Development age for the acceleration-deceleration coupe

[thebigriddle]

When I learned the basic coupe I was around age 14, when I learned the acceleration-deceleration coupe aka "the flick" I was around 16. It is important to understand when some skills should be taught. Not so much as a matter of what skill level the child is at, but is it healthy for the child? Injuries to the elbow is a fact of life for most fencers, matter of fact injuries to shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers are facts of life for the fencer. Injuries can affect someone their whole life. The reason I bring up the acceleration-deceleration coupe is that the develop of most youngsters arms are not up to the demands of the skill. The reason that this skill is done, is to cause an acceleration of the point. Fortunately the center of mass of the foil is closer to the handle. However there is a breaking action required in order to accurately place the point on the target, ie, chest, shoulder, back. Both skills, velocity and accuracy have to be learned by the fencer. Because of the breaking action involved in the skill, injury can occur to the lateral epicondyle. The prime mover is the tricep which creates the force in the action, this creates stress on the joint. Since fencing like most sport, you learn by drilling and practicing the action repetatively until master. I suggest for the coach to hold off in the teaching of this action until the fencer reaches maturity in which the muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones have reached full growth and develop. Even for the experience fencer resting the arm especially after a tournament would be best. Training with the off arm on the days off to help prevent unilateral hypertrophy of the prefered weapon arm.

Jonathan Wayne Riddle
Coach Eastern Michigan Fencing Club
Currently I am working on a second bachelors in physical education.

[FoilyGeezer]

In addition to that. Fencer's who are trying to learn to flick before they master basic direct attacks have a tendency to lay the point onto the target rather than extend directly at the target. I've been noticing a lot of this lately. The upshot is that the fencer:

1) tends to land the point plaque.
2) has an attack that takes longer to arrive and is easier to parry
3) tends to think they need to be closer than they really do before attacking.
4) are suckers for a snappy riposte as they tend to follow the same circuituous path out on recovery.

[DanInMI]

Hi Jon, I know that Mikhail and Arkadyi Sarkisov don't believe that you should teach the flick at all.

[corinna2u]

I completely agree with FoilyGeezer.

Based on that and based on the low percentage of an actual flick landing...I really don't see why so many people spend soooo much time mastering that flashy move.

On the original comment. Fencing is destructive unless great care is given to balance training of the joints and muscles at any age.

When you talk about damaging the lateral epicondyle, does this occur with the small controlled flick? For example, my son doesn't normally flick but if he sees that he has miss judged so badly that his tip is going past the shoulder, he will tighten down and cause a small flick that will land (with remarkably a high percentage). He doesn't do those big wind up flicks, probably because he can normally stop them himself. Since I don't know the differences in types of flicks...maybe you could explain.

[The0ne]

Hi Jon, I know that Mikhail and Arkadyi Sarkisov don't believe that you should teach the flick at all.

I feel sorry for their students. They lose access to a move that might help them win a bout one day.

In addition to that. Fencer's who are trying to learn to flick before they master basic direct attacks have a tendency to lay the point onto the target rather than extend directly at the target. I've been noticing a lot of this lately. The upshot is that the fencer:

Definately! Make sure that the flick is not the only way a fencer can put the point on the target, it's mearly an additional move that can be used to increase your points of attack, making your opponent have to think about more things.

When I learned the basic coupe I was around age 14, when I learned the acceleration-deceleration coupe aka "the flick" I was around 16. It is important to understand when some skills should be taught. Not so much as a matter of what skill level the child is at, but is it healthy for the child?

I know many fencers who started flicking at age 12, and they've had no problems. It's not that aggressive of an action. I started flicking at 13, and I flick probably 100-200 times a week and I've had no problems from it.

When you talk about damaging the lateral epicondyle, does this occur with the small controlled flick? For example, my son doesn't normally flick but if he sees that he has miss judged so badly that his tip is going past the shoulder, he will tighten down and cause a small flick that will land (with remarkably a high percentage). He doesn't do those big wind up flicks, probably because he can normally stop them himself. Since I don't know the differences in types of flicks...maybe you could explain.

