Coaching Clinics in Western Massachusetts this Spring

[pjsise1]

Coaches,

I'd like to bring to your attention that PVFA in Easthampton, MA will host two USFCA coaching clinics this spring. The first will be an entry level coaching clinic designed to give coaches a solid understanding of safe and modern fencing coaching techniques and to thoroughly prepare for the Moniteur exam. The second is a higher level clinic designed to give the coach the necessary tools to give a lesson suitable for a competitor as well as preparation for the Prevot practical exam. Those who have attended previous clinics held by Paul Sise and John Krauss are encouraged to attend this second clinic. Opportunities to take the Moniteur level exam will be available at both clinics. (Those attending the first clinic but wanting more time to practice may wish to take their exams at the second clinic.)


PVFA recently moved to a new location that is bigger, better, and more comfortable. It is easy to get to just off of Rt 91 and it will make a great location for these clinics.

Please consider attending or encouraging your assistant coaches to attend. Remember that it is your students who benefit most!



Moniteur Developmental Clinic - March 10th and 11th
http://askfred.net/Clinics/moreInfo.php?clinic_id=17312

The Moniteur practical exam will be offered in foil and epee only.



Prevot Developmental Clinic - April 21st and 22nd
http://askfred.net/Clinics/moreInfo.php?clinic_id=17313

The Moniteur exam will be offered in all three weapons.

[MdA]

Whats up with these clinics? There are no pre-registrations for either the Moniteur clinic in March or the Prevot clinic in April... no comments or questions in this thread. The fee looks reasonable at $120. Is trasportation a problem? Is there no interest in coaching education in the Northeast? I think there is a large concentration of coaches....the Northeast has the biggest fencing population. Or no interest in USFCA certifications or the instructors?

Give us some feedback.

[pjsise1]

I am sure people will sign up. John and I have done 4 or 5 clinics together now and we tend to get 12 to 15 people each time.

[MdA]

I am sure people will sign up. John and I have done 4 or 5 clinics together now and we tend to get 12 to 15 people each time.

I know you had good attendance in the past....and you do a good job. I was just worried that maybe the coaching clinic market was oversaturated....or maybe the economy is hitting coaches hard in the wallet.

The USFCA Super-Clinic in San Francisco on 2/4/12 seems to have good pre-registrations....and the Redlands Fencing center (OK City) has a couple clinics on AskFred in February and March....one of which is on the same weekend as Michael Marx in Manassas. Laurie Schiller has a clinic with Michael in May...I don't see it on AskFred yet.

I was just wondering if there are too many....or if there is another reason.....seems like distribution is pretty good across the country....except maybe the Rockies.

[prototoast]

Whats up with these clinics? There are no pre-registrations for either the Moniteur clinic in March or the Prevot clinic in April... no comments or questions in this thread. The fee looks reasonable at $120. Is trasportation a problem? Is there no interest in coaching education in the Northeast? I think there is a large concentration of coaches....the Northeast has the biggest fencing population. Or no interest in USFCA certifications or the instructors?

Give us some feedback.

You asked for it... I used to live about 10 minutes away from where this clinic is being held. I am a person who is interested in both fencing, and coaching, and if I still lived there, I would have absolutely no interest in attending this clinic. Even setting aside the fact that I don't see the USFCA as a value-added organization, I have no reason to believe that the people running the clinic have any skills or knowledge that I would find useful. I don't know Mr Sise personally, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, he's not a very good coach. He's been at it for a while now, and to the best of my knowledge, he's never produced any good fencers ever. Now maybe by other metrics, like "having fun", he's a great coach, but I'm not a very fun guy, and so I would have no interest in a "having fun" clinic.

Now, I could believe that just like coaching is a separate skill from fencing, coaching coaching is a separate skill from coaching, and he might be a great coach coach, but I don't actually have any reason to believe that. And, as you mentioned, New England has an incredible concentration of fencing coaches... off the top of my head, I could easily rattle off the names of 20 coaches within a 2 hour drive that I would rather attend a coaching clinic from than him.

This is not meant to be a personal attack, but I suspect that the reason there is little expressed interest about this (as say, compared to the Michael Marx clinic), is that I don't think anybody cares to know what he wants to teach.

