Time between first lesson and fencing?

[FlamingDeth]

So here I was, looking at the "newbie lunge question" or whatever it was called thread, where the author of the thread mentioned fencing on his/her third lesson, and later someone mentioned having two lessons and already being put into bouts. Now, I found it odd, as when I was learning (two hour and a half lessons a week at the time), my coach wouldn't even let us touch the weapons until three and a half weeks in, and even then we weren't allowed to partner drills for another two weeks or so, and even then we weren't bouting until ten or so weeks in. My coach made absolutely certain that we all knew our footwork, at least the basics of bladework (thrusts, parries, beats, feints), and some rules of etiquette before we were bouting.

So, yeah. Seeing as that's my primary context when dealing with lessons, it surprised me to see people bouting so soon after their first lesson. With that in mind, can someone explain to me the advantages to throwing people so new to fencing on the strip? To my limited learning experience, at least, it seems like a good way for someone to get hurt.

[Inquartata]

It's a balancing act. Not that many people, children of the immediate-gratification think-short-term culture in which we live, will retain interest for long periods of doing dull drills only any more. So a coach like yours who insists on that will probably suffer a lot of attrition among novices. OTOH if you let them start fencing too soon just to keep them interested you'll have a harder time breaking bad habits in them later.

In a perfect world, it'd be footwork and conditioning only for the fist six months for every student. Who among us wouldn't have drifted away after a month or two, tops, under that sort of regimen?

My coach had me bouting ( if you can call it that! ) after about five lessons. He probably could have waited a lot longer with me, but in his experience few students browsing for an athletic activity would stick it out beyond that, so he started everyone fairly early on---and then labored to instill good form in those who kept coming despite the added difficulties...

[prototoast]

For me it was about a month... but that's because it was a start-up school team with no equipment, so we had nothing but footwork and conditioning to work on!

[Tireur]

I see no point in moving on, until you can at least advance, retreat and lunge properly and consistently, without looking at your feet.

Then we talk about, maybe, putting a weapon in your hand for the footwork. Individual lessons move along a bit faster.

[DHCJr]

It seems to be a bad disease in the U.S. of 'Instant Everything'. A little before the '84 Olympics, PBS had a half-hour program on the current Foil World Champion who was Italian. During the show, he introduced his son who was so excited that he had just been allowed to hold a weapon for the first time. He had been practicing footwork for 3 years, not months. He was 8 and had been taking lessons since he was 5. His father hoped that he might make the Italian team at this coming up Olympics 2004, but did not expect it. He felt a more realistic goal would be the 2008 or 2012.

I watched a lesson last Friday, where the instructor and student were bouting. It didn't look like the student had seen his 8th birthday.

But as said above, most will not stay for what is needed. They want the feedback of competing.

[prototoast]

Originally posted by DHCJr
It seems to be a bad disease in the U.S. of 'Instant Everything'. A little before the '84 Olympics, PBS had a half-hour program on the current Foil World Champion who was Italian. During the show, he introduced his son who was so excited that he had just been allowed to hold a weapon for the first time. He had been practicing footwork for 3 years, not months. He was 8 and had been taking lessons since he was 5. His father hoped that he might make the Italian team at this coming up Olympics 2004, but did not expect it. He felt a more realistic goal would be the 2008 or 2012.

I watched a lesson last Friday, where the instructor and student were bouting. It didn't look like the student had seen his 8th birthday.

But as said above, most will not stay for what is needed. They want the feedback of competing.

That depends on what you want fencing to be. Should fencing just be a structure for creating an elite few, or should fencing be a fun recreational activity enjoyed by the many. Yes I'd be a better fencer if I had worked exclusively on footwork for 3 years before learning bladework. Personally, I have fun fencing. I have no goals of going to the olympics, being a national champion or even being a divisional champion. I enjoy fencing, and I have fun with it. Yes, I like to get better, but if "becoming the best" makes it less enjoyable, I have no incentive to continue with the sport.

[Tireur]

I have no goals of going to the olympics, being a national champion or even being a divisional champion.

Yes, but you still need to become somewhat competent or people won't enjoy fencing with you. That doesn't sound good, but......

[dreadfoily]

Some instructors like to use a little bout as part of their lesson plans, they don't really expect the beginners to do very much. But it is a nice way of showing new people "What is a bout?" It is sort of fun, and we all learn a lot.

[dreadfoily]

Some instructors like to use a little bout as part of their lesson plan, they don't really expect the beginners to do very much. But it is a nice way of showing new people "What is a bout?" It is sort of fun, and we all learn a lot.

[prototoast]

Originally posted by Tireur
Yes, but you still need to become somewhat competent or people won't enjoy fencing with you. That doesn't sound good, but......

Are you suggesting you only enjoy fencing with opponents who have praticed footwork for 3 years prior to beginning bladework?

