Charlie - I know you get the question ‘are sprinters made or born’ quite often with great regularity … but coaches - are they made or born?

I would presume that the technical areas are very trainable, what I mean is that I’m sure coaches can reach very high levels or technical expertise - but I am referring to the other areas of coaching - more the personality and intelligence domains of training athletes.

Hypothetically - I you were training Ben and doing a great job on his technical deficienices but couldn’t handle or manage his personality, or there was a conflict, we might never of heard of him.
Similarily if you breached a certain level of trust and friendship that had strict limits - we might never of heard of him or maybe you either.

Knowing when to comfort and knowing when to give ‘tough love’, knowing when to end a session becsue the athletes mind is elsewhere and knowing when to work on through and attempt to get the athlete to concetrate etc.

Apologies for the longwinded question and hope the point or question is made …

Maybe others know what I’m referring to and could comment on the ‘other’ aspects of their good/great coaches/therapists/massuses etc. and their description of the qualities needed …

I think one quality is the ability to think indepedently of others, think outside the square.

A coach is a friend, mentor, educator, teacher, discliplinary and everything in between.

So I think coaches are made,more than they are born.

That being said I think I was always going to coach rather than compete and retire and leave thte sport.

My thoughts

This is a good question.

If great coaches are primarily “made.” Why are there so few great coaches?

Just like great teachers/professors; there are intangible qualities to consider…

If you want to be a good coach- you better get some good info. Where are you going to get it and how do you know what’s worth listening to?
Simple enough. Seek out those who have produced the top athletes and performances and learn from them.

Charlie’s prescription for coaching success is correct. You can buy all the books you want and read all sorts of journals and articles, but you really have to watch the best coaches at work, and pick their brains. Then you have to work with your own athletes. Not until you work with athletes do you see how Charlie’s info makes more and more sense. Becoming a competent coach is a gradual, long-term iterative process. It is not an overnight thing.

This is why I’m really trying to provide this sort of environment at Charlie’s seminars. It’s nice to watch Charlie do his presentation at the front of the classroom. However, you really start to see his expertise when he works with athletes, and conveys his thought process to you. The why’s, what’s, how much, when’s and if’s become much clearer when you see Charlie work in person.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Charlie’s seminars are well worth whatever you have to pay to go see him. It will change the way you look at coaching (for the better).

Great point scarface…so many gold medals with coaches that stare at ants or what ever the joke is. Get the shotgun and aim.

I think the key is who you produce…not work with…so If I get a kid from 10.6-10.03 that is great…if I get a guy that is 9.97 to 9.89…but people only know about the later…who knows.

I prefer Charlie’s seminars since they teach you how to coach.

Maybe others know what I’m referring to and could comment on the ‘other’ aspects of their good/great coaches/therapists/massuses etc. and their description of the qualities needed …

They are the same qualities that make someone a good father, friend, leader etc. It comes down to life’s experiences. Not something that can ever be taught. Influenced over many years, but never taught.