execution-success link. If such a link can be seen between different sorts of actions, so much the better. ( Unless you're looking to establish the effectiveness of just one specific piece of advice in one narrow set of circumstances, that is. )

I don't even think you need advice-execution-success to determine that coaches can reasonably be shown to have an influence on the bout. What you need is advice-execution. Success is a goal, but we're more concerned with process than outcome. As I've repeatedly pointed out, coaching can be detrimental.

As previously stated, why not do this experiment yourself, if you're so concerned with scientific validity? After all, I'm perfectly willing to accept my own n=(sample set of coaches that I've personally witnessed affect bouts) as a sample set. I suspect most of the spectrum, from top coaches to absolute newbies, will feel the same way.

Sure, exactly. Reread my initial proposition---that's what I was saying: that I would like to see the fencer carry out the coach's advice exactly, and that if he scored with it I'd take that as a good data point. If he did something different, or had to make some sort of adjustment on his own, I'd want to reject that action even if it scored.

Of course. Sometimes that's even detrimental -- the fencer scores on an action that they get 1-for, 3-against, and they can't understand why the coach is asking them to do something else. In my experience, athletes heavily weight the most recent data.

If OTOH the idea is to convince me...well, one unconfirmable anecdote proably isn't going to make much headway.

And that's how you can win every argument. Everything is unconfirmable as you see it. To prove it, we'd have to have two cameras, one on the coach and one on the fencer. Of course, you don't seem to be able to do this on your own, despite the fact that you supposedly watch nearly every bout fenced at every NAC you attend.

Here is a list of things that can go wrong with an objective observer:
- Not hearing the coach advice.
- Not understanding the coach advice.
- Not understanding how the advice maps to an action from the athlete (We all have slightly different terminology; most non-NWFC folks wouldn't know what we're talking about if we tell an epeeist to do Counterattack # 2)
- Not being able to see the action on strip.
- Inability to believe that advice off-strip could potentially influence action on strip.

You still haven't established that either her opponent's coaching or your reporting of it to your student had an effect on the result, one way or the other, though...

The opponent's coaching had an effect on the athlete's action (or they were mysteriously in sync, over the course of more than 30 phrases...isn't that your magic number?). Whether my coaching had an impact or not, it's not certain. My student picked the correct solutions, but given that I gave her no specific advice, it's unclear whether her foreknowledge or what was coming affected the bout.

If you knew what was coming, would that affect your success rate, over time?

Yes, it's clear that this is apparent to you; but still, it doesn't go far toward convincing me ( for all of the reasons I've mentioned in earlier posts, such as confirmation bias ). It's all very...subjective. Subjective reporting is often unconvincing to doubters. ( Yes, I know, you don't care. But still. )

Fencer was previously removing blade. OBJECTIVE.
Coach says, "Keep your blade out." OBJECTIVE.
Fencer keeps blade out. OBJECTIVE.
Tactical context and reasoning behind it. SUBJECTIVE.

Of course, you could claim that all visual information is based on one's point of view, making it SUBJECTIVE. In which case, video evidence wouldn't even be OBJECTIVE, because you could always claim that the resolution wasn't clear enough for you to see.

"Development" is not fencing. Fencing is fencing, and only one person does it: the fencer.

I consider competitions to be development and treat them as such. This may make me an outlier, but I suspect not.

No doubt. But while that's a witty rejoinder, how exactly does it establish that it's proper to "adopt the assumption that something is happening but it's unmeasurable, simply because the possibility of that is non-zero"?

It's quite measurable, as long as you're not such a contrarian that you refuse to find your measuring device.

Are we really arguing now over whether something is possible? If so, you've won...

Sweet! I claim victory!

But if we're still arguing about whether or not it is happening, past any reasonable doubt---that it's demonstrated fact---then we are still far from there, I'm afraid.

I don't need it to be demonstrated fact; I just need enough of a correlation to justify the behavior.

Yes. Why, do you think?

I don't even understand what you're getting at here- you say that the FIE doesn't ban strip coaching because they believe that it's not effective (or crazy conspiracy theory)...if that "logic" holds, and banned things are effective and unbanned things are ineffective, why is marijuana banned?

And you have evidence of this? Or am I again just expected to take your word for it?

Just a hunch, no evidence. Caffeine doesn't have well-documented effects, after all. But I don't suggest you try it. Given your reluctance to actually do anything other than throw stones, I don't suspect that'll be a problem.

As a coach, you think that those are the same things as bouting?
One is done alone, by oneself; and the others...

