Youtube and Coaching

[jeremyb215]

You would be far better tracking down videos of high level fencers fencing. No really. Coaching - for you - should be done face to face. Fencing is an odd sport in that it's taught in essentially a mentored environment. It's very easy to get little things wrong and that's you ruined for years.

Get inspiration from high level fencers.
Talk to your coach and tell him you like fencer x.
Get him to show you how to move - and you can keep in your mind "I want to be fencer x".
Practise lots.
Do the mundane stuff (yeah footwork I'm looking at you) till you're sick of it and then do a bit more.
And have fun.

But don't follow coaching advice off the web unless you know what you're doing already.

That way be dragons.

EDIT: I got you wrong when I read your post but I enjoyed typing that so much I am going to post it anyway.

You got me wrong in what way?
I do footwork drills for at least 45 minutes a day. Considering how important it is, I don't think it's mundane at all. Lessons thus far (a little over a month in twice a week) have been dedicated to the importance of distance, timing and judgement.
Clearly, I've become obsessed with this sport. I can't wait for the next lesson. I'm keeping a fencing journal where I write down what was learned in each lesson, plus my own observations.
I'm having a ball.

[Gav]

You got me wrong in what way?
I do footwork drills for at least 45 minutes a day. Considering how important it is, I don't think it's mundane at all. Lessons thus far (a little over a month in twice a week) have been dedicated to the importance of distance, timing and judgement.
Clearly, I've become obsessed with this sport. I can't wait for the next lesson. I'm keeping a fencing journal where I write down what was learned in each lesson, plus my own observations.
I'm having a ball.

I took you to mean you were learning as a beginner from video.

[jeremyb215]

I took you to mean you were learning as a beginner from video.

Oh jeez no. Like I said, the videos are informative, but really provide little practical value. For example, there was a thread here a while ago that mentioned the "flick". I found a youtube video demonstrating the move, but I don't have much of an idea about how to do it or when it's use would be appropriate.

[nyacsabre]

I read somewhere that if a student's nervous system learns to make an action one way that it takes 6-7 repetitions doing it differently to rewrite their nervous system.

So say you do 10 lessons with a new student having them pick when to do a lunge based on say 'foot tempo' and in each lesson they lunge 50 times incorrectly based on how you will eventually teach them to lunge. And you are totally aware of this but want them to get the feel of when to apply the lunge correct first... This means they have lunged 'incorrectly' 500 times? 6x or 7x or rather now you will have to have them repeat the correct lunge 3,000 to 3,500 times for them to have the correct lunge.

Ever see fencers that can do something perfectly in lessons just to see them reverse the way they do things in a bout? I think some of this is probably mental but a ton of it has to do with their nervous system being confused and reverting to the thing it has most been exposed to.

What do you think?

- Planning next season is fun!

[Allen Evans]

So...fencers should learn to lunge perfectly before they are taught when to lunge? Can't both methods go hand in hand: technical correction and the application of theory? And wouldn't video help coaches understand more theory while they are teaching fencing "things" (which many of them know too much about all ready) ?

Or not?

[nyacsabre]

Cool man! Do you know how few coaches are teaching this in the US?

I have only seen 10-12 (in sabre).

You also mentioned 'check backwards'. Mind if I ask you a question about this?

Do you teach it such that the front foot gets to the check position by 'stored energy' and then the back foot comes off the ground 'conserving energy' and this moves the fencer backwards. Or do both feet come off the ground like a 'jump forward' and as energy is stored the back foot comes off the ground moving the fencer backwards?

I have seen both in sabre. The first I teach but have been told is mostly used in foil and epee... The second I am building up to.

And I totally agree with using the half-advance as a preparation! Most people teach a tiny step forward but what happens is that once the student see the mistake of the defender they have to start another preparation to get in distance to make use of the mistake. This is usually to late! From the half advance the student can identify the mistake finish the advance and lunge in foot tempo.

Cool!

- I know there were more of us out there!

[jeremyb215]

[QUOTE=Allen Evans;932917]So...fencers should learn to lunge perfectly before they are taught when to lunge? Can't both methods go hand in hand: technical correction and the application of theory?[QUOTE]

Isn't that the essense of good coaching? Trying to find the balance between training technique and theory for a given student or class?

[nyacsabre]

You know... I'm not 100% one way or the other on this. That's why I was asking for thoughts.

For instance, Aldar Kogler was teaching a 9 year old girl for a while in one on one lessons... I observed him having her do point thrust lunge at the beginner of the lesson and then for the next 20 minutes or so he would play a game with her to teach her to correct lunge. For over a year she didn't do anything but that. He had her laughing and having fun playing these games.

Now this girl is 11ish and has the best lunge of anyone at our club! (Not saying she can hit Ben Igoe with it!) Just that for her height and strength she accomplishes all 3 objectives. (effective motion, ref will see it, opponent doesn't see it until to late.)

In my opinion this girl will now have a chance later in her career to win world cup medals because she has a 'perfect' lunge. At 11 if she knew 10 other things about fencing and had a 70% good lunge I wouldn't be able to say that.

