How can we judge a good coach? At first glance the best solution seems to be to look at their results; we all want them and we want to get our advice from who’s got the best. But the results aren’t as easy to evalute as looking who’s got the fastest athlete and assuming they are the best.
Charlie Francis coached Ben Johnson to 9.79. since then Maurice Greene has ran 9.79, Tim Montgomery has ran 9.78, Justin Gatlin has ran 9.85 and Asafa Powell has ran 9.77 all with different coaches, they have all used different training programmes so it cannot be the coaches programmes that make them them great. Any programme based on sound training principals is capable of being used to produce great world class athletes.
Taking a look at another example, from Seoul '88. Ben Johnson finished 1st ahead of Carl Lewis (2nd) and Linford Christie (3rd). How can we say Charlie was better then Carl and Linford’s coaches without being able to account for the variables in the athletes natural talent? We can’t. Charlie also coached Desai Williams who finished 8th in that race. A better test would be to get a larger picture of a coaches results. More useful results would be to take these coaches and look at other factors: Who else have they coached and how does their success compare? How long has the athlete continued to improve yr-on-yr? Are thier athletes staying healthy and avoiding injury? If we look at the bigger picture it becomes evident that the number of good coaches increases and hence so do the number of methodologies we have at our disposal. So form a point of view of trying to improve one’s own ability the question ceases to be; which coach/s should i base my training methodologies on? And becomes Whose methodologies will work best for me? For a typical athlete this is most likely to be the one who’s material is most available and offers the most complete picture. For more experienced athletes/coaches it becomes a choice of which method/s can be utilised best by them depending on; environment, finance, time, knowledge, athlete requirements. It may end up looking identical to another coache’s work, or it mioght be quite different with roots from a variety of sources, however the coach feels they can be the best they can be.
The point is all sound programmes work. How well is a question of application. A coach looking to develop themselves by looking to others, then, needs to find (otherwise develop) the tools (porgramme components) they need to apply to their athletes to generate success. This can mean that whilst the majority of their programme should be taken form the top-level coaches they will still be able to improve themselves by looking at lower level (but equally successful in terms of long term improvement, cross section success rate, and low injury rate) coaches for ideas. Athletics is still a developing sport; WR’s a broken every yr, this in part is due to coaching developments. If we want to be at the cutting edge we will invariably encounter methods that are new. So if you want to keep up with the developing competition, or get ahead of them, how long should you wait to see results from another coach before adopting them? This is where the art in coaching comes in, results take time to produce so sometimes you will need to produce them yourself. This means being openminded to new ideas and trialing them yourselves this is the only way you can judge their potential before wiating to see it.
There are trends in MANY of the successful programs that can be seen on the whole. I think that is what a lot of people are trying to get at. There are also a lot of trends in unsuccessful programs.
I think a lot can be gained by asking WHY someone does certain things instead of the more commonly question WHAT he does. Obviously one needs a picture of the overall layout before asking ‘why’, but that’s usually a sum of the interactive process between the coach and the athlete. Coaching is foremost an interactive business. I guess it’s more about ‘understanding’ than just ‘knowing’.
This is true but how do people think this might be different between an athlete and a coach. A coach NEEDS to know why they are doing what they are doing to allow them to make adjustments on a daily basis. In the short term, at every session, the preious and next need to be considered, and longer term fatigue and adaptations need to be planned. But does the athlete need to understand the why’s? Should they?
This depends on the individual, some people want to know why they do what they do. Some just want to be pointed in the direction and they’ll leave the thinking to the coach.
I should have formulated myself better; what I meant was the learning processes between coaches (e.g. seminars or direct consultations) not the relationship between a coach and his athlete. We have all these different training templates or different training systems available that are far more accessible than the reasons behind them. Although, it would probably not hurt if the athlete also starts asking why, but that wasn’t my point.
coach and train by principles, not by a set formula of specific exercises. understand and apply the knowledge of training principles within the backdrop of an athletes intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities. the art of coaching really relies on “connecting” with the athlete and getting the required response, as well as, getting and giving feedback continually so that appropriate adjustments can be made and improvement continues. the great ones, there are only a hand full, have demonstrated this repeatedly with different athletes, not just one. if we made a list of the best coaches based on this, i am sure that we would have the same guys on it.
Dave, I agree with you, especially about connecting with each athlete. I can attest to the idea that set programs may not be the best way to work a training schedule. Everyone needs a little bit of flex room built in for unforseen circumstances that arise.
Much truth there, but when evaluating success, look carefully. Consider time, but also consider improvement from the beginning of the coaching relationship, longevity over a season and career, readiness for big meets, injuries, etc.
Be open-minded- but use new ideas only after you’ve exhausted all that is proven, tried and true.
Only then must you move beyond - and then only when you are absolutely satisfied that the modifications will work.
Gerrard Mach put out a very short book on sprints and hurdles 30 yrs ago (some of you were lucky enough to score a copy from Number2). In this brief book was everything needed to develop sprinters to an international level. Yet, around here, the coaches thought they were smarter than that- everyone but me, it seemed.
The result? By 1980, with a simple Gerrard derived plan, I had all 8 finalists in the 100m at our National championships.
There better not be!!! I sure as hell would be pissed and I wouldn’t re-pay Gerrard by stealing his stuff. Shows the sort of respect you hold me in as well. Thanks for nothing!
Sorry Charlie that didn’t come out the way i intended. I meant copy and making an ebook out of it like with speed trap and CFTS, I didn’t mean handing them out like flyers & I didn’t mean any disrespect.