US Fencing Director of High Performance Programs Takes a Step Back
staff writer October 28, 2009
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -The United States Fencing Association announced today the resignation of Mike Pederson, the organization's Director of High Performance Programs.
In March, Pederson was hired as the head of high performance, the area of the organization that is charged with the oversight and development of its Olympic and National Team athletes. Kurt Aichele, USFA Executive Director commented, "Since stepping in that role (Mike) has effectively re-established our performance relationship with the USOC, and laid an excellent foundation for future success on the International stage. He departure from the program is a significant loss." Discussions about the transition began during the Senior World Championships in Antalya, Turkey, where Mike had the opportunity to experience the role to its fullest. According to Pederson, "I have not taken this decision lightly...I recognize my sincere passion for coaching and working directly with the athletes."
As a result of this realization, Pederson has decided to apply as a candidate for consideration in becoming the Women's Foil National Team Coach position that has not been filled, and will remain with the USFA in a full-time capacity as the HPD through the first week of November. Aichele sees this as an opportunity to re-evaluate the current structure of the High Performance Program saying, "The USFA has witnessed a number of highly-talented individuals rotate through this role over the last five years or more. With that type of turnover, one has to step back and take a look at the role itself. I believe the time is right to consider a change, and we have been working to develop a departmental structure that will effectively prepare us for the Olympic Games in '12, '16, and '20...Reorganization is never easy, but the opportunity before us is great."
Aichele will assume most of the communicative and programmatic functions of the Director High Performance, while Christine Simmons, Director of Operations for the USFA, will provide direct oversight of the High Performance staff effective November 9th.
For more information, please contact the USFA Director of Marketing & Communications, Rob Weekes (719) 351-5716.
It occasionally happens. It depends on how much people don't want it known. It clearly isn't that he wanted to spend more time in athlete development, because it was mentioned by somebody who seemed to know things that he really wanted the HPD position.
It seems like the whole system is too enamored with the concept of benevolent dictators rather than free markets for athlete development. I really don't see any reason we have to have either a high-performance director or any national coach. It seems like that's centrally planned failure. We don't at all know how to pick good benevolent dictators. We don't even know if anyone would make a good one, and if we just pick one anyway, we're almost certainly not going to do any good.
We could be just saying, "If you have the points, you can go to the tournaments, and if you do well internationally, we'll give you whatever money we have available to help defray your costs." Historically that's worked much better for almost everything, and given the improvement in e.g. MF without any national coach support (and with occasional hindrance), it seems like it would work better here too.
Well, somebody has to determine how points are earned. That's not necessarily indicating we need National Coaches, but there is a reasonable expectation that each weapon will have different circumstances in their competitive environment that someone needs to be familiar with and know how to include in the performance development process.
Also, I think we get money from the USOC that must go to National Coaches. If we don't have National Coaches, we don't get that money.
It occasionally happens. It depends on how much people don't want it known. It clearly isn't that he wanted to spend more time in athlete development, because it was mentioned by somebody who seemed to know things that he really wanted the HPD position.
It seems like the whole system is too enamored with the concept of benevolent dictators rather than free markets for athlete development. I really don't see any reason we have to have either a high-performance director or any national coach. It seems like that's centrally planned failure. We don't at all know how to pick good benevolent dictators. We don't even know if anyone would make a good one, and if we just pick one anyway, we're almost certainly not going to do any good.
We could be just saying, "If you have the points, you can go to the tournaments, and if you do well internationally, we'll give you whatever money we have available to help defray your costs." Historically that's worked much better for almost everything, and given the improvement in e.g. MF without any national coach support (and with occasional hindrance), it seems like it would work better here too.
I don't think it has to be either...
I haven't seen a lot of "dictatorship" from the HPD or the national coaches, instead it is more of a coordinating and direction-setting role... think of it as a team coxswain. Leaving it to the free market creates even more petite bourgeois kings and queens interested in only their own students/subjects. In a vacuum, that is what tends to happen... and it hasn't proven to be effective.
If you look at the overall results, the teams that have done particularly well (WS, MS, WF) had the benefit of national coaches - or, in the alternate, when there is an effective national coach because one coach controls 2/3 of the team. The teams that have somewhat floundered did not, however. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but having someone lead isn't a bad thing, either.