[pjsise1]

I make no claim of being comparable to Michael Marx, but how many people really can? I take my job seriously and I believe I do well at it. I run my own club, coach at a boarding school for kids with learning disabilities, am an author of a fencing book, and am a certified fencing master who's on the USFCA's Certification and Accreditation board. That's a lot more than what most people here can claim. My club is only 8 years old, is largely recreational, but in that time we've produced B's and C's and have helped kids get into college. (Hint - if you start your own club in a small town, your first priority is something other than making an Olympian.) One of the parents at my club is an Ironman triathlete and personal trainer, and he brings his kids to me every week because he likes what we do. Why can't it be he who responded to MdA? Or why couldn't it have been one of the people who has attended a previous clinic? No, it had to be someone who is already biased against USFCA clinics and doesn't even know me but assumes since I haven't made any national champions that I'm "not a very good coach" or can't offer anything in a clinic.

You also mention that you'd rather go to a clinic run by someone else from the Boston area.... but how many of them run clinics? Simply put, aside from Michael Marx's clinics, none of them do. Also, our clinics aren't geared toward the head coaches of BFC, RIFAC, or PDF (some of the big clubs). They are for the many smaller clubs in New England (and remember that New England is a lot bigger than just Boston) who don't have the big Boston coaches to train them. There are a lot of self-taught coaches in the region, and they happily have attended our clinics.

(I keep saying "our clinics" because I co-teach them with John Krauss. Say what you will about me, but John is excellent.)

As far as clinics go, John and I have only ever gotten positive feedback (anonymous evaluation forms, etc), and I even have some testimonials on my website here. http://www.pioneerfencing.com/clinictestimonials.htm

[prototoast]

I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think what you do is bad. It isn't. Obviously, there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of fencers, and most of them won't ever be national champion. Most coaches won't ever produce national champions... and that's fine. It's just that the ones that do tend to be the ones I'd want to go to a clinic from.

[desfcg]

I am sorry that the clinics Paul and I run here in the Northeast do not pass your "value-added" personal standard (Whatever that means?), however, evaluations from coaches who have actually attended the clinics dispute your arbitrary and uninformed judgment.

It is unfortunate that you do not have a clue what has been going on the Northeast regarding coaching training, or in the USFCA organization in the past four years for that matter. So I recommend you do not set yourself up as an elitist expert on whether our clinics are of value to coaches. But, how could you know, since you have been on the west coast and have obvious preconceptions and negative value judgments about the USFCA without any knowledge of what has been current or done, or how it has improved coaching training, or what is specifically offered at Paul's and our clinics. How could you know when you have never even attended one of the clinics or know anything about Paul's club or students. I can discern from your tone that you would not require this training anyway because you know everything already.

You can rattle off 20 or more names if you like, but I am willing to bet that all 20 of those coaches, with which Paul and I probably know as coaching collegues, either here in the Northeast or in your area, will support the clinics we offer as approved by the USFCA and the USFCA National Training Program, not to mention the USFA now which is a partner in the USFCA coaching training. But don't accept my word about that formal relationship, go talk to Michael Marx about that.

If you took the time to know more about the current structure of the USFCA organization, you would know that clinics are held in the various regions to support regional coaching training and are not necessarily designed to be in competition with any other clinic in another region (i.e., Micheal Marx/Laurie Schiller clinic). The USFCA understands that more training for coaches on a nationwide level regionally under the National Training Program is better for our coaches than a few clinics only from a few coaches held in one part of the country.

In fact, even the top national coaches would agree that a nationwide regional clinic training program is the best approach to improving coaching in the US. As since I also manage the USFCA National Coaches Conference, many of the top national coaches that we have invited, attended and presented at our annual USFCA Conference have been very supportive of our organization's efforts to train and hold clinics. Maybe your "value-added" judgement has prevented you from noticing or attending our USFCA National Conference, which, every year, has had nationally recognized coaches attend and train. Sorry you missed the opportunity for some value added training.

When commenting on Paul's club and coaching approach as being for just "fun" at his club, you do not know what you're talking about!

It is disturbing when you make superior value judgments, regardless how veiled, about another coaches' efforts and assumes their efforts and experience is inferior. You assume a premise that you have to be an top coach or have been an top fencer to have any value in training others. That is untrue. But, based on your own premise, unless you yourself have been or maintained elite status as a coach or fencer, what makes you think you yourself are eligible or ready for such a high level value-added training? There are many examples of coaches bringing their students to a high level from a wide range of their own personal experiences with fencing. I have witnessed that some highly regarded coaches are wonderful coaches and coach trainers. I have also witnessed that sometimes highly recognized coaches, or fencers are not necessarily the best educators. I have also witnessed former elite fencers when becoming coaches using questionable or unethical coaching strategies which are destuctive to the fencers development from my point of view.