So that's one side...

The other is that (and now I have 54 people in my program - about 10 of which I DO NOT GIVE LESSONS TO - Aladar Kogler coaches Mel, Jeff, & Daria and we have 3 other outside coaches. My club isn't about the coaches it's about developing Olympic and World athletes.) with 44 people for me to train it is almost impossible to do this with each and every one of them. So? How does one pick and choose?

Because many of our fencers are their because they already believe the program and the history of the club and it is invite only so many of them have worked for years to just get in the front door it is much easier for me to take the Aladar Kogler approach. And this has been and is becoming sucessfull with our youth fencers. One of the reasons why I'm not giving lessons to a certain top fencer at my club (not going to name) is because I did exactly that. Tried to teach lunge and head cut.

Most senior team members don't want to hear anything about 'fixing a lunge' or relearning thrust. It's a shame, I know but a fact about our sport.

I can't imagine trying to run a 'for-profit' club, or even just trying to make a living at coaching and trying the Kogler approach and having many talented beginners loose interest in the program quickly. (There is one coach in SF doing this right now and thriving - but I think it's his talent with keeping kids having fun that is allowing him to both grow his club and spend over a year teaching just footwork.)

So to recap, I don't know what is better:

A.) Teach only to the fencers level, every detail of biomacanics, and put them on the 20 year plan for the Olympic gold. And in the process keep loosing students and eating noodles every night.

B.) Teach tactics at the same time of technique. Have students make some good results in youth 12, 14, cadet and junior... By senior US team time either spend the crazy time to retrain their techniques (effective motion, ref will see it, opponent doesn't see it until to late.) But since you have a thriving club because of early results and therefore you get 50-100 fencer to the level that could be on a US senior team. You also can eat what ever you want and live a good life.

C.) (This one is what I see often but HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERSON I AM WRITING BACK TO!) Teach only tactics let the technique come if it does. End up having a club with 100's if not 1000's of fencer and because of random chance end up with one or two students that overcome the lack of technique with talent you end up with some very strong fencers in Under 20's and below. Chances are most of them quit before they are in seniors because of bad back, knees, etc because of bad technique.

This seems to be the 3 models that I see in the US. You don't usually see or hear from the A group because they have a few students and are doing their thing in private. Many don't even have their own clubs. But time and time again they have fencers on senior national teams. Group B is also good. I wish their could be a hybred between A & B but I think this could only happen if we had a national program that supported top coaches and educated up and coming coaches. C is usually bad for the sport! Unless that is you are advertising your club/program as a recreational club. There is at least one in the states with over 1000 members that does a great job getting people into the sport. They send their top people else where to train for teams. That can be great for the sport... Exposing 1000's of people to it without messing up the talented students techinques.

I know this is a bit off the topic I first stated but def something I am interested in hearing back about.

(Please don't take anything I said here as a personal assault. I am just speaking my mind in a section called (Coaches Corner) and am interested in feedback. I also want to find other 'like minded' coaches to build relationships to send teams to for competition and camps.)

- Back to work for me! (I really am the worst speller on here!)

[nyacsabre]

Great POST!

But was saying is that Keith worked with Kogler for the first 11-12 years. So he could do all things I mentioned. Yuri did a great job of telling him what to do on the strip! But without the skill set that most of the top fencers have in the world have we wouldn't have gotten that Silver. I think we are agreeing but I didn't make my point about some of our fencers having the right skill set!

My fear is with some of these older coaches not replacing themselves with technical replacements our future is potentially worse off then our past!

- Tag! Silver is the new GOLD as far as I am concerned!

[darius]

Cool man! Do you know how few coaches are teaching this in the US?

I used to teach it a lot later; Michael Marx convinced me that you might as well do it on the first day, and I've never looked back.

You also mentioned 'check backwards'. Mind if I ask you a question about this?

Do you teach it such that the front foot gets to the check position by 'stored energy' and then the back foot comes off the ground 'conserving energy' and this moves the fencer backwards. Or do both feet come off the ground like a 'jump forward' and as energy is stored the back foot comes off the ground moving the fencer backwards?

If you're chasing what I think you're getting at: Both.

Sebastien and I have discussed this at length. He feels that the check should involve a shift of the weight forward, basically doing an advance but not letting the back foot hit the ground. Now, I should clarify that the way we teach advance is not the typical lift-the-toe stuff (although we can fall back on it for coordination exercises), but that the back foot is applying pressure to the ground, and lifting the front foot releases it. He feels the shift of weight and sharpness of the check action is what makes the opponent react.

Giulio Tomassini teaches the other way, where the center of gravity does not shift, the back foot remains on the ground. To be fair, he did not talk about check-step, but I'm guessing from the way he taught options out of the half-advance. I don't remember the actual technical details when I learned it from Michael (long ago), but I believe he wants it similarly.