Good leadership is far better than no leadership at all, and I, for one, am sorry to see Mike not stay in that role - he's proven himself as an effective leader, deserved the position and did a commendable job in his short tenure.
One day, we may find out what happened, but frankly, in every public pronouncement of this nature (fencing, politics, etc.)... the classic statement that "he wants to pursue other opportunities" only reflects the very small tip at the top of what is often a larger, less pleasant iceberg.
I don't really understand why different weapons need different points systems. It seems like there should be a standard algorithm for designating world cups and strength factors, and you just run it to get each year's list. The Cadet international thing seems a little fuzzier, but still, it doesn't seem like you have to be an expert on sabre to make a good decision about a cadet sabre international and its strength factor. And, evidently, even being an expert about a particular weapon doesn't guarantee you'll make good decisions about Cadets anyway.
Obviously if we get money for having people who officially have titles, then we should give some people some titles, quite independently of whether we have them make any substantive decisions.
About not seeing any dictatorship, it's been established that the national coaches are the ones who decided to F with the national calendar, and that they just decided it and absolutely no one was willing to argue with them (and even here on the forums, people said it was "inappropriate" to question them) so, uh, I think we have, in fact, seen some unfortunate examples of dictatorship.
As for leadership, I completely disagree. Even good leadership is worse than no leadership. If a given program totally sucked balls across the board, I can understand maybe taking a person who demonstrably knows what they're doing and having them kick people around. But, if we had that person, it's hard to see why they wouldn't have already just coached their own people and made the program therefore not suck.
However, none of our programs suck unequivocal balls; each weapon has had some success, and the people who get designated to titles invariably know what they're doing less than the people who have had success. If we just let the people who were already doing okay figure out how to do better, we would get there faster than appointing a bureaucrat to tell them their business.
About not seeing any dictatorship, it's been established that the national coaches are the ones who decided to F with the national calendar, and that they just decided it and absolutely no one was willing to argue with them (and even here on the forums, people said it was "inappropriate" to question them) so, uh, I think we have, in fact, seen some unfortunate examples of dictatorship.
Me thinks that the "coaches" (as if there is a coaches hegemony sitting in a smoke-filled room hatching plots (as if many of them could stand being in a smoke-filled room with each other)) is a subterfuge to quell discontent. None of the "coaches" have come out in support of the proposed calendar publicly and I, for one, have both publicly and privately voiced discontent (see post here) - of course, getting no response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eac
As for leadership, I completely disagree. Even good leadership is worse than no leadership. If a given program totally sucked balls across the board, I can understand maybe taking a person who demonstrably knows what they're doing and having them kick people around. But, if we had that person, it's hard to see why they wouldn't have already just coached their own people and made the program therefore not suck.
However, none of our programs suck unequivocal balls; each weapon has had some success, and the people who get designated to titles invariably know what they're doing less than the people who have had success. If we just let the people who were already doing okay figure out how to do better, we would get there faster than appointing a bureaucrat to tell them their business.
Here we disagree. There is a lot more to this than strip coaching. Having a central figure (at least a good one) brings people together and helps them be a team. And even though we're an individual sport, being a cohesive team does make a difference in results (just ask anyone who has brought back a bout because their teammates were egging them on). There is also a certain amount of managerial stuff that helps a lot if it happens (I can speak from direct experience).
It's quite curious. All speculation of course. M. Pederson has had some outspoken critics particularly over the decision during the olympics not to substitute Doris Willette. But the critics were over ridden in his selection as HPD. Then with Doris' subsequent defection, well she is off to college. But it does seem to have been a decision to leave GGFC and M. Pederson as her coach in the aftermath. And with her brother who is doing quite well going to MTEAM, GGFC no longer has the higher level of quality foil students. So the simplest explanation might be that M. Pederson is looking for access to high level foil students that being a national coach might bring.
Also as a national coach you don't have to work to develop fencers from the ground up. Probably worth a thread or two about what makes a good national coach in any weapon. The HPD is definitely a management job which M Pederson might not want and which his detractors have definitely felt he is not qualified for. But the position as national women's foil coach....Hmmm. I wonder what the Willettes' feelings about that would be??
