Camp-going students and their coaches - why be possessive?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


In another thread, I saw the following:

Imhotep opinion, we have derailed this thread far enough. (Even though, IMO, this whole Future Star thing is not a good idea, unless it's a free camaraderie/bonding thing for the kids. Their "real" coaches will never agree that this is worth losing a week of training with them -- absolutely no benefits in their youth-life or after.)

This gives me a sinking feeling in my heart.

In the last 2 years, my students have attended both the summer and winter camps organized by the designated national fencing school under the auspices of the Swedish Fencing Federation. Furthermore, one student has also attended a camp organized jointly by the best fencing club in Denmark and the Danish Fencing Federation, intended for advanced female epeeists.

I think that this is great. My students get to train with someone who might see stuff that I overlook, and they get a lot of challenging bouts in a few days - more challenings bouts/resources spent than the comparable quota for an ordinary competition. The camp-goers are generally in the upper level of the age category, so there will be few 5-1 timewaster bouts. Also, when one keeps on fencing and thinking about fencing for many hours a day, one can think deeper than an ordinary training session at the club which last 2 hours.

The Danish WE camp is quite something. 4 days of challenging fencing, under the tutelage of many coaches, with food and lodging (sleeping bags in the salle) included, all for the price of 250 DKK = 45 USD. My student came back and was very happy about it, and had a lot of stuff to tell.

Why would a coach not be happy with his student getting new influences? Your student gets better, without you having to work! I am not losing any money, since I am not paid in the first place! (OK, OK - free club membership, and a movie ticket certificate for 2 every Xmas) Can´t coaches see the greater good for fencing?

An aside: Almost all Swedish NGB of a specific sport have one, or in some cases several, designated national schools. These are ordinary schools for students aged 16-19, which among the general student population host a group of very good student-athletes. In order to qualify for this, the student has to be recognized by the NGB as being of top-level calibre (realistic chance of national team), and pass the ordinary grade levels for the field of study that the student is applying for in that school. School admittance in the Swedish system is by grades only; coaches have no pull whatsoever, and being "well-rounded" counts for exactly nothing, and donations do not matter at all. If you are 0.01 points below the grade average cutoff but are perfect in every other way, you are SOL - nothing can be done.

The students who are admitted to a designated school will study the ordinary subjects in all classes with their ordinary classmates, except PE. However, when the ordinary classmates study PE the sports students train their specific sport, under the tutelage of some of the best coaches in the country in that sport. They have extra lesson time for their sport. The student athletes also have a special meal allowance, but no other extra benefits. When competing, the student athletes either represent their home club, the sports club in the town where the designated sports school is located, or the national team. However, they do not represent the designated school itself - interscholastic sports is very much a fringe phenomenon in Sweden, and totally absent in many of the sports that have designated sports schools.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[wakeup]

FWIW, my kid's coach is pro-camp as long as it's (1) not right before nationals and (2) run by someone whom he respects and whose approach is compatible with his own. My kid definitely likes the chance to spend a week where fencing is almost the only thing on the agenda and that's not a scenario our club can offer (mixed-use facility with fencing limited to certain hours).

[Allen Evans]

As youth fencing in the US becomes more and more monetized, camps become less a training opportunity and more and more a business decision. Some clubs are only viable because of the strength of their summer camps. Sending "customers" to another camp may make sense from a training point of view, but may not makes sense from a business point of view.

A

[heretic]

As youth fencing in the US becomes more and more monetized, camps become less a training opportunity and more and more a business decision. Some clubs are only viable because of the strength of their summer camps. Sending "customers" to another camp may make sense from a training point of view, but may not makes sense from a business point of view.

A

Make no mistake - coaching youth fencing is a business, so parents need to be informed consumers. As parents are pressured to chase points, the financial commitment is becoming increasingly onerous. That’s why parents need to acquire the tools to do cost/benefit analyses that determine the relative value a particular experience. Camps can play a role in the context of a well conceived, comprehensive training program. However, when an NGB organizes and promotes a camp as an “elite” experience without even consulting with national (let alone top local or regional) coaches, the powers that be are undercutting these pre-existing training programs with their own for-profit agenda. That, in my opinion, is wrong.