Paul is a wonderful coach, teacher and effective educator of coaches. I know since I've been a fencing coach and educational trainer since 1988. In our clinics, Paul has a specific curriculum which is directly related to building a competitive fencer under the approval of the USFCA National Training Program. He has been trained and certified by the USFA Coaches College and the USFCA as a Master. His students show strong competitive skills and attend regional and national meets regularly. As a national competor myself, and national finalist myself, and coach, I can testify to Paul's ability to train competitive skills in his fencers when I see them in competition. Don't assume that every club needs to operate under your value-added standard and cannot produce strong competitors that can reach a high level performance. And don't assume that your personal preferences about coaching training and the value of training should be the standard. And especially, don't assume that the enjoyment of fencing means a quality of an inferior fencer, and that quality is something we should not encourage even when it motivates our competitive fencers to train over the long years. For our competitive fencers it is "serious fun".

I am actually glad you made yourself known to the coaching community here with your comments, if only to convey the "elitist" viewpoint. This elitist attitude toward training fencing coaches is a real problem. It is one of the big reasons we have had to work so hard to establish a methodical process for training coaches in the US in order to have a process that encourages, and supports all coaches with respect.

I would think you might be more considerate to applaud our efforts rather than suggest they are inferior. But, actually what was the point of you commenting at all based on your lack of factual understanding?

[eac]

That was a lot of words. None of them denied that the students of the coaches running the clinic do not win nationally, let alone internationally.

If they don't, and you've been at it for more than long enough, it seems reasonable to assume that you don't know how to get them to.

prototoast sounds like he's interested in getting them to. So why would he (or anyone else with the same interests) want to listen to you?

[Allen Evans]

I tutored mathematics for a two years. While all of those kids passed their college classes, none of them went on to win the Fields Medal.

I blame myself.

[eac]

The influence of coaches on competitive success, at least in foil, is well-known to be huge. The vast majority of the D1/J/CMF points lists come from a tiny handful of clubs, and 99% of clubs never get anybody onto them.

The clubs in that handful all have more or less average influx of beginners (sometimes less than average), and yet they reliably get a high percentage of those beginners onto the lists after a few years. It is clear this is not an issue of how much talent each club is working with.

It is paramount, then, if one is interested in getting people onto said lists (i.e. winning), to investigate what that tiny handful is doing, and to disregard what the 99% does.

[catwood1]

Along with the myriad of other problems, the people who started this thread seem to be of the opinion that "if you're a coach, you should want to go to this clinic." And they're surprised that people DONT fit that.

If someone wants to be an amateur coach, this might be a great clinic. If they want to be an elite coach, this clinic would not be a great idea. Is it personally offensive to those running the event that this clinic isn't right for elite level coaches, or those that want to be elite level coaches?

As for myself, theres 3 real reasons why I wouldn't go to this. The first is that I don't think the coaches running it are high level enough for me to justify spending a lot of time, and a lot of money to work with them. The second is that even if they were, what am I gonna learn in a weekend? At best, I'd pick up a cool few "coaching moves" they do, and then grossly misapply then, and break my students in 1 way or another. But where I am as a coach is VERY different from where most other coaches are. I'd guess, that where I am as a coach is different from where 99% of the coaches are for varied reasons. The third is that I dislike epee from a coaching, refereeing, and fencing perspective.

[DangerMouse]

Along with the myriad of other problems, the people who started this thread seem to be of the opinion that "if you're a coach, you should want to go to this clinic." And they're surprised that people DONT fit that.

If someone wants to be an amateur coach, this might be a great clinic. If they want to be an elite coach, this clinic would not be a great idea. Is it personally offensive to those running the event that this clinic isn't right for elite level coaches, or those that want to be elite level coaches?

This really seems to be the issue here. I have met Paul once before and did not come away with a favorable impression. Given that was about 12 years ago, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let's start with catwood's premise that this clinic targets recreational coaches. It clearly is not worth the time and money it would take me to get there from the other side of the country, so let's pretend that I lived in that region. I would have considered driving up to 2 hours for a coaching clinic of this level even without a clear idea of what will be covered on the off chance that I pick up something useful, although the $120 fee is a bit steep for my budget. I have very little interest in USFCA certification because it doesn't really get me much until I reach the point I want to pursue coaching full time.