There is no difference in kinds of flick, I think that the strain on the muscle would be the same, you still need to get a certain amount of momentum going to land the move.

[Namir]

I feel sorry for their students. They lose access to a move that might help them win a bout one day.

REALLY!!!
Well guess what, thats perfect! Becouse there 12 year old daughters will be at the JO's in Clevland to. So let us just see how they compare to you. So this could be interesting...

[The0ne]

Namir,
Actually I never compared my skills to their students, they may have much better skills than me, and that's fine. I was merely commenting on the fact that the flick is a good move to have in your repetoire, and the access to it could win you some bouts. If you can win without it, power to you. Although you just gave me a good lesson in convoluted logic. . .

[counterattack]

TheOne,
As you get older and your body falls apart in one way or another you will learn something that you haven't yet (and neither have many people 3 times your age): injuries are usually a combination of bad technique plus predisposition. To say "I did it for x years and have had no problems" is not proof that it isn't bad. George Burns smoked until he was dang near 100 years old and didn't get lung cancer, will you claim, therefore, that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? Odds are, TheOne, that one of your joints (wrist, knee, ankle, elbow, sacro-iliac, etc... there are so many to choose from) is not perfectly shaped, and you are able to injure it. The evidence among kids who throw curve balls in baseball at too early an age shows that some are practically immune to the damage of abusing the elbow while too young, and some can destroy their arms forever. Don't risk your elbow unless you plan to have a very short career. You might dodge the bullet, you might prove invincible to one bullet or another, but if you flaunt medical advice one of the bullets will get you.
I am in my late 20s. I am recovering from knee surgery. The cause was a congenital defect plus rough treatment from my shoddy footwork. People warned me to shore up my shoddy footwork for years (for more reasons than just tactics). Listen to people with experience (particularly coaches who have seen it before) when they warn you that something is dangerous to your health. Ask yourself what you think they are trying to do by warning you. Misdirect you and protect the secrets of the real way to win? Or prolong the career of a kid who loves the same sport they do?

Perhaps my tone is too severe and you will just take this as finger wagging from someone nearly twice your age (yikes I'm getting old), but I just hope to get you to think about how casually you disregard medical advice...

Just my dearly earned two cents.

[The0ne]

I don't want to appear as if I'm jsut throwing the opinions of the more medically minded people out the window, it's just that I have seen no people injured from flicking at all. Ever. When you throw a curveball, much more force is used than when you flick, flicking actually isn't the huge brutal action that many fencers think it is. Yeah I've already done a number on my knees and hips from running cross-country, so I have learned to take care of my joints, they are rather frail! But there has been no medical advice so far, so I jsut wanted to state my opinion.

Corrina2u,
Actually in mid to high level bouts, well over 70% i'd say of flicks land, and this is with your opponent trying to parry or dodge the flick. In my private lessons I miss at most 2-3 flicks out of about 30-40, and I'm not even that good of a flicker, there are many fencers who almost never miss the flick.

[labouche]

Originally posted by Namir
REALLY!!!
Well guess what, thats perfect! Becouse there 12 year old daughters will be at the JO's in Clevland to. So let us just see how they compare to you. So this could be interesting...

First, TheOne wasn't saying you can't have skill without the flick, he was only saying that it is another good move to have. Secondly, I guarantee TheOne can destroy any 12 year female in the United States.
-la bouche

[labouche]

BTW, I think you shouldn't teach your students to flick until they are strong enough to flick with any blade. But, that is just my personal experience.
-la bouche

[corinna2u]

TheOne...you misunderstand me.

My son is not a 'high rated fencer' nor is he even close yet. He has been fencing 1 year and is an E.

I see no point for him to develop the flick at this stage. Personally I do not see why anyone under a C rating would spend soooo much time on the flick. The extremely bad percentage of no light flick touches would be for the majority of fencers...which happens to be lower than the C.

I agree that with today's game the flick is another move in the arsenal. But, at this stage in the game, I would rather see my son spend two hours a day working on other bladework than the flick. I see fencers spend a huge amount of time on the flick in proportion to the other bladework...and they don't seem to progress.

