Question: lesson blade whacking

[Bonehead]

To clarify, my idea was not mainly that Allen was wrong for not doing real science, but that the topic itself is not very amenable to scientific investigation, mainly because fencer behavior is a black box too complicated and mercurial to nail down like you can nail down the behavior of a ball rolling down an inclined plane. You can discover vague correlations, and you can have hunches, and you can act on your hunches, but if you have scientific integrity, that's about it.

Edit: Also, to clarify, I don't particularly think blade whacking is good, and I am as big a proponent of realism in lessons as the next guy.

Yes, I totally agree. Which is why i think caution with regards to certainty is probably a good idea.

[Superscribe]

One thing that the Smirnov video posted in #78 reminded me off was a conversation I had with a friend regarding Russian coaches wearing white suits (not traditional black). He told me that the belief was it better represented what a fencer sees, and that it was stupid to wear black as it was not training under the conditions similar to what the fencer faces. That is interesting attention to detail, but it adds even more confusion to the argument; if the great Russian coaches believed that then why did they do the blade whacking?

R-

Edit: Also, to clarify, I don't particularly think blade whacking is good, and I am as big a proponent of realism in lessons as the next guy.

You have to explain what you mean by realism. Realism is sometimes impractical, as so elegantly described by eac's fat black coach vs a short slim korean coach (tongue, cheek and so forth)

A lesson, as i understand it, was so help with a particular skill, it wasn't designed to simulate fencing. My coach gives me lessons, and then he yells are me to work on certain things in an actual bout. They do two different things. A lesson isolates something so i can focus on it. When i practice my riposts, realism in how fast, where i hit, and my timing is important. What's not important is what i do after my riposte, because i'm not working on that right now. My riposte is realistic. The conditions under which i would do a riposte are realistic. My recover and getting ready for another ripost are not... and that's okay.

As long as my coach isn't doing something (clicking) that hinders the speed, timing and position of my riposte, then what harm is done?

[erooMynohtnA]

And, no real science has tenets, other than that you should look at things and try to come up with simple ideas to predict future things based on the things you've seen in the past. Religions have tenets.

Real science has things that it seems to have discovered with reasonable confidence, and I think what you mean to say is that motor learning science* has established with reasonable confidence that you perform better on a target task if the learning environment is similar to the task environment.

Duh.

I don't think this is a particularly helpful tack.

If you're going to throw out any soft sciences, you make this type of thing pretty difficult, and you provoke exactly the same epistemological arguments I was trying to diffuse. For instance, how can you be sure you're not just in the matrix talking to programs and you're really a giant robotic squid?

It is also a hallmark of science to test things to which the conclusion seems obvious, because sometimes the results can be surprising and undermine a lot of faulty underlying assumptions. For instance, the Michaelson Morley experiment was to prove the obvious fact that there was a lumineferous aether in which light moved. That didn't exactly work out.

Additionally, while your spelling is correct, I think you should look up the exact definition of tenet. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenet

[AaronK]

This article is not directly related to the question of whether or not wacking a blade produces any effective positive outcome.

What I do postulate is that there is a wealth of studies published (many in English) pertaining to fencing...but you have to look for them.

http://www.idosi.org/wjss/3(2)10/9.pdf

I can't promise that reading any of these articles will inform any coaching practices that anybody may have after reading- that's for the individual to decide.

[Jason]

If the ONLY THING clicking did was give the student a sense of satisfaction during the lesson so they would concentrate and try hard during the lesson, then it would still be a huge benefit.

Except when a coach clicks the blade, it is a signal to stop concentrating. I find fencers are far more satisfied when they find that they are able to correctly respond to sudden surprises. Generally, accomplishing greater challenges is more satisfying. When those challenges improve a fencer's skill, it's even better.

Because that'd offer at least a little something for you to stand on.

If, after the arguments I've already presented, you don't think I have anything to stand on, then I really can't help you.

[Jason]

Can't a coach create surprises if he clicks the blade?

Sometimes. But not as often. As I said, you can't be trying to hit the fencer at the same time you're clicking his blade. Also, if the coach who usually clicks the blade suddenly doesn't, it's hardly as surprising that he might try to hit as a coach who never clicks the blade and sometimes tries to hit after the action and sometimes doesn't.

