I am currently listening the metodology course at the faculty and this was the questio:
How to cite (quote) some coach if his models and hypothesis are proven in the practice and not in some published scientific paper? How can we use such data?
Our teacher answered that althought common coaches have made their phylosophyes, models and hypotesis based on their practical work, there is certainly smething that they have read!
Does Charlie’s training phylosophy and principles are base only on practical observation or they are base in some part on some scientific work? So, Charlie can you please tell me what is your scientific background, what literature did you use, scientific papers, your teachers etc.
Please note that I am not questioning you expertise, I am just quirous… Tnx in advance
Alot of Charlie’s training has scientific basis, for example training alactic processes with 60m sprints with short recovery. Having relatively long recoveries between special endurance runs to allow lactic and H+ ions to clear and CNS to recover to a level where intensity is high has a scientific basis. These are a few examples where science can back-up Charlie’s training. The use of NAM methods (max strength) training has scientific basis.
From my readings of Charlies work; most of CF’s philosophies are based around practical experience. He learnt from the experience of himself and others. These ideas are then backed up by scientific evidence, supporting the ideas that he had developed.
I am familiar with that… I want to know sources from wich Charlie gained scientific data… I dont think his scientific background fall from the sky, Charlie must read something… I am curious what!
I’m not sure if he reads it so much as gets told it in person! Tudor Bompa is an example.
From speed trap, there is a lot of insight to how Charlie formed his ideas, if you are interested.
I think Charlie has a Political “Science” degree from Stanford. That has to count for something.
I’m currently in a coaching science Masters program, and am coming across this problem also. You will never find a full ‘scientific’ paper that justifies the science behind a particular coach’s training model - there are way too many variables to be managed. The way that I would approach this when writing papers is (a) outline the particular model, citing where you got the model ie.CFTS, (b) find scientific papers YOURSELF that back the coach’s reasoning behind his model ie. regarding strength blocks, recovery protocols, physiology behind taper protocols etc. © find scientific papers that assert how the model could possibly be managed differently. A lot of the time it is best to contact the coach personally if they are willing to do provide your with personal information, and cite the information as ‘personal communication.’
Most of the time, although top coaches are not ‘true’ sport scientists in the university context (although that is debateable), the reasoning behind their choices is scientifically sound, or they wouldn’t be where they are.
A lot of the reasoning behind Charlie’s protocols can be backed up from sources like Verkhoshanky’s texts.
This is exactly what I mean. Look to Bompa as a source. If Charlie talks about speaking to a Russian coach in the 80’s about their training protocols, ask yourself what information they would have based their training methodology from (ie. Verkhoshansky’s texts compile a lot of the russian research).
I coach(ed) from personal practical experience and what I could learn from other coaches. Any science I’ve read has been after the fact.
As for Tudor Bompa, although he is a PHD with plenty of theory, I would classify him as a coach first and foremost, as he personally coached Olympic Champs (Javelin and Rowing).
CLAP
It is no good having theorical knowledge if can’t apply it correctly.
I read it…
110% True, but not the issue here…
TNX svass, I was thinking on that… It would be a hard job to back-up Charlie’s phylosophy with scientific data…
First of all, science follows and doesn’t lead. Second, you can’t look only for what supports theory. Look for anything related that might argue either way, then look at the methodology, etc.
I would add Gerrard Mach, if you don’t mind Charlie, as to the “other coaches” part… Although I am not sure (at all) about his background -apart from being a great coach, of course… Any light? It would be interesting to know!
Thanks!
duxx,
you might struggle with this; try and find studies -if any- confirming the case studies/athletes rather than the other way round…
Shift the focus where it matters!
Of course Gerrard as a coaching influence. I was just making the point that Tudor is not only a “scientist” or academic but a coach as well.
Gerrard has a degree in Economics and. of course, coaching degrees from Poland, though, quite frankly, I didn’t ask and didn’t care. When someone comes and shows you the way, you don’t bother asking how he knows it, you go!
TNX guys…
True!!
duxx,
PM me your email if you want and I’ll send you a file that might be of some interest to you on the subject…