Where have all the NACs gone?

[Peach]

Originally posted by edew
I'm a fervent believer that every fencer, especially the top fencers, must attend a tournament where he or she is the prohibitive favorite and win it. When you go to a major event, the number one enemy is your own doubts. Those doubts must be extinguished and to do so requires winning a tournament.

Oh, all right, Eric, you're right after all. I decided to try it. I went to a local tournament yesterday with the idea of deciding and planning to win the thing for a change instead of treating it as a workout, and did what I was supposed to, and won it, and I have to say it made me feel much more prepared for Columbus.

I hate that.

[sallearmourer]

I telling my age here. I remenber the time when you went to a natioal event and wound with a Bob Marx or Peter Westbrook in your first round pool which happen to me in New York one time,


Tim

[edew]

Originally posted by Peach
Originally posted by edew
I'm a fervent believer that every fencer, especially the top fencers, must attend a tournament where he or she is the prohibitive favorite and win it. When you go to a major event, the number one enemy is your own doubts. Those doubts must be extinguished and to do so requires winning a tournament.

Oh, all right, Eric, you're right after all. I decided to try it. I went to a local tournament yesterday with the idea of deciding and planning to win the thing for a change instead of treating it as a workout, and did what I was supposed to, and won it, and I have to say it made me feel much more prepared for Columbus.

I hate that.

Actually, I was proposing that you attend a tournament where you are the heavily favored one, not one where you decide and plan to win it (which is similar, but not quite). The point is, you HAVE to win it. You're the favorite and you're supposed to win it or your name is mud. You have to add on all that extra baggage and learn (experience, maybe?) the feeling of throwing off that excess baggage. Once you get the feel of setting yourself free from the doubts and uncertainties, you develop a new and stronger sense of focus. That's the point I wanted to make. Of course, going into a competition deciding to win it also does something similar, but you may be going in as an underdog, with nothing to lose. In that case, you don't have that excess baggage, you don't experience liberating yourself from that baggage.

I've been around fencing for a long time and I've seen many good fencers. I've seen and fenced against top fencers. What makes them fail is invariably their self-doubt and insecurity about their abilities. They think they're better and SHOULD win, but they're wondering why they're so lucky to be where they are. I know that feeling many times. It's an awful gut-wrenching feeling. And you have to get that monkey off your back.

So, in order to throw that monkey off your back, you must win a tournament. Not take second, not make top-8, not do well enough, not "Well, I earned points." And to make it even more effective, you must win the winnable tournament. There, you have no excuse for not winning that tournament, so you must win it. Experience that pressure and experience relieving yourself of that pressure. Remember that experience of relieving and apply at the next tournament. Then you'll be so focussed that you'll be hammering away with all you got.

[Peach]

Eric, pay attention. That's what I did. I know about deciding and planning to win. That's what I did at Tampa. What I did Sunday was being the first seed at a mixed tournament and winning it for a change. I'm often first seed, because I have an A, but I tend to denigrate that because I know I'm also a 51-year-old woman and I know all my faults of technique, tactics, strategy, and physical conditioning. So I took your advice, for heaven's sake, you silly person. You're lecturing me when I'm doing what you suggested.

Originally posted by edew
Actually, I was proposing that you attend a tournament where you are the heavily favored one, not one where you decide and plan to win it (which is similar, but not quite). The point is, you HAVE to win it. You're the favorite and you're supposed to win it or your name is mud. You have to add on all that extra baggage and learn (experience, maybe?) the feeling of throwing off that excess baggage. Once you get the feel of setting yourself free from the doubts and uncertainties, you develop a new and stronger sense of focus. That's the point I wanted to make. Of course, going into a competition deciding to win it also does something similar, but you may be going in as an underdog, with nothing to lose. In that case, you don't have that excess baggage, you don't experience liberating yourself from that baggage.

I've been around fencing for a long time and I've seen many good fencers. I've seen and fenced against top fencers. What makes them fail is invariably their self-doubt and insecurity about their abilities. They think they're better and SHOULD win, but they're wondering why they're so lucky to be where they are. I know that feeling many times. It's an awful gut-wrenching feeling. And you have to get that monkey off your back.

So, in order to throw that monkey off your back, you must win a tournament. Not take second, not make top-8, not do well enough, not "Well, I earned points." And to make it even more effective, you must win the winnable tournament. There, you have no excuse for not winning that tournament, so you must win it. Experience that pressure and experience relieving yourself of that pressure. Remember that experience of relieving and apply at the next tournament. Then you'll be so focussed that you'll be hammering away with all you got.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
top fencers. What makes them fail is invariably their self-doubt and insecurity about their abilities.