[hello?]

FWIW, my kid's coach is pro-camp as long as it's...(2) run by someone whom he respects and whose approach is compatible with his own....

This is key: a camp run by a coach "whose approach is compatible" with the kid's own coach. (Even better if they know each other and can discuss the kid's strengths and weaknesses.) Even as a not-high-level vet, the best "camp" I ever attended (at my then-club) was run by my then-coach's old coach.

My kid definitely likes the chance to spend a week where fencing is almost the only thing on the agenda and that's not a scenario our club can offer (mixed-use facility with fencing limited to certain hours).

If the intensity of a camp is not something the fencer's own club can offer, then a camp would probably be a good thing (given the above). However, I think the objections in the other thread were made when discussing the advantages of spending an undiluted week of training "camp-like" at your own club/with you own coach v. spending a week with a totally new coach.

and they get a lot of challenging bouts in a few days - more challenings bouts/resources spent than the comparable quota for an ordinary competition.

I think that most coaches would agree that training with other high-level fencers is key for high-level fencers. In fact, I believe that some parents/coaches (for example, in women's epee) try to arrange such 'training weekends/sessions' on their own. There is a difference between that and going to a camp where a new coach is supposedly going to 'teach' a high level fencer something new that might or might not go against what the kid's coach has been working on or has planned for said kid-- and to assuming that that would be better than what the kid would have learned had she or he spent the same week training with camp-intensity at his or her own club.

There is also a big difference from the organized, funded program that you are describing and what exists in this country -- where most 'camps' are definitely run like a business.

By the way, I have nothing against camps as bond-building experiences -- and think they are absolutely great when the fencers are either just starting or have only been fencing for a couple of years. I also don't think that any camp will necessarily be "detrimental" to a high level fencer -- merely that the fencer would probably get more (presumably for less money) out of spending that amount of undiluted fencing time with his own coach.

[bigdawg2121]

Honestly, having been to a decent number of camps in a variety of capacities and having plenty of friends who have done the same and discussed the experiences I'm not sure that "compatible" coaching is really an issue. It's very rare to find a camp that's technique focused or where the coaches are actively trying to change the fenders. Generally camps are places where lots of drilling gets done and new ideas get introduced. IMHO ideas and drills never hurt fencers and pretty much always help (even if it's just in the "oh, that's why fencers trained by X do Y; I can fence them more effectively" sense). To me the big problem with camps is the general tendency for distrust that seems to be fairly prevalent. If the fencers are cowing from reasonably good clubs to begin with the attitude seems to be "why go there when you could stay here; all they're gonna do is use you as stronger practice and try to identify tour weaknesses so they can beat you". Also, there's occasionally a concern over poaching...truth be told I think the recession might be a reasonable explanation.

[wakeup]

Honestly, having been to a decent number of camps in a variety of capacities and having plenty of friends who have done the same and discussed the experiences I'm not sure that "compatible" coaching is really an issue.

Could this depend on developmental stage? i.e. When you already know a lot about something it's pretty easy to sort through a variety of things you're exposed to and choose which are useful. But at an earlier stage, when you're still developing instincts and don't yet have a sense of how various pieces fit together, that could be a more difficult and confusing task (and/or a less effective use of your time than staying the course you've already embarked upon).

[DangerMouse]

Could this depend on developmental stage? i.e. When you already know a lot about something it's pretty easy to sort through a variety of things you're exposed to and choose which are useful. But at an earlier stage, when you're still developing instincts and don't yet have a sense of how various pieces fit together, that could be a more difficult and confusing task (and/or a less effective use of your time than staying the course you've already embarked upon).

And yet the argument here is apparently that the top 15 juniors in the country don't know enough about fencing to sort out what is useful and what is not.

[wakeup]

Not juniors -- Y14s. Big difference.

[Inquartata]

IMHO ideas and drills never hurt fencers and pretty much always help...

Hey, man, "pretty much always is not the opposite of "never"! You have left an opening for the wedge of "sometimes", and I am tempted to knock it in there!