Is it important to create surprises after an action is done?

Does a fencer ever find that his action didn't hit when he thought it did and suddenly has to do something else? Wouldn't that be a skill worth practicing?

[piste off]

You have to explain what you mean by realism. Realism is sometimes impractical, as so elegantly described by eac's fat black coach vs a short slim korean coach (tongue, cheek and so forth)

To me, realism is trying as close as possible to simulate actual conditions that a fencer will experience in a bout. You are correct, this can't possibly be done 100% (example: they would have to get up at an early time after flying halfway across the country/world the day before and sleep in a hotel...). Moreover, there are certainly things that are appropriate in training (fencing and other sports) that are not perfectly aligned with what the athlete will face in competition. Powerlifters training using more than 1 rep might be an example.

Coincidently, I was able to speak with Nam's former coach regarding the whacking practice. He supported it for the following reasons:

1. It helps test that the student is placing the point correctly (making sure that they have follow-thru)
2. As I suspected, it aids with the rhythm and timing of the actions

I was also able to ask one of the foremost epee coaches in the U.S. (a Hungarian). He cited the second reason as well, and added that it “simulates a late parry.”

I'm still thinking about this though...

R-

[Mr Epee]

What a mess.

A few points.

- As usual, there are some massive equivalence problems afoot that prevent a sensical reading of this discussion. In other words, there is incredible diversity in the material being subsumed under the category of 'blade clicking,' and I don't see how shoving it all in the same basket does anyone any good.

- Clearly, lessons do not and cannot ever fully mimic actual bouting. I can't imagine anyone willing to argue otherwise. So, it becomes a matter of which aspects will be included and which won't. Sometimes it is good to include one aspect, and at other times the same aspect can be safely excluded. This is yet another point in the column against learning to coach fencing without first going through the process of learning to fence. Induction first demands knowledge of practice.

- A discussion of what is (or isn't) science isn't going to resolve this matter, either. Remember, Gents, mental masturbation is fine, dandy and usually harmless, but just like the normal type it is best done in the safety of your own home with the window shades pulled down. That way you can proceed without fear of looking silly, or bothering anyone else with your activities.

- At the end of the day, this isn't a particularly good topic for crusade.

[Superscribe]

So clicking does have some benefits. If clicking doesn't undermine the point of the lesson (your lesson is to teach reaction when being suprised, and your clicking teaches the student to not be suprised) then it's okay to do?

It depends.

Like everything else.

Got it.

[Jason]

So clicking does have some benefits. If clicking doesn't undermine the point of the lesson (your lesson is to teach reaction when being suprised, and your clicking teaches the student to not be suprised) then it's okay to do?

It depends.

Like everything else.

Got it.

Clicking teaches a student not to be surprised? How could it possibly do that? You might be making things up. That's cool.

[K O'N]

I was also able to ask one of the foremost epee coaches in the U.S. (a Hungarian). He cited the second reason as well, and added that it “simulates a late parry.”
R-

Wow, six pages on blade whacking in a lesson? Really?

One of my early coaches used a late 6 parry to teach me to trust a direct attack from close distance. I was stuck on the idea of going around everything, if you tried to parry I tried to go around it, regardless of distance or time. So we did a series of lessons where he would parry a little late, and I had to beat the parry. I was flinching, when I saw the parry coming I'd pull my arm back a bit. That actually made the parry work, since I was short he would catch my blade in the middle. If I made a straight fast attack I'd hit his chest right as the 'parry' harmlessly hit the forte of my epee. It was a big revalation to me, that if my hand was in the right place and I was at the right distance I could beat a parry, that was huge. I still remember that twenty years later. Obviously.

After that when we did drills he would sometimes have me do straight attacks and do the 'late 6', to remind me to trust a straight attack from lunge distance, that was part of our conversation as a coach and student. The 'late 6' was in essence a blade whack, almost exactly what I see Vass doing on the youtube video where he's giving a lesson, for example. So in my case anyway I don't think it was useless or stupid, it sort of fixed a hole in my thinking.

K O'N

[piste off]

Wow, six pages on blade whacking in a lesson? Really?

Why not?