And their opponents have nothing to do with it?

[edew]

Frankly, no. It really is the case of who rolls over and cave in first. The first to do so allows the other to practically walk all over him. In the rare instance that the two are both confident and willing to go toe-to-toe (so to speak), you will see a different level of exchange. You're more likely to see that at a lower level tournament because most people there feel they can do it, because they all rightly assume that the opponent can't be that good.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Frankly, no. It really is the case of who rolls over and cave in first. The first to do so allows the other to practically walk all over him. In the rare instance that the two are both confident and willing to go toe-to-toe (so to speak), you will see a different level of exchange. You're more likely to see that at a lower level tournament because most people there feel they can do it, because they all rightly assume that the opponent can't be that good.

I always thought that who won depended on who was the more skillful fencer.

Your idea sounds very kendo-esque: all depending upon who has the greater "will"...

[edew]

At the top-most level, say a Pozdniakov versus a Pillet, who's to say who's more skillful?

Thinking that skill alone is sufficient is about as naive as thinking that skill alone will get someone a job versus all the other candidates.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
At the top-most level, say a Pozdniakov versus a Pillet, who's to say who's more skillful?

Perhaps it's the one who wins?

Thinking that skill alone is sufficient is about as naive as thinking that skill alone will get someone a job versus all the other candidates.

Well, but I never said "skill alone". I was merely perplexed at the idea that it meant nothing compared to "mental attitude" or what have you. I'm sure both play a role, but neither to the exclusion of the other.

The job example though is I think a weak comparison. Clearly in that case there are a lot of other things being considered, from whether the interviewer "likes" you, to your education and manner and appearance, to company politics, to EEOC guidelines, to...

[edew]

The job analogy is apt. If you go to an interview, even though your skills match the needs, but you flub the interview because you were nervous or hesitant, you won't win the job.

A good example of composure beating skill is the gold medal match between Simone Vanni and Andre Wessels. Andre is definitely the stronger and more skilled of the two fencers. But Simone got two or three quick touches on Andre and Andre became flustered for the rest of the bout, until it was way too late (12-6 or so, in Simone's favor). Then, Andre picked up the pace a bit, but Simone had the confidence and a huge lead.

In my personal experience, I won the 1999 PCCs not because I had better skills than my opponent. Indeed, if anything, he had and still has the better skills over me. But he could apply it. By the time I had my 12th point (he was around 8 or so, I don't fully recall), I can see desperation and fear in his eyes. Through his mask. I made two good four parries and one lucky six parry. That basically closed him of all touches and he couldn't stage an attack. I had all the time I wanted to set up an attack on him. And I did. Because he decided to parry only, I could attack, pull my arm back and run him down without bringing my blade anywhere near where he could actually parry it.

Does skill play a part? Certainly, when one is so much better than the other. But when two are about the same level, skill is hardly the deciding factor. You use skill to get to the finals. You need confidence to finish it.

Zoran Tulum once said that of the eight fencers in the finals, only one or two have any chance of winning it. The other six are just happy to be in the final eight. Only one, or two have the actual desire to win the thing.

Skill is what got Tom Hanks out from the island and into the deep ocean (in Castaway). Determination and drive is what got him saved. You need skill to get out of the pools and the first or second rounds of DE. Then, it's determination. There are those who are happy to win two rounds. If you meet one, and you're determined to win the thing, they're history.

[DJ Apostrophe]

btw eric... Zoran still says that... he shared that tidbit with me last year one night at his club... just thought you'd like the update.
-w

[edew]

And he's right, which is why I (tried to) quote him. You can almost tell, by looking at the faces who will win it. It's not skill at that point that determines the winner. It's the drive and determination of the person that determines who the winner will be.

One might make a claim of "suppose you have one person who's really skilled, but showed little determination, and another with little skill but lots of determination, wouldn't the better skilled one win?" Well, it all depends on how much more skill or determination. But really, a person with little skill won't be on the finals strip fencing for the gold. And likewise, a person will zero determination but ample skills would have been knocked out at the round 8 or earlier.

[Purple Fencer]

Personal case in point...although it was only for a 2nd round DE in foil...my opponent was ahead 14-9. He was taller, FAR superior to me, and faster. I simply refused to die easily and tied it. Had my next attack not have been about 1/8th of an inch or so high, I would've won the bout.

I always try my damndest NEVER to give up, even when I'm way behind. Anyone from the west coast hear the story about German Zilbershtein fencign as the anchor ina sabre team match, and making up 20 POINTS in the last rotation to win the match? THERE'S an guy who refused to lose.