Certainly Seb's perspective is epee-centric, where the preparation is a finite action, and you're following a prep with either getting out or a real action. The difference in foil/sabre is that you might follow a preparation with a preparation, so that weight shift forward might not be desirable, because once you do that you're either going to use that pent-up energy in your front leg to get out of distance or go 100% to the target (usually with a fleche).

I'd like foilists to know both; if they're trying to draw an attack or make the opponent twitchy, Seb's way is better. The other way takes less time, and it makes for better continuity of preparation. I teach Seb's way more in sabre, because the primary usage is to draw the opponent's attack; making the distance collapse sudden seems to better trigger a response.

It's hard to describe these in text. This help?

And I totally agree with using the half-advance as a preparation! Most people teach a tiny step forward but what happens is that once the student see the mistake of the defender they have to start another preparation to get in distance to make use of the mistake. This is usually to late! From the half advance the student can identify the mistake finish the advance and lunge in foot tempo.

Yeah, given a fairly tight attack window in sabre, if I start a half-advance, I can accelerate with the back foot into adv-lunge and still have it reasonably given as an attack, but if I do a full advance then try to move the hand, it's too late. Obviously, this is different outside of the center of the strip, but once the opponent has already given up the center, then the fencer certainly has more leeway.

darius

[piste off]

It's hard to describe these in text. This help?

darius

Is this what you are talking about Darius?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL64g...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0G-VelAwc

[darius]

We're talking about differing executions of the check back, but I like Seth's videos.

[piste off]

We're talking about differing executions of the check back, but I like Seth's videos.

Gotcha. I now see, thank you.

[jeremyb215]

This thread has been most illuminating.
My gratitude to the expereinced fencers and coaches.

[Jason]

There is some interesting discussion going on here. It's important to remember that technique is subservient to function. An archaic way of looking at fencing technique is to say, for example, "Parries must look like this," or, "Lunges must look like this." However, the quality of technique in fencing is assessed by its effectiveness. The basic footwork that Alex demonstrates is very different than, say, what Ed Korfanty teaches. So how does one assess which is "better"? When comparing any two means of executing a movement, one needs to, of course, consider its efficiency (is there wasted energy or additional, unnecessary, movement?) and one has to consider the movement in context. There are many ways to execute a lunge or a parry or whatever, so what is a particular example of that movement being used to do? There do exist different variations of fencing movements that may be considered to be equally good in their own contexts.

I'm personally skeptical of the assertion that our sabre fencers aren't as good as the best fencers in the world because they don't execute double-advance or half-steps the way Alex demonstrates them. Considering how many slight variations there are in the movements between any two top fencers, pointing to an "ideal" is questionable, at best. It also seems like a gross simplification.

That being said, the basic premise that our fencers (and coaches) need to pay close attention to what the rest of the world does so as not be outclassed is a good one. The argument that many of our top Cadets and Juniors may be ill-prepared when they reach the Senior level is also one that warrants consideration (and, of course, has been discussed here many times before).

[Mr Epee]

That being said, the basic premise that our fencers (and coaches) need to pay close attention to what the rest of the world does so as not be outclassed is a good one.

This is particularly salient vis-a-vis saber and foil due to the massive roll played by the referee. Actions on the strip are organized into the bout's formal contents based on their appearances. How a particular action 'looks' compared to 'how the best do it' is a ball that is and will always remain in play. That said, aesthetics do creep into these types of discussions and surreptitiously supplant effectiveness as the desirable metric. Physiology varies between athletes.

Relatedly, I would recommend limiting discussion to a single weapon at a time. Simply the 'attention moments' that lie underneath the performance of a step-lunge in epee and the step-lunge in saber are diverse enough to short-circuit productive discussion. Rather than tackle the intractably difficult, stay the course in a single weapon.

[EricEpee]

I read somewhere that if a student's nervous system learns to make an action one way that it takes 6-7 repetitions doing it differently to rewrite their nervous system.

So say you do 10 lessons with a new student having them pick when to do a lunge based on say 'foot tempo' and in each lesson they lunge 50 times incorrectly based on how you will eventually teach them to lunge. And you are totally aware of this but want them to get the feel of when to apply the lunge correct first... This means they have lunged 'incorrectly' 500 times? 6x or 7x or rather now you will have to have them repeat the correct lunge 3,000 to 3,500 times for them to have the correct lunge.

Ever see fencers that can do something perfectly in lessons just to see them reverse the way they do things in a bout? I think some of this is probably mental but a ton of it has to do with their nervous system being confused and reverting to the thing it has most been exposed to.

What do you think?

- Planning next season is fun!

There is a series of old DVD's (were originally on VHS) that dealt with neuromuscular training for Golf, Skiing and Tennis. I think you are absolutely right. The human nervous systen can learn to pattern an action. It absolutely worked for me in Skiing and was used as a training tool for the PSIA Examination Team. I also heard it was very effective for golf as well. The method was called SYBERVISION. Once a really good coach understands this, he should make one for each weapon - cha ching!

http://www.sybervision.com/Skiing/index.htm