While attending the USFA's Coaches College program in epée several years ago, Coach Gary Copeland gave a very interesting demonstration. Putting a student on guard, he gave very simple directions: "When you see my blade come up to the high line, beat my blade and hit my hand". Standing still, Coach Copeland slowly raised and lowered his blade. Each time the blade came into line, the student would beat and make a small lunge to hit the coach's hand.

Coach Copeland then told the student he was going to add more difficulty. He started to move back and forth very slowly. At intervals, Coach Copeland would stop moving, and raise his weapon. The student would beat, lunge and hit, and return on guard. Coach Copeland then begin to move a little faster, changing the size and speed of his footsteps, but still stopping for a brief pause to give the cue.

"...many coaches believe that a lesson needs many complex blade elements to be a "high level" lesson"

"Now", Coach Copeland said, "We make it a little harder." Coach Copeland pointed out that he had been waiting for the student to have his feet under him before giving the cue to beat and attack. Now he would give the cue without considering if the student was balanced or not, relying on the student to decide if he could execute the attack properly. Now the student had to work harder to keep up with the footwork Coach Copeland was using. At the same time, the student had to maintain his balance while looking for the cue to attack. Several times the student was late on the attack because he did not have his feet under him, but decided to attack anyway. When that happened, Coach Copeland told him to not make an attack unless he was ready.

At this point in the lesson, only a few minutes had elapsed. Coach Copeland paused, and reiterated his directions, adding an caveat: "beat only if the time and distance are correct". As soon as the lesson started again, the cue was given to the student while Coach Copeland was moving backward. The student beat, and made a long lunge to reach the hand, which was easily parried. The student scored on a counter-riposte. A nice save, but not the drill. Eventually, the student became more discerning, and let some cues pass by. The student's scoring became less frequent, but more sure. As the student became more confident, Coach Copeland began to throw false cues: sometimes bringing his blade up quickly, only to bring it right down again. Sometimes bringing the blade up while moving far out of distance.

Finally, Coach Copeland told the student to take responsibility of the footwork. The student should maneuver and attempt to score with the same action - beat and lunge. Now the student would be controlling all of the footwork. Coach Copeland hovered just out of reach of the fencer, occasionally blundering into the space and "falling" for footwork traps that the student might set. The appearance was almost of a fencing bout. In fact, if the observer didn't know it was a lesson, it might look like a bout between an aggressive opponent who liked to make strong actions on the blade, and a more passive, maneuvering fencer.

The entire lesson took about 10 to 15 minutes. In that time, Coach Copeland took a fencer from a very beginning lesson ("see the blade, beat the blade, hit the hand") to a very sophisticated, maneuvering lesson demanding skill and energy from the student (especially when conducted at 6000 feet).

Many students - and, unfortunately, many coaches - believe that a lesson needs many complex blade elements to be a "high level" lesson. There is an expectation of flashing blades, complicated phrases, and obscure moves for the lesson to properly challenge the student. In fact, advance fencers often score with the simplest of actions. They seem to have a unique ability to know when those actions need to be performed. Skillful fencers always seem to be in balance and ready to make the appropriate action at the right time.

Most lessons do not teach this skill. Coaches increase the "difficulty" of their lessons by demanding more phrases with the blade. This is contrary to what often happens in competition. Simple actions done at the right time and with the right footwork are more successful than complicated phrases. Orienting lessons on involved blade actions obscures the fact that the most successful fencer is the one that can sort out a variety of conflicting signals and chose the right action at the right time and place.

"The student must be able to execute the given stroke under bout-like conditions."

In the lesson, each action may be presented in its purest form. The coach may often be concerned only about the technical execution of the action, and never puts the lesson in a context that the student will find in the bout. The student may "know" the action, but while in competition, the action often fails. The coach goes back to the club or salle and drills the student over and over again in the action. This repetition is a waste of time. The student must be able to execute the given stroke under bout-like conditions. This can only come when the student is put under pressure to execute the action in the face of confusing stimuli.

In the lesson, the coach must attempt to replicate the bout. The goal is to put actions in the "context" the student will find them in when in competition. This does not mean that the lesson becomes a free for all, with the coach and student fencing (though at times, it may come close), but rather that the fencer must execute critical actions in a more realistic atmosphere. Many coaches do give a lesson like this, but either do not do it often, or do not look at a systematic progression to make the lesson more difficult.

What elements can be added to the lesson? Here are some, roughly in order of difficulty:

Noise. I prefer to give lessons in noisy salles. Even better, I like to give lessons at large competitions when the students are not fencing. The background noise forces the student to concentrate, and the conditions are similar to a competition.