And, even though I only got one touch off Inq at the recent Couturier (and given that I hadn't coimpeted in any weapon since April!), I STILL refused to die easily...I lost 5-1 because he's much better than I, not becuase I didn't try to fence. (besides, I was hoping my student would see the determination nnecessarry to compete somewhat well...I think she got it; my yells got MUCH better in the first DE!)

[Inquartata]

It's odd. In my experience it's always seemed to work the other way 'round: the person who's all intense and driven and singlemindedly focused seems to ifall apart on the strip, while the fencer who's decided that it doesn't matter, he's probably going to lose but he's going to have fun anyway, and hence is RELAXED, surprises himself by winning.

I've a friend who's always been very Type A on the strip. Then in Orlando he shocked me by telling me that he wasn't feeling very motivated that day and didn't much care whether he did well or not. The result? He won the Div II ( convincingly ) and got his B...

[Mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata

I've a friend who's always been very Type A on the strip. Then in Orlando he shocked me by telling me that he wasn't feeling very motivated that day and didn't much care whether he did well or not. The result? He won the Div II ( convincingly ) and got his B...

Were you there for that bout Inquarta? I am still trying to figure out your REAL NAME.
The person he beat who also got his B was not much into fencing and also relaxed that day.
I think this argument could go either way though. Being mentally tough can help you go far, being extremely skilled can help you go even farther. Having both makes a complete package but you can always get screwed by the ref.
It takes a combination of things to help a fencer win. Being DAMN GOOD is one of the best!

[edew]

Need to fence higher level events. If you're just relaxed and the underdog, you can go in not worrying too much. It's the other person's job to win the event, yours just to stay in the game. In that case, it was the other person folding. If you lose, you can genuinely use the "hey, he's way better than me" excuse. If you win, it's because he fell apart, knowing that he's better, but couldn't pull it out.

People really need to experience winning before going to a bigger and harder competition, and then win it there as well.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Mo
Were you there for that bout Inquarta? I am still trying to figure out your REAL NAME.
The person he beat who also got his B was not much into fencing and also relaxed that day.
I think this argument could go either way though. Being mentally tough can help you go far, being extremely skilled can help you go even farther. Having both makes a complete package but you can always get screwed by the ref.
It takes a combination of things to help a fencer win. Being DAMN GOOD is one of the best!

Yep, I was there. Don't ask me to describe myself, though---like I told Sam, we superheroes are generally ruined once our secret identities are revealed.

I don't know the fellow he fenced in the final, or what his attitude was, but he fences for OFA I think and they turn out some pretty formidable sabre fencers ( now there's an understatement ). At any rate John had to go through more than just that one opponent, and they couldn't ALL have been equally nonchalant about advancing. I certainly wasn't, much as I try to be---and he beat me something like 15-4!

Anyway, this thread is a good example of the perils of reductionism. Though we crave simplicity and dislike complexity, there probably isn't anything in the realm of human activity which can fairly be attributed to a single simple factor. In fencing it's tempting to argue that it's all skill or will or luck or attitude or referee competence or what have you, but the truth is probably much closer to it being an ineffable and unquantifiable mixture of all those and more, with the mix varying from person to person, day to day, bout to bout...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
It's odd. In my experience it's always seemed to work the other way 'round: the person who's all intense and driven and singlemindedly focused seems to ifall apart on the strip, while the fencer who's decided that it doesn't matter, he's probably going to lose but he's going to have fun anyway, and hence is RELAXED, surprises himself by winning.

I've a friend who's always been very Type A on the strip. Then in Orlando he shocked me by telling me that he wasn't feeling very motivated that day and didn't much care whether he did well or not. The result? He won the Div II ( convincingly ) and got his B...

I don't think that is a good example. The question of how important the will to win is is dependant on the supposition that they are of similar caliber. It was quite clear that John was simply a cut above his opponents. The bottom line is that regardless of his attitude that day, he was MUCH better prepared for competition (with due credit to Attilio Tass).

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I don't think that is a good example. The question of how important the will to win is is dependant on the supposition that they are of similar caliber. It was quite clear that John was simply a cut above his opponents. The bottom line is that regardless of his attitude that day, he was MUCH better prepared for competition (with due credit to Attilio Tass).

-m

Perhaps. Any example can be attacked on this ground or that, without necessarily vitiating the basic observation...

Maybe we ought to ask him what HE felt was the decisive factor on that occasion?

[Epee_Pox]

Well, as for me, I've found that I tend to get in "the zone" very easily when I'm feeling under the weather. And I tend to fence better when I'm just being loose and having fun, than I do when I'm being intense and trying hard to win.

So if anecdotal evidence suffices, then I'm siding with Inq on this one.