I should add, that I’m sure in this very forum there are people who are very excellent at coaching, working with talent that’s scarce within their job, but aren’t currently employed by a big outfit program in their countries, and thus they aren’t any “good”. I’m sure there are completely awful coaches too. You get that in any sector of any field.
Let me clarify. The key legacy of the UK revamp was their coaching education program which was run by Kevin Tyler, who was obviously massively influenced by Charlie. The classic UK approach of doing tons of nonspecific work and racing the shit out of people was rethought. The model put in place emphasized quality and specificity over endless volumes of running, and coaches like Steve Fudge are the result. Make no mistake, there was great friction to these ideas early on because the UK sprint culture leaned heavily on working hard and working often.
If you spend any time on the UCoach site the influence is crystal clear. A complete change in the coaching culture was executed. If you get on Youtube you can find a clear example of CF Long to Short (I believe it’s week 7) in action with Steve Fudge, Kevin Tyler, and Richard Buck.
Keep in mind the reality that, in regards to any field, the better you get the less room there is to get better. For this reason, there are many coaches at the high school or collegiate level who may be acclaimed for the results of their athletes/programs; however, the difficulty in assisting in the improvement in physical outputs of a person closer to their initiation of organized training is monumentally less than assisting in the marked improvement of an athlete who is already making an A standard.
In this way, coaching excellence of the highest order may be defined by the work of those coaches who are working with the highest level athletes; and those athletes have showed marked improvements over time.
As to the mechanisms involved with which coaches receive the opportunity to work with the highest level talent, I agree with you, a futile endeavor.
I agree with the minimal margin among the best to get better. Its a smaller increase and takes a more astute trainer of them. However if you are getting big gains with lesser athletes, I would say you’re much much better than 80 percent of the coaches out there, and probably smart enough to make the adjustments of people trying to cut down from 10.00 to 9.80, instead of 11.0 to 10.5. But yes, it actually takes MORE knowledge to coach a fast guy to be faster. How many coaches at the “elite” level actually do that though on a consistent basis, and get people to win? Good points you bring up though. thanks.
You are trying to clarify process which started at the beginning of 2009. Sure Kevin contributed to development of websites such as UCoach. But saying that “was entirely Charlie Francis based philosophically” its just bollocks. Prior to Olympic games there were quite few old dogs running the system on top of that Dan has been employed by UKA, I’ll repeat myself again do you believe that Dan was running CF Program?
You are talking about coaching philosophy in the same way as when people talk about cars, keep it for couple years and then change it just like that?
It’s like Kevin Tyler come gave a one speech BOOOM!!! everyone started to follow his gospel.
It’s take years decades to develop and change the way people think etc… Everyone who is involved in this website knows that, you know that, do you?
So the process which started in 2009 hasn’t finished yet it is ONGOING. And saying that entirely program was run on CF philosophy is just BS.
Completely agree and even evaluating my best coaching some of it has been done with the lesser talents but no one will notice those. Others typically see only see the top performers as your best work. I often wonder if established coaches at major programs and some of the former athletes who walk into great environments become GAs and eventually full time coaches have any idea just how fortunate they are to have the talent they can work with on a daily basis. I’ve seen examples of top level high school kids who might not even improve over the course of their college careers (some literally regress) but because they arrived with such impressive h.s. or junior performances their athletes can still contend for championships.
Yes , precisely… And … I’m not discounting recruiting, as that is important, but as far as training, that’s a different universe.
Well said mate,
At some places they will simply not attract the top athletes. Lack of tradition, school/program reputation, your admissions standards vs. that of conference schools, etc. all play a part in the decision making process.
Here is the video of Kevin, Steve and Richard. The session has Charlie written all over it, and the track side work is that of Dan. Granted two years ago as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsgYX2w8cAY
As I understand Steve stepped up into the opportunity to work with Kevin and Dan and the like, while other, from what I have heard, resisted. Steve appears open to learning and every time I have heard him speak, which is does and shares freely, I feel there is progression in his coaching philosophy.
Again, as I understand it, Dan worked solely out of his center he had. Steve was elsewhere. Nonetheless, anyone who spends time under Kevin will see how Charlie influenced his coaching philosophy.
Going back to Steve, in his talks on Ucoach, he continually talks about how he is figuring out his guys and what makes them tick and function optimally. James appears to be super sensitive and requires a lot of oversight. When Steve hgave a talk, presented about 2 months of James’s training leading up to one of his fast races, the crowd of coaches were in disbelief of the amount of work they were doing. Steve has commented that for about a year James did work out to 60m primarily, and has gradually increased out as his technical model has improved. When Steve said 2x90m would nearly kill James, no one could understand and quite a fuss was made in the crowd. When mentioned James squats every 10 days, people couldn’t understand why so little. However, those sessions have lead to him running fast. The recurring injuries are an issue they are surely working out, as Steve is a huge fan of various therapies depending on the situation and the athlete’s needs.
Actually, it was other way around, not many people heard about the opportunity in the first place, which was eventually given to few. It’s wasn’t as easy and as straight forward as you might think.
The coaching world as a profession might improve with more humility.
I have noticed that the most successful people are the most willing to share and tell their story even if it might include their failures or something unflattering.
I also think humility comes from the more fortunate people of the world, the less angry and those who have a clear path and idea about what their calling is or has been. For Charlie it was fairly simple as I understood it. He was terribly frustrated as an athlete , hated the business world of suits and ties and found unlocking the puzzle of his own experiences as a 100 meter man an ever ending adventure thus he coached.
Had it not been for what happened in Seoul we might never be having this conversation.
I’d like to hear more conversation , history telling and stories about the other coaches in form of books and articles and their ideas. Who were their mentors and who influenced them and why they wanted to coach.
Faking it really only fakes out some. The longer term historical story will hold because the results will speak louder volumes over time.
No one will convince me that some of the coaches discussed here have beaten down their own trail. I know otherwise and so do they.
Everyone wanted to know what Tellez and Charlie were doing in the 80s.
Charlie was actually mentioned in a ustfccca presentation
One line.
I guess thats a “start?”
300 people applied for the apprentice program. I’ve also heard Kevin Dan and company were open to anyone coming to see them at their facilities. Dan has been an open book to me, when I have emailed him about stuff, he’s very generous with his resources, the same with Stu.
[QUOTE=ESTI;251690]300 people applied for the apprentice program. I’ve also heard Kevin Dan and company were open to anyone coming to see them at their facilities. Dan has been an open book to me, when I have emailed him about stuff, he’s very generous with his resources, the same with Stu.[/QUOTe
That’s great. That’s the way it should be.
I have others but this was prepared for a few people Charlie was helping.
This was prepared by Charlie
as he was helping create the template for the 200 meters. I think I have one for the 400 meters as well.
Interesting.
And out those 300 people were selected 5 or 6 guys.
- James Hillier, who was already coaching in Bath under Malcolm Arnold. 2. Jonas who coaching in Lee Valley. 3. Steve Loughborough and three other guys.
Just wonder who made those number up to look good.
BTW
I was trying to arrange visits to see Dan between 2010/2012 via England Athletics as I have only 1h drive to Lee Valley, leave in London,
No luck.
I went to see Colin Jackson’s coach instead, who had a time for us, 5h drive. It was great experience.
I have been leaving here for about 15 years so as you can imagine have an idea about the situation.
Because people have heard something, somewhere, (no disrespect) but 300 are you having laugh
If really announced you would be talking about more than 3000.Newer mind, I won’t be getting into more discussions about that.
Kind regards
Wermouth
That is terrific. It’s interesting to see the model applied to longer sprint distances. Can you post a PDF version of this?