Movement. The coach should move the student in lesson. This is the first element that should be added to make the lesson more realistic and more difficult. At the start, the coach should observe the student closely, and only give the cue when the student's feet are on the ground and balanced. This will insure that the student is being reinforced to only make attacks when they are centered and ready to move. Students have been trained to respond to cues from a coach and will work hard to execute strokes, even when they should not. Once the student knows that they should only be executing attacks from a comfortable and stable footwork base, the coach can escalate the speed of the footwork and the timing of the cues to catch the student off balance and unable or not ready to react. When this cue is giving, the student should not execute the action that the cue calls for.

Cues at the wrong time or space. This can be as simple as giving a cue for an attack while stepping backward. If the student does not have the distance to score, they should ignore the cue. Many students are blade happy. They do not take the time to accurately perceive the distance to the target, and often make the right attack at the wrong distance. The student must discern the difference between the right cue at the right time and place, and the right cue at the wrong time. If the student should attempt to make an action when the coach is too far away to be hit (or, in the case of defensive actions by the student, too far away to be attacked) they should be corrected.

The wrong cue. The student should be told what cue will be given by the coach, and the expected action. The coach can then give a cue which might be correct, but is not the cue the student is "looking" for. For example, the coach tells the student that when they see a presentation of the blade in the inside high line, they should beat the blade and make a direct attack. The coach makes several extensions in the high, inside line, and the student responds as instructed. The coach should then make an extension in the low, outside line. If the student acts on the cue, they have made a mistake, even though, in another context, the cue is valid. The student must be able to discern similar cues from one another. Most students will object to this correction, especially if they are capable of turning the "wrong" cue into a scoring action. It must be explained to the student that the coach is simulating an opponent that is vulnerable only in this one line. Attacking in a different line will always result in the "opponent" scoring.

Surprise actions. "Surprise" actions can take many forms. It may be a parry the student did not expect. It may be a retreat when the coach has previously always advanced. The coach may attack without warning. Often the student gets complacent in setting actions, and is vulnerable to changes by the coach. Especially when making preparations, the coach should attack into the student's preparation at times. Often the student is so busy setting up an attack that they fail to observe the actions of the coach and can be caught in mid-step. The student should parry the attack into preparation or finish the attack, depending on the circumstances and the actions of the coach.

Student controls the lesson. This is where the lesson gets the hardest. The student should lead the footwork and choose between one or more blade actions to execute, depending on the coach's cue or some other factor. The coach works using all of the above actions to impede, hinder, and keep the student off balance. This is a very difficult lesson to give. For more ideas about the student controlled lesson, see The Student Controlled Lesson on this website.

"At this point, the student...is simply moving and flailing..."

At some point, the idea of "noise" can get carried to extremes. There is too much mis-information, cues are coming too fast, and the student begins to fail in every action. At this point, the student is not learning anything, but simply moving and flailing out of control. This is NOT the feeling the instructor wants to instill in the student. The instructor must immediately slow down, and take away some of the complications in the lesson to give the student a chance to recover and take back control of themselves and the lesson.

When is it appropriate to use this lesson with a student? Not every lesson should use this idea of "noise". Certainly if the student is learning a new stroke or technical action for the first time, the use of confusing cues and false cues would not be a mistake by the coach. At the same time, once a student has mastered the mechanics of an action, certain aspects of this approach are useful. When teaching the beat, for instance, the use of a cue given while retreating (the right cue in the wrong distance) can assist the student in discriminating between times to beat and times not to beat. This will help the student avoid being "blade happy", in which they instinctively swat or beat the blade no matter what the situation. If the student is very comfortable with an action (even if not necessarily doing it quickly or properly every time) this lesson is appropriate very early in the fencers career.

This lesson would not be appropriate off season, or when the fencer is attempting to rebuild technical skills. I do find that some elements of this lesson are appropriate for warm-up before a competition, though not at such a high level that the fencer is completely drained by the lesson before his or her first bouts of the day.

This lesson does put some demands on the coach. Certainly it is a lesson that takes some thought and planning before it is given. It is also a technique that encourages the coach to give the student much initiative in one or two areas. The coach should balance this initiative by strictly controlling other areas of the lesson. For instance, the coach might allow the student any attack on the blade that they wish (beat or press) but must follow a specific footwork pattern (that would include an attacking action such as a lunge or fleche after the successful press or beat). The fewer aspects of the lesson under the control of the coach will see the lesson resemble more and more an actual bout. This has some merit for the skilled coach facing a less skilled fencer, but if the two are evenly matched (or, as is often the case, the student is the better fencer) little learning occurs on the part of the student.

When used properly, judicious use of "noise" in lesson enables the student to transition known technical skills from the lesson to the strip, the final venue for all instruction.

Written: June 2005, last edit (for formatting): September 2007