It's quite curious. M. Pedersen has had some outspoken critics particularly over the decision during the olympics not to substitute Doris Willette. But the critics were over ridden in his selection as HPD. Then with Doris' subsequent defection, well she is off to college. But it does seem to have been a decision to leave GGFC and M. Pedersen as her coach in the aftermath. And with her brother who is doing quite well going to MTEAM, GGFC no longer has the higher level of quality foil students. So the simplest explanation might be that M. Pedersen is looking for access to high level foil students that being a national coach might bring.
Also as a national coach you don't have to work to develop fencers from the ground up. Probably worth a thread or two about what makes a good national coach in any weapon. The HPD is definitely a management job which M Pedersen might not want and which his detractors have definitely felt he is not qualified for. But the position as national women's foil coach....Hmmm. I wonder what the Willettes' feelings about that would be??
First of all, we must remember that, whether ultimately right or wrong, Mike had a lot of stones to keep his own student out. Had that happened to my kid, I probably would have reacted as the Willette's did - I can't fault them for it - but at the same time, one can't credibly make the argument that Mike's choice at that time was in his own self interest.
Second, being the national coach doesn't provide the kind of access that you're describing. It is also a somewhat ministerial position that, while closer to the strip, doesn't directly bring new students. There is no reason that the platform as HPD would prevent him from holding a camp or would be an impediment to new student recruiting (which is, after all, geographically based).
Third, who would be more qualified for the role? Kurt as coordinator/communicator? (that's been going great, so far...). I suppose we'll all have to register for international events through hang-a-star and fly/stay in the international Fly, Stay and Pay airline and hotel choices ...
Listen, anyone in that role is going to have supporters and detractors, but the underlying question is, really, whether the decisions are made fairly and communicated well. The one thing that I can say about my experiences with Mike is that he has been absolutely fair, clear and rational (and note, as Pacific Coast Section chair last year, I was at serious odds with GGFC on a couple of unrelated issues).
If this was his decision, I'm sure he had good reason. If it was a push-out or power-grab, it is a real shame. In either case, we're probably losing the best person out there for the job - and that is a real loss for our fencers.
A. Yes
B. Bud Greenspan
C. Surely a certain person's tangential-at-best role was unrelated, one hopes.
D. That juicy open foil slot was irresistible.
E. An unholy covenic cabal of Nancy, Andrea and Ro and their sinister Pot O' Doom formulas.
F. A keenly aware sense that no matter what he did, someone on fencing.net would complain about it.
G. All of the above.
H. None of the above.
I. A, F and H.
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
I like how the VP that the HPD reorted to quit in order to be hired by the HPD as a weapons coach, even though no fencers wanted him in that position. Now, the HPD is quitting to be hired as a weapons coach. Is his hiring a done deal? If so, who made that decision? Amazing conflicts of interest at play here.
I like how the VP that the HPD reorted to quit in order to be hired by the HPD as a weapons coach, even though no fencers wanted him in that position. Now, the HPD is quitting to be hired as a weapons coach. Is his hiring a done deal? If so, who made that decision? Amazing conflicts of interest at play here.
So now we have lost the HP director, so he can revert to WF National Coach only, as he was doing both jobs after Buckie declined the WF position.
How does that affect the input of what I will call the "HP group," regarding the proposed new schedule that I so dislike?
Mike Pederson resigned as High Performance Director for his personal reasons. He was not forced out, if fact he was doing an incredible job as our HPD and has done more in the past 7 months to sure up our relationship with the USOC that the past 5 HPD's. He just came to the realization that he enjoyed coaching and leading a weapons program, as he did in helping the US to achieve a Silver medal in the Olympic Games with the Women's Foil Team, and if he could he would prefer to reapply to be considered to be the Women's Foil National Coach. He is one of three candidates being considered for that position now and being interviewed for the job, by an appointed panel being headed by Sada (Jacobsen) Bªby. He is resigning regardless if he is selected
as the new Weapons Coach or not.
Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association
Last edited by mdstasinos; 10-29-2009 at 12:21 PM..
__________________ I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!
... 
Linear Mode