The real issue that would now make me pass on this clinic, even if I lived 10 minutes away, is the tone of the responses on this thread. When presented with a decent fencer who is just starting to coach that tells you why he would not attend your clinic, the response of a good teacher would be to address the reasons calmly and either show why your clinic would meet his needs or explain why he is not part of your target audience and who that target is. Instead, both of you responded aggressively and defensively. To me that tells me that the clinic would likely be a waste of my time, even if I lived next door.

[pjsise1]

First off, we don't expect anyone to be spending the money to fly in for these clinics. It is a regional clinic. I never expressed surprise that people from the west coast weren't interested.

There is the false concept that a beginning or intermediate coach who eventually aspires to make champions must start his training only under coaches who have made national or international champions. This is like telling your mother you don't want to learn to cook from her because you are waiting for an introductory to cooking class from Gordon Ramsey, despite the fact that you yourself often burn salad and your mother works as a chef in a successful restaurant. Yes, if you have the opportunity to do so, take the class from Gordon Ramsey (or Korfanty or Marx) but don't ignore the other opportunities along the way as you develop your skills, or else you may get sick of eating burned lettuce.

The clinics John and I run have been well attended in the past, and I repeat, the feedback has always been positive. We are professional coaches and not hacks. I even posted proof with testimonials. (Yet you conveniently seem to be ignoring that.) What more could you really ask for?

Oh yes, by the way, John may be a little humble about it, but one of his students did take a gold as well as a bronze at the Summer Nationals in Reno this past summer. Show the gentleman a little respect. It goes a long way.

[eac]

In what category?

[catwood1]

I don't agree with the Gordon Ramsy vs your mother analogy. Your mother will teach you how to cook for free. Gordan Ramsey will charge you a flobity-gillion dollars. Going to a coaching clinic with mid level coaches is NOT free. And for those in the know, there are opportunities to learn from the best at a similar price point. Using your analogy, if you have to pay Gordan Ramsy $500, or pay some random mother who's a pretty good cook $500, which would you do?

I don't think anyone is saying the people running this clinic are BAD coaches. When I think of a truly bad coach, its 1 of 2 things. Either they're teaching stuff that has zero application to the modern fencing game, or they're teaching stuff that will physically injure their students. Those are the BAD coaches. Then theres this whole catagory of people that are more or less doing the kinda right stuff, they can get kids to get some Division 2 medals, or some youth medals, and maybe even some cadet medals if the right guys don't show up at a NAC. Then, IMO, theres an entirely different class of coach that is teaching a system that has had (or is enroute to having) success at every major level. Cadet, Junior, Senior are the 3 big ones. The top coaches are getting results in all 3 of those levels pretty much, with a couple of exceptions.

If the price point is similar between the mid level coaches and the GOOD coaches, why would any serious aspiring coach choose to go to the mid level guy?

Also, personally, I have no desire for USFCA certification. No high level coach sees that you're certified by USFCA and assumes you know anything about fencing.* I got a moniteur certification a few years ago before I knew anything about the programs and the organization. I don't plan on taking future USFCA certification exams any time soon / ever without major major changes in the curriculum and leadership.

*The opposite is up for debate, as to whether high level coaches see that you're certified by USFCA and assume you are not a good coach, but that a different conversation, and a different cup of coffee.

[pjsise1]

"I don't plan on taking future USFCA certification exams any time soon / ever without major major changes in the curriculum and leadership."


Chris - I think the major changes you have been waiting for have already occurred. Over the last two or three years, essentially since the time Coaches College ceased to be, the USFCA underwent some major changes. First off, a "National Training Program" was developed, which is a very hefty syllabus and workbooks written for training coaches from Assistant Moniteur (Intro coaching) all the way through Master. This allows for uniform teaching across the country. Secondly, anyone who sits on exam boards must attend the examiners' seminars. This has helped make practical exams more consistent and fair. Thirdly, the exams themselves were changed. There are now prescribed formats for the lessons that must be given in the practical exams, which means that there is actually a way to prepare for them now. You don't have to rely on a bit of luck that you just happened to teach material or a format that the examiners approve of in order to pass. Also, the Prevot and Master exams can only be taken one weapon at a time now and are much harder. This is consistent with what other AAI governing bodies are doing around the world. Gone are the days when people who are strong in one weapon but weak in the others can pass the test and be Master of all three weapons. As it stands now, anyone who passes the current Master exam would most likely be able to pass it in any other country. One Master I know who got his Master cert in Germany years ago (not MdA incidentally) described the current U.S. exam as being "very hard and very thorough" compared to the German standards and requirements.