[thebigriddle]

There is no difference in kinds of flick, I think that the strain on the muscle would be the same, you still need to get a certain amount of momentum going to land the move.

No it depends on the mass of the foil, the mass of the arm and how much velocity. Injuries don't have to happen when you are young, but when you get older. The displacement of the point is an arc, so the arc speed is dependent on the speed of the arm, the mass of the weapon, plus where the center of mass for the weapon is. The greater amount of force will be throught the center of mass for the weapon. That is why ideally the weapons center of mass should be closer to the guard. You see the type of blade flexibility will play a role as well, this will cause the blade to warp and change shape. Depending on the elastic nature of the blade and the weight effects the stopping or deceleration of the arm. The more elastic less energy required to cause the blade to warp. So not all "flicks" are the same. It also depends on the plane that your arm is displacing throught. Some people have there elbow close to their body, that means they have great displacement, but if the timing is down they can cause the blade to accelerate very fast. Depends on the location of the arm and how far extended prior excution. The great the force applied to the mass(weapon) will determine the arc speed. The more force applied more stress on the joints required to move the mass. You can also have the youngster use a lighter weapon if he is have problems.

[Tireur]

Believe me, I'm not trying to start an argument here, just curious.

Actually in mid to high level bouts, well over 70% i'd say of flicks land, and this is with your opponent trying to parry or dodge the flick.

What's your authority on this? Or is it just your observation?

In my private lessons I miss at most 2-3 flicks out of about 30-40, and I'm not even that good of a flicker

You can't really equate the percentage that land in a lesson to the real world. Hopefully 99.9% or more of your lunges land in a private lesson.

there are many fencers who almost never miss the flick.

If this is true, these fencers should never do anything else. They would be "unbeatable" and would completely dominate the sport.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Tireur
Believe me, I'm not trying to start an argument here, just curious.

What's your authority on this? Or is it just your observation?

He is a 15 year old C rated fencer from the fencing capital of the world........... Vermont.

[labouche]

If this is true, these fencers should never do anything else. They would be "unbeatable" and would completely dominate the sport. [/b][/quote]

There is a large difference between simply missing and not landing because your opponent parried/dodged. You can just as easily "miss" a strait attack if your opponent parries or moves out of the way. An example of someone who almost never misses the flick if the opponent doesn't react to it is Enoch Woodhouse. I do not think he is the ideal fencer, however he rarely "misses" the flick, without his opponent doing something drastic to stop it.
-la bouche

[labouche]

Originally posted by The0ne
Corrina2u,
Actually in mid to high level bouts, well over 70% i'd say of flicks land, and this is with your opponent trying to parry or dodge the flick.

NVM, I missed the "and this is with your opponent trying to parry or dodge the flick". TheOne doesn't know what he's talking about.
-labouche

[Tireur]

There is a large difference between simply missing and not landing because your opponent parried/dodged. You can just as easily "miss" a strait attack if your opponent parries or moves out of the way. An example of someone who almost never misses the flick if the opponent doesn't react to it is Enoch Woodhouse. I do not think he is the ideal fencer, however he rarely "misses" the flick, without his opponent doing something drastic to stop it.

Sorry, I missed the point. He was talking about fencing a dummy.

I wouldn't, however, say it takes something "drastic" to stop a flick. It's actually very easy to do, if you keep you cool.

The flick is another of those actions that seems to hypnotize the unwary. Or should I say the "unaware".

[jeff]

I see a lot of junior fencers missing flicks, so I started keeping count of missed opportunities (opponent wide open, in proper distance, and -MISS-). Sometimes I'll see a kid miss or go flat 3 or 4 times in a 5-touch bout! I don't care what technique it is: if you throw away that many touches, you need to do something else. Unfortunately, some people are so addicted to this one action that they have nothing else to fall back on.

Good fencers have more than one tool in their toolkit (and the flick certainly can be one of them), but the flick seems really prone to overuse.

[Tireur]

the flick seems really prone to overuse.

I agree, it's all anyone seems to want to do today. A large portion of my students start asking "show me the flick, when do I learn the flick"? Be nice if they could lunge properly first.......

I see other coaches, almost every lesson, the whole lesson, is the flick. Give me a break.