Drills are an important part of both teaching new techniques and training in their execution. To provide the best training it seems reasonable that drills should be as realistic as possible, incorporating both sufficient repetitions to develop a skill and simulated bout conditions to increase the richness of the learning. When we look at the conditions of the bout, one of the obvious characteristics is the potential for essentially random acts by opponents. The challenge is in how to incorporate those in drills.
Unexpected random acts fall into two basic categories, acts of omission and acts of commission. Both can be incorporated into drills.
Acts of omission occur when one of the fencers fails to do something expected. A simple example is in a drill where one fencer attacks and the other parries and ripostes. Attackers may cooperate with the defender by offering up attacks that are slow, wide, and easy to parry. If the defender randomly does not parry, the attacker's incorrect attack will miss, providing an incentive to execute good attacks that the defender has to work to parry.
Acts of commission are a bit more difficult to inject into the drill, because the intent is not to break up the training value of the drill or induce free fighting. However, one fencer can be instructed to change the tempo, distance, or timing of an action randomly. For example, a drill might be structured so that one fencer starts at the rear of the strip and executes two steps and an advance lunge to hit with the desired technique, repeated down the strip and reversing roles at the end. Several possible ways to insert random acts that will make the drill more demanding suggest themselves:
- the defending fencer can randomly attack into the preparation, forcing the intended attacker to stay alert during the distance preparation, or
- the defending fencer can randomly parry and riposte on the final lunge, or
- the defending fencer can simply stop retreating at some point in the preparation or advance of the advance lunge, collapsing the attacker's distance (this might be considered either an act of omission or of commission, the latter especially if the fencer extends a point in line of stop action).
Random acts should not replace the main training or learning point of the drill, and probably should not occur in more than 10% to 15% of the drill repetitions. They require that the fencer who will do the random act understand it thoroughly and be able to execute it at an appropriate time. In the initial stages of instruction, their use is probably not appropriate, especially for beginners or where the skill is complex. They become more valuable as the level of experience of the fencers increases, both overall and with the specific skill. So if your fencers need a more demanding drill experience, consider inserting random acts in their drills.
0 comments:
Post a Comment