As it has been pointed out in the other thread on coaching development there are only so many places to go to learn. As the discussion here showed, there are wide varying viewpoints on something as seemingly simple as "to blade whack or not to blade whack."

The direct discussion of this, as well as the sidetracks and related posts, have been very useful to me. As the OP, I thank everyone who took the time to weigh in.

Sometimes even the simplest things are not so simple. Most people would say that in epee you have to teach that the arm extension should precede the advance; but someone with the initials P.K. showed me why that can be very wrong.

So even though a lot of great coaches are doing it, and can give some rationale (however reasonable), when I hear Czajkowski (or Jason or Allen) think otherwise I am going to pause. I want to know why, and I’ll read 1,000 pages if people write them to come to a resolution in my head.

R-

[Superscribe]

When you click a student's blade, you're asking them to lessen their concentration. You're also eliminating the opportunity for surprises or sudden changes after the action. You're also preventing the student from learning the correct conditions in which to actually recover from the action in the bout. None of those things strike me as being worth giving up for the "satisfying feeling" of clicking the blade.

Clicking teaches a student not to be surprised? How could it possibly do that? You might be making things up. That's cool.

No, clicking a blade may not necassarily lesson a student's concentration. Just telling a student their done with their exercise... when they're done with their exercise. Does it take away the opportunity to suprise the student? Yes. But that doesn't really matter if you DON'T WANT to suprise the student. Could your clicking actually result in the student not being suprised by giving out un intended cues? Maybe. So be careful when you click.

Now in true internet fashion, you could be being sarcastic, but i'm not sure, so I'll try to cover all the bases.

"Jason, I'm not making things up! It's science!"

[K O'N]

Wow, six pages on blade whacking in a lesson? Really?

Why not?

That wasn't intended to be as critical as it sounded, I'm just surprised there's six pages to say on the subject. I expected a large thread drift by this point. I agree it's been interesting. I don't blade whack much in lessons, but it doesn't bug me much either.

K O'N

[Jason]

The 'late 6' was in essence a blade whack, almost exactly what I see Vass doing on the youtube video where he's giving a lesson, for example. So in my case anyway I don't think it was useless or stupid, it sort of fixed a hole in my thinking.

There's an important difference between parrying and blade clicking. Take a look at the video in piste off's OP. The coach is not trying to parry. He's not doing anything to make blade contact until after the hit is made. There can be a lot of value when a coach attempts to parry and the fencer has to hit before the parry arrives. A coach whacking at his student's blade after he's already been hit isn't an attempt to stop the hit. Whether or not a parry is late is determined by the fencer hitting at the right time, not by the coach waiting till after the hit is over to bang at the blade.

Yes. But that doesn't really matter if you DON'T WANT to suprise the student. Could your clicking actually result in the student not being suprised by giving out un intended cues? Maybe. So be careful when you click.

An definitive quality of surprises is that if you know they're coming, they're not actually surprises. There is no reason for the coach to ever eliminate the opportunity to surprise the student, whether or not he chooses to do it. Your argument seems to be that a coach shouldn't click the blade when he wants to surprise the student and should click when he doesn't. But why click at all? Why not eliminate clicking completely and always have the option to surprise the student? When there is always the possibility of a surprise action, the student has to increase his readiness and attention. If he's warned that surprises are coming due to a lack of a click, he's not going to be particularly surprised at all.

A high level of concentration and readiness is a key component of competitive success. It's worthwhile to create an environment in lessons that helps improve that level.

Now in true internet fashion, you could be being sarcastic, but i'm not sure, so I'll try to cover all the bases.

I find that I'm never really sure if I'm being sarcastic either.

[eac]

That wasn't intended to be as critical as it sounded, I'm just surprised there's six pages to say on the subject. I expected a large thread drift by this point. I agree it's been interesting. I don't blade whack much in lessons, but it doesn't bug me much either.

To me it's just been a proxy to argue about certainty in coaching. Like you say, the actual topic is dumb, but the statements made about it are telling about the soundness of the people who make them.

[epeeslasher]

I think it might be helpful to point out that not clicking the blade in a lesson comes from the cjzakowski school of thought and cjzakowski influenced coaches. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-polish coach in most of Europe that doesn't click the blade.

Honestly, I really don't think it makes that big of a difference. Some do it, some don't. Some are successful some are not.