Blade actions with fingers.

[tbryan]

You've pretty much figured out what I was on about there In this context, the teaching is your first paragraph, whereas the coaching is your second paragraph, but in more general terms, teaching is what I would describe as what most coaches (in the UK, at least) would do with beginners, before deconstructing and adapting their game to suit the fencer's individual needs, which is what I would term as the coaching. Hope this explains things a bit clearer

Yes, that's clearer.

I'm not 100% on the distinction between 'teaching' and 'coaching' in this context, but I trust D'Art enough to say he's on to something - my initial post in this thread touched on the differences between 'telling', 'teaching' and 'doing'. (something to that effect)

Maybe this can help.

I see the difference as being roughly equivalent between taking your marriage problems on the Dr. Phil Show, and engaging in a therapy program. In his one hour program, Dr Phil can 'tell' people to stop over/under-eating, stop cheating on their spouses, stop gossiping, stop being depressed, stop drinking, stop self-mutilating, and to stop engaging in any number of detrimental behaviors. The problem is that these - and I would argue the majority of problems - are not resolvable through 'telling'. There isn't a 'logical solution' - there are, however, practical solutions and these practical solutions have a tenuous relationship with discourse. In the case of fencing instruction, these practical solutions are available by 'doing', 'embodied practice', and situated serial repetition.

In which case, the Dr. Phil show may be gratifying for Dr. Phil and entertaining for his audience, but it's very ineffective for the person seeking help. That person should just skip Dr. Phil and go straight to the therapy program.

Similarly, you're saying that students should skip the kinds of exercises that D'Art called "teaching" and start with "coaching" from the student's first day of fencing. Coaches should structure their programs accordingly.

If the only programs that the coach has experienced are based on teaching/telling exercises, I believe that it's difficult to imagine what the alternative really looks like. An interesting thread would perhaps be "how to transition a program that's built largely around teaching/telling exercises to a program that's coaching/inducing."

[Jason]

An interesting thread would perhaps be "how to transition a program that's built largely around teaching/telling exercises to a program that's coaching/inducing."

That's not the subject of a thread; it's the subject of a curriculum.

[oso97]

That's not the subject of a thread; it's the subject of a curriculum.

Sounds like there is a market for you to write a book then

[Hauptman]

Yeah, my original goal wasn't to generate a discussion about how to teach disengagements, but to actually talk about the mechanics themselves, without consideration towards how one might actually get a student to do a particular action.

If you're looking for the mechanics then use the wrist only. Why move the whole arm unless you have to? This leads to excess motion of a larger object (weapon AND arm) which will likely lead to slower, larger, and/or less accurate motions.

Which leads to the obvious choice of using the arm if you have to; the wrist movement may not be sufficient depending on what the opponent is doing.

Can anybody explain why we talk about using the fingers? I have yet to see anyone really use just their fingers; the wrist seems the likely pivot point to me.

[Bonehead]

If you're looking for the mechanics then use the wrist only. Why move the whole arm unless you have to? This leads to excess motion of a larger object (weapon AND arm) which will likely lead to slower, larger, and/or less accurate motions.

See this is just the thing, I feel like this is true. It seems like if you involve more of your arm your actions are going to be bigger. This seems very intuitive to me. But a lot of true things are counter intuitive, and I realised recently that I've never really critically assessed whether using your arm actually equates to larger movements.

The reason I bring up the calligraphy example is that I would have thought that similar reasoning applied to calligraphy, that using your whole arm will create bigger sloppier movements, and sloppier writing. Counter intuitively (to me anyway) the prevailing thought in calligraphy is to use your whole damn arm to make even small movements. Granted this might not have any sort of parallel in fencing, but I would be interested as to why not.

I just don't think, for me anyway, the thought has been fully explored. I believe it because someone taught me and it seemed right, and I'm worried that there is too much faith going on there.

But maybe the question of the mechanics of the action (since there are many situations that would still be classified as disengagement that call for different mechanics) is completely irrelevant to developing fencing, but I just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

[Hauptman]

See this is just the thing, I feel like this is true. It seems like if you involve more of your arm your actions are going to be bigger. This seems very intuitive to me. But a lot of true things are counter intuitive, and I realised recently that I've never really critically assessed whether using your arm actually equates to larger movements.

The reason I bring up the calligraphy example is that I would have thought that similar reasoning applied to calligraphy, that using your whole arm will create bigger sloppier movements, and sloppier writing. Counter intuitively (to me anyway) the prevailing thought in calligraphy is to use your whole damn arm to make even small movements. Granted this might not have any sort of parallel in fencing, but I would be interested as to why not.

I just don't think, for me anyway, the thought has been fully explored. I believe it because someone taught me and it seemed right, and I'm worried that there is too much faith going on there.

