The thread on Charlie’s influence, one which started to drift towards good coaching and program design, got me thinking. Most coaches will admit that they’ve begged, borrowed, and stolen from the best of them, but it appears the sum of what they put together speaks more than the individual pieces they’ve borrowed.
So, how does one identify a coach worth listening to? Is it longevity? Is it the total number of medals or championships won? Is it shameless self-promotion? How well known or successful does one need to be before they can be considered an influential coach?
I think one has to look at the number of quality athletes the coach is producing and the injury rates of the athletes.
There are many butchers out there who destroy good athletes. Coaches who make injury prone athletes bullet proof are geniuses, such as Glenn Mills transforming the injury prone Bolt.
One thing I’ve noticed in great coaches is that they are extremely efficient in their corrections, they understand cause and effect. If an athlete needs work on A, B, C, and D a good coach addresses A, or whatever the root cause is, which in turn fixes B and C while a less experienced coach works on fixing the effects or everything at once. The great coaches don’t seem to say as much but what they say is focused and effective. Coaches that ramble on in explanation are either unsure and insecure or are in love with hearing themselves speak.
Making an impact in coaching is showing a clear separation from one’s peers. Many coaches will win the coaching lottery but those that produce year after year is a true master. Last year I think Mills didn’t make Bolt healthy, but his influence from Winter’s is obvious if you look at the program.
Getting talent is number one. Keeping talent is number two. Developing talent is number three.
How do we evaluating a coaching job with so many unique circumstances?
Agree and with that the progressions of the athletes. There are coaches who have a good name simply because they have the best athletes.
I would hope people here would have enough knowledge to talk to the coach about their programme and thoughts as well as observe a few sessions. That should tell you a lot.
I definitely agree with you there. There is a Div 3 college from around my area, which uses a tempo-based program. They always have a fairly decent indoor season due to their strength in races such as the 800. However, for the past couple seasons, their top sprinters all go down in the outdoor season with hamstring injuries. Just watching the progression of their runners is pretty telling that this program is not one for sprinting. They have a guy who ran 6.34 in the 55m two years ago. This year, his best time was a 6.43. A majority of his races were in the 6.5-6.6 range. That school is coaching the speed right out of the guys. It’s unfortunate for the athletes, that’s for sure.
You need to look at how many people are succeeding based on results over a period of time.
Who funds the coach? Self funded or employed by school / club etc.
Speak to the coach and with some of the athletes and learn a little bit about when they started, what their personal history is and progression.
Look for consistency of results, program design and a curious open mind.
Charlie knew a few things for sure and the rest he was prepared to learn or understand.
Rarely did he change all things all at once.
Tim and Marion for example were an excellent example of this.
Some stuff they were doing was just no right according to how thing Charlie had done. He prioritized the program first and then some stuff begins to fix itself.
You need to look at how many people are succeeding based on results over a period of time.
Who funds the coach? Self funded or employed by school / club etc.
Speak to the coach and with some of the athletes and learn a little bit about when they started, what their personal history is and progression.
Look for consistency of results, program design and a curious open mind.
Charlie knew a few things for sure and the rest he was prepared to learn or understand.
Rarely did he change all things all at once.
Tim Montgomery and Marion Jones were an excellent example of this.
Some stuff they were doing was not ideal but He prioritized the program according to what he believed to be the greatest offender and then waited to see if the other smaller things improved.