...are done with a coach, sometimes. Parents, sometimes. Referee, often.

darius

[epeelion]

I only name call when it's appropriate.

I still don't understand how it's possible for you to argue that you don't see any evidence of strip coaching being effective, yet still think it's unfair for people to have strip coaches. Why is it unfair if it makes no difference (or if you believe this to be so)? Not to mention the fact that since some fencers would say (without a doubt) that strip coaching is very important to them, whether it's a placebo effect or not, it is still effective.

I also am 50-50 on whether you're just being dishonest about having never, ever observed a correlation between coaching and a touch. I wish you could come up with an experimental design to convince me that your objectively have never observed this. Alas, proving a negative... Convenient that you ALWAYS manage to twist debates so that you are never required to provide evidence, but can require such from others whenever you want.

[Inquartata]

I don't even think you need advice-execution-success to determine that coaches can reasonably be shown to have an influence on the bout. What you need is advice-execution.

Mmmm...

Perhaps. But I thought we were talking about whether strip coaching is effective, rather than just exerting an influence.

After all, at some level everything influences everything else to some degree. The butterfly theory, and all that. So sure, a coach talks to his fencer at all, even if it's just about the weather,that's an influence---if he didn't, the fencer would be thinking about something else. If he hands him his water bottle, that too is a small influence. But does either influence help the fencer at all with winning his bout? Probably not. Probably isn't detrimental, either.

Influence, IMO, is likely too broad and fuzzy a state to try to measure. But I'll have to think about it some more.

As previously stated, why not do this experiment yourself, if you're so concerned with scientific validity?

Because it sounds like a lot of work, and I prefer to fence or watch fencing when I'm at competitions where this could reasonably be tested.

Also, like yourself I don't really care much about people accepting my thesis, or about whether strip-coaching is effective or not. I feel that it doesn't affect me adversely, so if my opponent chooses to spend his money to have a coach yelling at him to "move his feet" and feed him ideas that won't work* at the break, that's his choice. I'm still arguing about this because I enjoy a good argument. I suspect that this does not amaze you.

* This is what fencing is all about. Coach or no, my opponent will do something in the next phrase. It's my job to cope with that something, defeat it and score with a something of my own. Whether the ideas come from the opponent or his coach, my job is the same. If I do it properly, the source of the problem presented me doesn't matter---the ideas won't work.

Ultimately this is how I see it: If I win, I fenced better. If I lose, my opponent fenced better. I think it's unfair that I am facing, in effect, two opponents, but whatever. If I win, I was "better" than both of them. If I lose, I wasn't. That's what competition is all about.

I'm perfectly willing to accept my own n=(sample set of coaches that I've personally witnessed affect bouts) as a sample set. I suspect most of the spectrum, from top coaches to absolute newbies, will feel the same way.

Sure. This is why churches flourish, despite being founded on nothing more substantial than faith. Personally I prefer a bit more in the way of fact than that, but realistically I'm in the same boat: I don't think strip-coaching is effective because I haven't ever observed a clear n, to use your definition of n. So since n=0, I can't accept that n exists until I observe a sufficient number of them, or have some reported to me by someone whom I am confident has done it right...

And that's how you can win every argument.

What, by telling you how someone could disprove my position?

Everything is unconfirmable as you see it.

Didn't I lay out a method whose results I'd find probative earlier? I was sure I had...

Maybe you don't think the method is perfect or even correct, but if it will convince, what does that matter? The method is not impossible, or even that difficult. Time-consuming and tedious, perhaps, but not difficult.

To prove it, we'd have to have two cameras, one on the coach and one on the fencer.

No, just a reliable, knowledgeable observer whose objectivity could reasonably be assured.

The problem with not being able to hear the advice from the sideline could be overcome by a microphone, or even a couple of cell phones.The prohibition on listening gear applies only to the fencers. ( Whether a coach would agree to be miked is another question, of course. )

Of course, you don't seem to be able to do this on your own, despite the fact that you supposedly watch nearly every bout fenced at every NAC you attend.

Tsk! Straw man. It's impossible to watch anything close to every bout, when there are multiple pools and DE tableaux going on at once, often at distances from each other.

I watch as many as I can. That's not the same thing as "nearly every bout".

And there are still the previously mentioned obstacles to my doing this, eg, I cannot usually hear the coach's advice. If I could, I may not have the technical expertise to be able to judge whether in fact the fencer executed, or tried to execute the advice. And of course, I can probably not be taken as impartial. Like you, I have my preconceptions. If I am trying to be objective, I have to be wary of my own biases as well as everyone else's...