As for the leadership in the USFCA, you are welcome to email me or one of the officers if you have any gripes about the current leadership.

RE the clinics - The exams are optional. The certification is there for those who want it (and some do and some don't). The clinics are called "Moniteur" and "Prevot" because that is the level of the material that is being taught, not because we assume everyone attending is on the certification path.


I don't mean to sound overly defensive or aggressive in this or my previous posts. I apologize (particularly to DM) if I sound that way. I'm just trying to inform and be honest.

[DangerMouse]

I don't mean to sound overly defensive or aggressive in this or my previous posts. I apologize (particularly to DM) if I sound that way. I'm just trying to inform and be honest.

I never meant to imply that you were consciously being aggressive or defensive, but the tone of your posts comes across that way and is the reason I would not attend your clinics even if they were cheap and next door. I know you have been coaching longer than I have, although not by much, but I work in a classroom and teach for my primary living. If I reacted this way to a prospective student, it would be viewed as highly unacceptable.

[catwood1]

Chris - I think the major changes you have been waiting for have already occurred. Over the last two or three years, essentially since the time Coaches College ceased to be, the USFCA underwent some major changes. First off, a "National Training Program" was developed, which is a very hefty syllabus and workbooks written for training coaches from Assistant Moniteur (Intro coaching) all the way through Master. This allows for uniform teaching across the country. Secondly, anyone who sits on exam boards must attend the examiners' seminars. This has helped make practical exams more consistent and fair. Thirdly, the exams themselves were changed. There are now prescribed formats for the lessons that must be given in the practical exams, which means that there is actually a way to prepare for them now. You don't have to rely on a bit of luck that you just happened to teach material or a format that the examiners approve of in order to pass. Also, the Prevot and Master exams can only be taken one weapon at a time now and are much harder. This is consistent with what other AAI governing bodies are doing around the world. Gone are the days when people who are strong in one weapon but weak in the others can pass the test and be Master of all three weapons. As it stands now, anyone who passes the current Master exam would most likely be able to pass it in any other country. One Master I know who got his Master cert in Germany years ago (not MdA incidentally) described the current U.S. exam as being "very hard and very thorough" compared to the German standards and requirements.

I am aware of a number of changes made regarding the USFCA, although I'm not up 100% with them. I still stand by my claim. The USFCA has the same pitfalls that way too many American referees have. Focusing on the rules of it all can lead to forgetting the whole fencing part of it. I've seen a number of USFCA "masters" that are great at the whole "blocked, serial, random" thing, and they can preach definitions from a handbook, but those things don't make them a good coach!

To be a good coach, you have to know fencing. When all the fluff boils away, this is what I think is lacking in so many American coaches. I have zero confidence that being able to pass a USFCA masters exam means that you're a good coach. There are good coaches who are USFCA masters, yes, but being able to pass a USFCA masters test probably didn't make them a good coach.

And I strongly disagree with the bolded portion here.

More details in the PM I'm sending.

[darius]

Isn't everybody on the same side here?

I don't think anybody disagrees there should be more quality educational environments for coach education in the USA.

It's well-established that in the past, the USFCA focused on "certification" over "education". Coaches College was a program which was organized and focused on individual coaching skills, and was held up as a model program by the USOC for other NGBs to emulate, until it disappeared unceremoniously (and without the courtesy of informing those who built it, from my understanding).

Any work towards a standardized curriculum would be fantastic, even if it's not the same platform used by Greg, Buckie, Michael, Amghad, Mike, Ed, Sebastien, Aladar, (insert top coach here)...because guess what, they all use different frameworks! What is important, in my eye, is to give developing coaches a consistent platform from which to develop fencing ideas, and a shared language to discuss those ideas.

Once we, as coaches, move from having just a collection of methods to that framework, spending a week with a top coach becomes more valuable. At that point, we can assess their methods, and accept/reject what may work in our systems.

At the end of the day, the USFCA test may be more or less rigorous, but it's a test, subject to the problems that tests have. On the other hand, I fail to see how creating a curriculum is in any way a bad thing. Now, what would be interesting is to stress test that curriculum: Send those workbooks out to the top coaches in the country and ask politely if they'd help out by doing some edits, seeing if they agree/disagree with the material and the way it's prioritized or presented.

For all I know, that's been done. (Actually, wouldn't that be a killer fencing master's thesis?)