The gimmicks and tricks and shiny objects also go along with the excuses. We need all this stuff to run fast. We need knowledge and examples and we need mentors and leaders and open minded students and people who wish to work together for success.
In my humble opinion, the biggest problem with Charlie’s approach to coaching (from the market’s viewpoint) is that it cannot be mass produced and pre-packaged. Once you understand the fundamental principles (which are really quite simple and common sense at bottom), the real key is the moment-to-moment adjustments in the training based on keen observation. As far as I can tell, the single greatest skill Charlie had as a coach was his ability to read an athlete’s status, kind of like Bruce Lee’s ability to read body language and intention. A great deal of that skill is probably inborn talent, but to the extent it can be learned it has to come through hands on experience, which is why Charlie kept emphasizing the need for apprenticeship. It can’t be learned from a book or video for $39.95 or from a two two-day seminar for $1000.
What was amazing for me when I set out to learn about speed was that a guy like Charlie would contribute so heavily to all of the discussions on this forum, for free. Incredible resource…
What coaches in the USA follow a CF protocol?
I don’t agree that it can not be learned through the material Chris. I do think it’s a huge advantage to have worked with those whom have accomplished the most without any doubt at all.
Experience combined with getting results will be the best teacher in my opinion.
I know some whom have worked with Charlie who do not have the eye but have the knowledge. I might argue that some people are not driven the same way and therefor overlook details that are essential to the recipe for success.
The apprenticeship idea that Charlie sketched was a great idea to uniformly devise a plan for others to see the make up of what needed to be covered.
I don’t think most people have the will or grit to follow through with what is needed for developing a world record holder for example.
For those who knew Charlie they would see and understand it was who he was. I think and I would bet it was also in his fathers blood. My house is filled with fine art that was either created or adored by the Francis family for reasons of admiration and beauty. How things looked as a result of knowledge and work and attention to detail was part of the family way. This is my opinion only but I feel it’s interesting to look at how the history played a role in the creation of something.
Well who knows this?
If you are a coach and you don’t study those people who created results where are you learning your info from? Are you re creating the wheel or are you looking at the history of results and the history of athletes and looking to make your own recipe and follow it and make adjustments.
John Smith was here working with Charlie and training with him. The Globe is not that large when you begin to look at who has done what in the world and with and or for how many people they worked with.
There are those coaches who coached a person to the highest level and then there are coaches who have had a reputation of coaching multiple people over and over again at the highest levels.
The principles and logical structure of the system and progressions can definitely be learned from the materials. I was referring primarily to the art of observation and adjustment, fitting the training to the individual rather than the other way around, which seems to be the dominant approach in coaching and especially the trainer guru industry.
The idea of Charlie’s methods being outdated is truly hilarious. It’s the whole “newer is better” mentality. We’re not talking about microprocessors. The human body hasn’t changed much in the last 25 years. In the world of training, whenever you hear the words “revolutionary” or “cutting edge” run like hell. It’s about selling products, not producing results using time-proven methods. Personally I think the whole strength and conditioning industry started going off the rails in the early 90’s. Charlie commented several times that people would get much better results if they just went back and did what Gerard Mach was doing in the 60’s. In the field of weight training, I think most people would get better results from sticking to the old York Barbell courses from the 1930’s.