If you wish to train with us and support us at the same time, head over to www.patreon.com/SchildwachePotsdam for weekly classes, articles and more - thanks! :)
I agree wholeheartedly on the application aspect. I’ve attended too many classes in the past where it felt more like a lecture than an applied technique lesson. Finding the balance is always important but getting students (especially newer students) with a sword in hand is when their eyes light up the most. From that excitement comes the passion that has them coming back class after class for the deeper, technical instruction.
I couldn't agree more. The few beginners classes I have taught in my club have given me great feedback. I give them a sword immediately and teach 4 basic cuts, 4 parries, 2 ripostes and 2 counters with the long edge so that they can immediately begin to fence (Meyer Square with Hängen). They love it. They don't want to have some nerd standing in front of them with a book explaining what a Duplieren is for 30 minutes. We do of course do it, but it builds on practical skills. I also push them physically, within their individual boundaries, because this is a martial art.
I agree very much that we teachers are there for the students. I always ask my students for feedback to hear what they want to do and invite advanced ones to teach pieces, warm-ups etc if they want because some of them can then be future teachers. I also don't think of myself as a fencing "master", we are all equal. One issue I have is trying to convince the rest of my club that we need a feedback form because a lot of them don't want to hear feedback and their classes really suffer. 90% quit, which is very sad.. 🤦🏻♂️ 50% should stay after beginners course, like in my old club, EHMS, #1 club in the world.. I do however believe that we should teach specific plays from the manuals (of course then play with them and make drills). If people are not interested in being physically fit or in technique then this is not the sport for them. I do hope I balance this with doing things in a fun but competent way, including general principles, games, and filling in blanks with Olympic fencing, analysis of tournament fencing, and other masters. I do also think that any fencing teacher who has not read and worked through the historical manuals simply shouldn't be teaching. I have had a lot of pushback from trying to persuade some fellow instructors that students should at least know the 17 basic principles of Liechtenauer but don't actually know them themselves. Which is kinda embarrassing. Similarly I have issues with people teaching fencing who have never been sporty or competed but read a book, because if they can't fight well, how can they teach other people to fight? One could say that it's just for fun, it's just a "hobby", but for me what makes something fun is doing it properly. Pretty sure if we spent time and money going to a karate or boxing class we would want an experienced teacher who knows what they are doing, ie. has competed a lot, knows proper technique and theory, and can structure a lesson well according to the students' needs.
When I say that I abstract, generalise and summarise plays, then I mean still working closely with the source but working from general to specific contexts. For example if a beginner has their first lesson they don't need to learn 3 kinds of parries to cover the left side of their head with all their specific pros and cons OR go through one play of the source with has a very specific set of follow ups (which can be really elaborate in the Bolognese texts). Instead I'll teach one parry, point out a very direct riposte but highlight that there is more to it down the line. So if they naturally parry or riposte in another that is covered by the source, I'd never discourage them to do so. A bit later they will learn the other options together with the contexts that they work best in. Discussing and interpreting the source is handled like a primer in our training - a one off session here and there to encourage new students to work with the text directly. However, in the regular 90min weekly session, it is about practicing the interpretations we got, not reading and developing new ones. About non-sporty coaches: I think there are quite a lot of coaches in professional sports that did never perform on a high level. While being good at the sport yourself shows, that you have a good mix of athletic capacity, understanding of technique, understanding of rulesets and mental capacity to withstand stress, it says very little about your ability to develop these traits in others - especially those that are not very similar to yourself.
@@SchildwachePotsdam Yes I agree with all you say here. Top performers will not necessarily be the best teachers. However, they should at least have had a 'career' and be/have been physically fit. My issue with HEMA is a lot of coaches are not sporty but like swords and end up being trainers. It's just.. bad.. It's a martial art and always was.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
If you wish to train with us and support us at the same time, head over to www.patreon.com/SchildwachePotsdam for weekly classes, articles and more - thanks! :)
Very well said.
I agree wholeheartedly on the application aspect. I’ve attended too many classes in the past where it felt more like a lecture than an applied technique lesson. Finding the balance is always important but getting students (especially newer students) with a sword in hand is when their eyes light up the most. From that excitement comes the passion that has them coming back class after class for the deeper, technical instruction.
I couldn't agree more. The few beginners classes I have taught in my club have given me great feedback. I give them a sword immediately and teach 4 basic cuts, 4 parries, 2 ripostes and 2 counters with the long edge so that they can immediately begin to fence (Meyer Square with Hängen). They love it. They don't want to have some nerd standing in front of them with a book explaining what a Duplieren is for 30 minutes. We do of course do it, but it builds on practical skills. I also push them physically, within their individual boundaries, because this is a martial art.
I agree very much that we teachers are there for the students. I always ask my students for feedback to hear what they want to do and invite advanced ones to teach pieces, warm-ups etc if they want because some of them can then be future teachers. I also don't think of myself as a fencing "master", we are all equal.
One issue I have is trying to convince the rest of my club that we need a feedback form because a lot of them don't want to hear feedback and their classes really suffer. 90% quit, which is very sad.. 🤦🏻♂️ 50% should stay after beginners course, like in my old club, EHMS, #1 club in the world..
I do however believe that we should teach specific plays from the manuals (of course then play with them and make drills). If people are not interested in being physically fit or in technique then this is not the sport for them. I do hope I balance this with doing things in a fun but competent way, including general principles, games, and filling in blanks with Olympic fencing, analysis of tournament fencing, and other masters.
I do also think that any fencing teacher who has not read and worked through the historical manuals simply shouldn't be teaching. I have had a lot of pushback from trying to persuade some fellow instructors that students should at least know the 17 basic principles of Liechtenauer but don't actually know them themselves. Which is kinda embarrassing.
Similarly I have issues with people teaching fencing who have never been sporty or competed but read a book, because if they can't fight well, how can they teach other people to fight?
One could say that it's just for fun, it's just a "hobby", but for me what makes something fun is doing it properly. Pretty sure if we spent time and money going to a karate or boxing class we would want an experienced teacher who knows what they are doing, ie. has competed a lot, knows proper technique and theory, and can structure a lesson well according to the students' needs.
When I say that I abstract, generalise and summarise plays, then I mean still working closely with the source but working from general to specific contexts. For example if a beginner has their first lesson they don't need to learn 3 kinds of parries to cover the left side of their head with all their specific pros and cons OR go through one play of the source with has a very specific set of follow ups (which can be really elaborate in the Bolognese texts). Instead I'll teach one parry, point out a very direct riposte but highlight that there is more to it down the line. So if they naturally parry or riposte in another that is covered by the source, I'd never discourage them to do so. A bit later they will learn the other options together with the contexts that they work best in. Discussing and interpreting the source is handled like a primer in our training - a one off session here and there to encourage new students to work with the text directly. However, in the regular 90min weekly session, it is about practicing the interpretations we got, not reading and developing new ones.
About non-sporty coaches: I think there are quite a lot of coaches in professional sports that did never perform on a high level. While being good at the sport yourself shows, that you have a good mix of athletic capacity, understanding of technique, understanding of rulesets and mental capacity to withstand stress, it says very little about your ability to develop these traits in others - especially those that are not very similar to yourself.
@@SchildwachePotsdam Yes I agree with all you say here. Top performers will not necessarily be the best teachers. However, they should at least have had a 'career' and be/have been physically fit. My issue with HEMA is a lot of coaches are not sporty but like swords and end up being trainers. It's just.. bad.. It's a martial art and always was.