[Tireur]

Are you suggesting you only enjoy fencing with opponents who have praticed footwork for 3 years prior to beginning bladework?

Is that what I said?

[jBirch]

FlamingDeth,

Wow, there certainly seems to be a lot of interest in figuring out when to begin bouting, isn't there? [grin]

The advantages to bouting early have already been mentioned but I'll sumarize here just for ease:

1) Increased interest
2) Increased understanding of what we're talking about with some of the technique
3) Increased ability to adapt to a changing circumstance
4) Increased ability to harmonize distance and timing with the dynamics of a bout.
5) Increased ability to read an opponent's actions and get used to setting them up.
6) Creativity

Disadvantages:

1) Bad habits get reinforced
2) Technique gets thrown out because "it doesn't work!" ('course not, dummy, you don't know how to do it right or when to use it to best effect!)
3) Students don't listen because they're too caught up in the next bout.
4) They don't practice 'cause they've already got a trick that works.
5) Unlearning bad habits
6) Losing can be very discouraging
7) Winning can be problematic as it often rewards bad technique.

In my opinion there are things that you can only learn in a bout setting and those things are the critical factors that determine whether one is going to be sucessful at competition or not. Specifically, distance, timing, opponent analysis, adaptability, and ability to think under pressure.

My opinion on the structure of a fencing course is that all lessons (at every level) should always be about 60% technical practice (footwork, bladework, reflexes and tactics), 20% analysis and theory and about 20% bouting. In a 100 minute lesson:

10 minutes for fencing specific warm up & technical talking
15 minutes of footwork
10 minutes of single bladework
15 minutes of partner bladework
20 minutes of bouting
10 minutes of analysis
20 minutes of practice (whatever needs to worked on from bouting).

For the first 6 months or so, there is no such thing as unsupervised bouting and if a student isn't actually bouting during that 20%, they are presiding and learning the rules. I find as a coach that it is easier to talk about technical refinements (such as keeping your back foot flat) if you have something to tie it back to (remember how Johnny keeps rolling that back ankle? Watch how I take advantage of it. Now that we know that it's bad, here's how you fix it. Go home and practice this.) I also find that lesson time is increadibly valuable. If they can be doing something at home then they should be. Lessons are for demonstration, correction and analysis, not rote practice. I use bouting as simply another way to get the point accross and I feel that its use is invaluable.

Remember too that the classical method of instruction was not something that was done for only a couple of hours a week. If you are going to immerse someone in the study of fencing then you need to watch them practice too. Also, part of the philosophy was to weed out those students that didn't want to dedicate themselves totally to the process so the 6 months of footwork was like SEAL Hell Week. The core that is left are those that are truly dedicated to learning and willing to take the master's words as Gospel. Unfortuneatly, this type of training is not available 3 hours a week split up in 1.5 hr chunks.

As an analogy (and a different approach) look at Boxing. It may not be as refined as Kung Fu, but you learn the critical skills faster. You practice the motions on your own and are coached through the match. What worked and what didn't are analysed after the match and used to refine your training. In fact, the Shaolin Monks often practice boxing in order to better work on their dynamic distance & combat skills.

Hope this helps.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Wouldn't bouting also introduce you to things that you cannot get with just footwork or blade work? I mena understanding RoW and how to keep good distacne is just as important as footwork. If you have the best footwork in the world but don't know when to advance and retreat, or how to keep distance, then what good is the footwork anyways? In my mind not much. So I think bouting early helps with actually understanding the game, and should be incorporated earlier rather than later.

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by jBirch
As an analogy (and a different approach) look at Boxing.

Excellent post jBirch!

I was going to mention boxing--you beat me to the punch!

I've had a little training in boxing (mandatory plebe class), and we did drills and worked on footwork for two months before we had our first bout. We sparred a little in between for the instructor in maintain interest, but nothing much more.

If interest is of primary concern, maybe new games can be made using proper use of footwork. Does anyone know of any?

[FlamingDeth]

Wow, quite a bit of interesting stuff said here. Where to begin...

While I might not have made this clear, a major portion of why the "make people bout right away" strategy of teaching didn't seem logical to me was safety. Sure, they're supervised, but supervising the bouting isn't going to stop someone in the fraction of a second that it takes to break their ankle because they have no clue how to lunge. It's not going to stop someone from lunging to close, breaking their blade on someone, and stabbing it through a lung. I acknowledge that these are fairly extreme examples, but hey, they're what came to mind.

I'll try to respond more later when I'm less pressed for time...

[Tireur]

I mena understanding RoW and how to keep good distacne is just as important as footwork.

Correct and you should have a grasp of it when you start free-fencing. Doesn't mean you start fencing the first week tho.

If you have the best footwork in the world but don't know when to advance and retreat, or how to keep distance, then what good is the footwork anyways?

This should all be covered in the lesson.