Here is a list of things that can go wrong with an objective observer:
- Not hearing the coach advice.
- Not understanding the coach advice.
- Not understanding how the advice maps to an action from the athlete (We all have slightly different terminology; most non-NWFC folks wouldn't know what we're talking about if we tell an epeeist to do Counterattack # 2)
- Not being able to see the action on strip.
- Inability to believe that advice off-strip could potentially influence action on strip.

Good precis. Not that I think any of them are insurmountable, but yes, those are the difficulties.

The opponent's coaching had an effect on the athlete's action

Even if I were to grant this for the sake of argument, it doesn't demonstrate that the strip-coaching was effective. That is, that it led to a result distinguishable from chance...

If you knew what was coming, would that affect your success rate, over time?

I can't know, of course, but I suspect that it would not.

I think that we have all had bouts where we "knew" what our opponent was going to do next: guys who have or like only one action, guys who are too stubborn to stop doing an action when it fails or the referee "doesn't see it", guys so much better than you that they are just practicing an action on you. I don't know about you, but I have had the unpleasant experience of being beaten by all three sorts. Usually the latter, most recently fencing Brian Cheney, but alas, occasionally the other two sorts as well. "Knowing" what was coming didn't help much in those cases. Hence I don't know that I can trust my own sense of "knowing what helps" all that far...

Of course, you could claim that all visual information is based on one's point of view, making it SUBJECTIVE.

Luckily I don't. But I would like to be reasonably sure that we had eliminated obvious sources of possible bias in the observer before setting him to the job. This is why I think I would disqualify coaches as objective observers.

I consider competitions to be development and treat them as such. This may make me an outlier, but I suspect not.

That's one aspect of fencing, but only one. The other activities, however, have ONLY that quality. Paying for lessons is not fencing. Taking lessons is not fencing. Thus financing and coaching are not fencing, either, and those who perform those functions are not members of a "team", any more than the civilian bartender at a base officer's club is a soldier or a member of an army. Support functions are support functions, and not part and parcel of the activities they support...

Sweet! I claim victory!

Just you wait until the iocane powder kicks in. ( smily )

I don't need it to be demonstrated fact; I just need enough of a correlation to justify the behavior.

You say potato, and I say potato.

Well, you know what I mean. ( smily )

I don't even understand what you're getting at here-

I was asserting that the IOC has banned certain drugs because it has been found that they are effective in enhancing performance. And that it has not banned coaching because it has NOT been found to be effective.

Admittedly, it's easier to prove the first than the second, but that doesn't change the basic logic of banning X where X is shown to enhance performance artificially...and not banning Y until it is so shown as well.

if that "logic" holds, and banned things are effective and unbanned things are ineffective, why is marijuana banned?

Because drug bans are scattershot things, and the standards are set for sports in general. There is probably sufficient reason for adding specific substances to the list for a particular sport in which it may help---shooting, for example---even if it doesn't help or would actually harm in others. But once you have a general list, there's no really good reason to take a substance off it for a particular sport. So the general list ends up applying to everyone.

And then there's the whole 'illegal'* angle. ( smily )

* Yes, I realize it's not illegal everywhere. But no organization is going to go to the trouble of changing the list depending on whether the next Olympic Games are to be held in the US or in the Netherlands.

Just a hunch, no evidence.

Sweet! I claim victory! Heh.

Caffeine doesn't have well-documented effects, after all.

Doesn't it?

But I don't suggest you try it.

But I drink caffeinated beverages all the time when fencing...

Given your reluctance to actually do anything other than throw stones, I don't suspect that'll be a problem.

Not even sure what that means.

[Inquartata]

I only name call when it's appropriate.

Of course you do, sweetie. Now, pat yourself on the back and go back to your bouncing.

[epeelion]

I still don't understand how it's possible for you to argue that you don't see any evidence of strip coaching being effective, yet still think it's unfair for people to have strip coaches. Why is it unfair if it makes no difference (or if you believe this to be so)? Not to mention the fact that since some fencers would say (without a doubt) that strip coaching is very important to them, whether it's a placebo effect or not, it is still effective.

I also am 50-50 on whether you're just being dishonest about having never, ever observed a correlation between coaching and a touch. I wish you could come up with an experimental design to convince me that your objectively have never observed this. Alas, proving a negative... Convenient that you ALWAYS manage to twist debates so that you are never required to provide evidence, but can require such from others whenever you want.

The rest of my post, in case you missed it.