But maybe the question of the mechanics of the action (since there are many situations that would still be classified as disengagement that call for different mechanics) is completely irrelevant to developing fencing, but I just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

I see your point, but the problem with the calligraphy analogy is that precision is really the only goal in calligraphy whereas speed is essential in fencing.

If you were moving at a slower pace then using the arm for a disengagement could easily be tight and accurate, but at the speed necessary in practice the additional acceleration and deceleration of the arm makes it significantly more difficult to maintain the desired precision as opposed to just using the wrist.

[Bonehead]

I see your point, but the problem with the calligraphy analogy is that precision is really the only goal in calligraphy whereas speed is essential in fencing.

If you were moving at a slower pace then using the arm for a disengagement could easily be tight and accurate, but at the speed necessary in practice the additional acceleration and deceleration of the arm makes it significantly more difficult to maintain the desired precision as opposed to just using the wrist.

To play devils advocate (since I've never met anyone who actually advocates using the arm), would you not think that the larger muscle groups would have an easier time controlling the blade? Why should it be any different at fast speeds?

[Hauptman]

To play devils advocate (since I've never met anyone who actually advocates using the arm), would you not think that the larger muscle groups would have an easier time controlling the blade? Why should it be any different at fast speeds?

Well, using the arm is fine for a cutover where you're mostly using the forearm, and you have quite a few muscles involved.

But for a traditional disengage motion under the blade, you'd be moving the entire arm it seems like you'd be putting almost all the burden on just the lateral deltoid which I don't really consider one of the larger muscles.

[Bonehead]

Well, using the arm is fine for a cutover where you're mostly using the forearm, and you have quite a few muscles involved.

But for a traditional disengage motion under the blade, you'd be moving the entire arm it seems like you'd be putting almost all the burden on just the lateral deltoid which I don't really consider one of the larger muscles.

I don't know jack **** about the muscles in the arm, but I would have thought the lateral deltoid is going to be stronger than the muscles controlling your wrist.

[piste off]

Can anybody explain why we talk about using the fingers? I have yet to see anyone really use just their fingers; the wrist seems the likely pivot point to me.

One of the things that a lot of top fencers do is cut down their grips so severely that their hands are literally crammed up against the guard. This of course limits any use of the fingers. But the trade-off of strength and speed gain is well worth it.

R-

[Bonehead]

One of the things that a lot of top fencers do is cut down their grips so severely that their hands are literally crammed up against the guard. This of course limits any use of the fingers. But the trade-off of strength and speed gain is well worth it.

R-

I've done this for a while, but I never really felt it limited the use of the fingers. It just changes the orientation, and allows extra support against the guard.

[Inquartata]

In which case, the Dr. Phil show may be gratifying for Dr. Phil and entertaining for his audience, but it's very ineffective for the person seeking help. That person should just skip Dr. Phil and go straight to the therapy program.

Unless, as I believe is the case, Dr. Phil is paying for the therapy program. In which case going to him is probably MUCH better.

[david.wendelken]

I would like to thank all of you who participated in this thread.

It's given me some very interesting insights about how to "coach" martial arts much better.

Now I just have to figure out how turn those insights into pragmatic, real-life drills and exercises.

[Rock]

I'm tired, so I'm not going to reference earlier posts (some of which are excellent).

There is teaching. This gives the student a range of skills/ways to do things.

There is coaching. This gives the student information regarding which of these skills to use and when to use them in specific fencing situations.

The abillity to execute a disengage starting with the fingers adds to your fencer's skill "toolbox". Teach it, yes. Right or wrong , no.

[Rusty]

To the OP, why I think there no one correct answer to your question.
My approach is rather simplistic I am sure and applies perhaps only to the teaching of new fencers (all I do). My method is to reduce actions to each element and then reconstruct the full action as dictated by the situations as needed. I teach (attempt to anyway) disengagements using the fingers with limited wrist so that they can be used independent of larger wrist, arm, body motions or footwork (this also develops a supple hold on the hand and I think helps further to develop a relaxed upper body). I teach arm movements the same way, and on down the line. Then we apply these skills holistically to produce a flexible (hopefully physically as well as mentally) system that can adapt to situations we encounter. As others have said much better then I under some situations fingers may not come into play at all but the development of such control must IMO be studied to allow the student to have a controlled and effective response. Let the situation dictate specifics as to how individual skills are combined. Every action I think is a balancing act. Giving up some control for speed or the other way round (yes, I understand that control can also lead to greater speed but you know hopefully what I mean). Doing the unexpected and incurring risks or following the logical and possibly most predictable response. Plasticity is my buzz word for the day
Thanks for a informative discussion everyone