[Masterurethane]

After an hour of footwork, we had swords in our hands, and half an hour after that we were bouting.

I don't see anything wrong with it in principal, those who care about it will learn the drills of their own accord.

Just teaching drills initially for ages, will make the people who would quit anyway quit, and cause the people who care about it to maybe become less enthusiastic.

After a year or so I doubt there would be a major difference between people who were taught in these different ways.

[Tireur]

we had swords in our hands

I don't want to fence at your club, not if you use swords......

[jBirch]

FlamingDeth,

While I might not have made this clear, a major portion of why the "make people bout right away" strategy of teaching didn't seem logical to me was safety. Sure, they're supervised, but supervising the bouting isn't going to stop someone in the fraction of a second that it takes to break their ankle because they have no clue how to lunge. It's not going to stop someone from lunging to close, breaking their blade on someone, and stabbing it through a lung. I acknowledge that these are fairly extreme examples, but hey, they're what came to mind.

I've heard the safety concern brought up for teaching footwork for ever and, frankly, I don't buy it. I don't mean to sound harsh or that I don't care about safety but I have never seen anyone break (or even roll!) an ankle because they don't know how to lunge. I *have* seen intermediate students who understand how to lunge concentrate on lunging without regard to distance and smacking into each other (since both lunge at the same time from too close a distance) and getting into dangerous places. What newbie fleches? Breaking a blade is much more likely to happen in these situations and, in my experience, it's the students that have enough footwork to be dangerous that are to be watched carefully, not newbs.

In fact, amongst beginners with a foil in their hands their first instinct is to parry anything that comes near them and retreat. It takes a while before they even tentatively try to poke their opponent. Mostly, it is spectators and the presider who are in danger, (generally of windshield washer parries) not the competitors.

Further, beginner vs. beginner sparring is not terribly productive as both just thwack away like idiots until, by some miracle of the universe, a light goes off. Integrating them into bouts (sparring sessions) with the more experienced fencers is more along the lines of what I'd recommend. It lets them feel more part of the club family and demonstrates, clearly, why good form is a good idea and that they truly don't know squat. Bad habits are exploited hugely.

To further that point, on my previous post, Army Fencer had a great distinction that would help clarify what I'm trying to communicate: bouting vs. sparring. Bouting is a situation where the outcome matters and both competitors are trying their darndest to get a hit. Sparring is more about "friendly competition" where the score doesn't matter, but the touches do.

I would not place my students into a kill or be killed competitive environment until they had gotten to the point where I am confident in their ability to understand what's happening. Getting thrashed and having no idea why is one of the most frustrating elements of any sport. At least if your form is horrible you have a good idea how to do better in competition, right? In that light, what I'm encouraging is frequent sparring, not frequent bouting. Ie// get two fencers to dry fence for a while and try to get touches under supervision. Then analyse why a particular action is being ruthlessly exploited. In this environment (as in any other fencing environment), if they are behaving dangerously then yank them out of there.

Hope this helps.

[FlamingDeth]

Alright. Now I have a decent amount of time available. And it seems that a lot of the same points are raised by different people (nicely summarized by jBirch, thanks), so I'll get to those instead of quoting things. Once again, keep in mind that the only context I have to work with when mulling these things over is my personal learning experience.

First thing raised was the issue of keeping people interested in fencing. For some reason that eludes me completely, I hadn't actually thought of it from that angle before, so I'll have to grant y'all this one.

As for understanding of what's being taught, I would think that examples and partner drilling would be pretty good for that. It wouldn't necessarily teach when to use it, but knowing when to use a technique wouldn't be much use if you don't have it working properly to begin with.

I'll agree that it does make it easier to adapt to changing circumstances. However, if you aren't actually fencing (bouting, sparring, whatever you'd like to call it, though I was taught that an unscored bout was called an "assault", a term which I'm quite fond of), then you don't have to worry about circumstances changing until you at least have the basics of attacking, defending, and moving down.

Distance can be learned with targets. Timing, once again, can be learned through partner drills. Integrating it with the dynamics of a bout...sure, you do need to be out fencing to do that, but if someone is in so much of a hurry that they can't wait an extra couple weeks to fence, I'm not sure I'd want to fence with them.

Getting used to setting your opponent up? How do you set someone up for an action that you can't execute correctly yet?

I'm really not sure about the creativity point, I'd have to have it explained to me a bit more before I can properly respond to that one.

Also, like I said, those were extreme examples I mentioned, which no one here is likely to ever see. I have, however, seen people twist ankles and such on strip from rolling their ankles when lunging, and giving their opponents rather nasty looking bruises due to no having good control over their distance. While beginners are not the only perpetrators of these, they're by far the most common, though admitadly it's still not very often.

And, with all that said, thanks to those that responded. While I still don't agree with pitting newcomers against each other so early, some excellent points on the reasons for doing so were raised, so at least I can understand some of the advantages to it.