Which makes for a better distance coach at the college level? Someone who was a talented runner or someone who was a so-so runner?
I had a discussion with a friend recently who noted that the most naturally talented football players often struggle to coach well because they didn't have to think about what they were doing - it came too easily. Therefore they don't coach as well.
whichmakesabettercoach wrote:
Which makes for a better distance coach at the college level? Someone who was a talented runner or someone who was a so-so runner?
I had a discussion with a friend recently who noted that the most naturally talented football players often struggle to coach well because they didn't have to think about what they were doing - it came too easily. Therefore they don't coach as well.
Talented runners don't often hang around after their careers. So so runners to tend to linger.
Anyone who doesn't understand how and why they're performing well, doesn't make a good coach, nor a good athlete.
Non runners make the best coaches followed by so-so runners.
The "best" coaches at the college level are the talented ones because they are able to recruit better athletes.
Talented runners have more experience running and succeeding in high level competitions versus the guy who never made nationals.
the sky is falling soon wrote:
Talented runners have more experience running and succeeding in high level competitions versus the guy who never made nationals.
Like Peter Coe?
Jogger coach or so-so coach.
Talented runners sometimes dont figure out that they are/were genetically gifted until 10 years down the road, if ever. This leads them to training mediocre talent the same way that they trained.
Jogger and So-so coaches have to coach because they weren't that talented and their name recognition as a former athlete doesn't have any "star power" (celebrity, not fusion. ;-) )
Please stop huffing chemicals before you post. Nobody "has" to coach. Thank you.
Angry Willy wrote:
Jogger and So-so coaches have to coach because they weren't that talented and their name recognition as a former athlete doesn't have any "star power" (celebrity, not fusion. ;-) )
In most sports, the average to below-average player makes a better coach than the great player because the great player never had to focus on fundamentals and the how-to of the sport. It came natural to them. The average player had to really focus and learn the basic mechanics of the sport, so they are better at teaching it.
Running is probably different in that it's almost like following a recipe. However, the same hold trues. The great runner may be either overstressing or understressing their runners based on how they trained, since their body wasn't "normal" and they could train differently than 95% of other runners, they may not be the best teachers.
I think this overly simplistic.
In team sports few superstars have become successful coaches and one explanation is the one you give. I think the data set for superstars becoming coaches is pretty small and has anyone ever really done an in-depth study. My guess is superstars make enough money and maybe have other opportunities
Who are current NFL coaches who were really good players in their day? Jack Del Rio is one .
In the NBA, Steve Kerr was a good player but certainly not a great one (although fantastic 3 point shooter in his day).
As for running coaches obviously AlSal has had a lot of success, but what about others?
REnato Bendova wrote:
the sky is falling soon wrote:
Talented runners have more experience running and succeeding in high level competitions versus the guy who never made nationals.
Like Peter Coe?
How good of a runner was Joe Vigil? (Seriously, I have no idea).
Hmmm..... wrote:
In most sports, the average to below-average player makes a better coach than the great player because the great player never had to focus on fundamentals and the how-to of the sport. It came natural to them. The average player had to really focus and learn the basic mechanics of the sport, so they are better at teaching it.
Running is probably different in that it's almost like following a recipe. However, the same hold trues. The great runner may be either overstressing or understressing their runners based on how they trained, since their body wasn't "normal" and they could train differently than 95% of other runners, they may not be the best teachers.
I am skeptical of the assumption in the first paragraph. Perhaps the better players picked it up quicker and the average player can relate to the kid who does not pick it up immediately. I remember an interview with Magic Johnson where he talked about being able to see what was unfolding on the floor in a much slower motion than in reality. Not sure how you teach that although it might come with playing for hours and hours and hours and the practice being deliberate (see Steph Curry about deliberate practice).
REnato Bendova wrote:
the sky is falling soon wrote:
Talented runners have more experience running and succeeding in high level competitions versus the guy who never made nationals.
Like Peter Coe?
Read the OP's post. Peter Coe was not a college coach nor did he even coach a bunch if athletes.
He might have made a bad college coach. We'll never know.
Luv2Run wrote:
REnato Bendova wrote:
Like Peter Coe?
How good of a runner was Joe Vigil? (Seriously, I have no idea).
What I have read is that Joe Vigil was a football player in his younger days. I do not know about his running at all.
I had the opportunity to hear him at a clinic. I should have asked him then.
Define good coach.
If you mean winning coach, at the college level you almost certainly must have been a good athlete to get any job.
Often we see coaches of other events coach cross country (as it is regarded as not important by most A.D.s).
But runners will go to places that have winning traditions regardless of how successful the coach was as an athlete.
The best combination is often an average level athlete who gets a few years of experience coaching. But there are very
few examples of this at the college level.
At the high school level sometimes you will see a football/basketball/baseball coach do well as a cc coach. All you have to do is read a book and watch videos now. That does not mean they are "good," coaches by my definition though.
A good coach teaches athletes about life and encourages them to run after high school.
The best thing to do is put circumstances out of your mind if you are a coach as anyone can win with any kind of background.
Anything is possible. But winning should come second to caring about people.
Renato Covana is literally the best couch in the world, but nobody seems to ever know anything about his running, and what his times are. We can only assume he is carp himself(sorry if your reading this, I still think your one of the greatest couches ever). So no, talented doesn't mean anything for someone been a couch.
in reality wrote:
REnato Bendova wrote:
Like Peter Coe?
Read the OP's post. Peter Coe was not a college coach nor did he even coach a bunch if athletes.
He might have made a bad college coach. We'll never know.
We know about Mark Wetmore.
Banana Bread wrote:
Renato Covana is literally the best couch in the world, but nobody seems to ever know anything about his running, and what his times are. We can only assume he is carp himself(sorry if your reading this, I still think your one of the greatest couches ever). So no, talented doesn't mean anything for someone been a couch.
Banana Bread Grammar, we need you ASAP.