A coach who has run all his life vs. a coach that has observed runners his whole life. Who's the better coach?

Most great coaches these days have probably experienced at least a little of the runner's pain in a race.

My opinion is this - to be the best coach you can possibly be, it's necessary to put yourself in your athlete's shoes once in a while.

So yes, I believe the best coaches are the ones who understand running, on both observational and sympathetic planes.

Daniels and Bowerman vs Lydiard and Salazar. Who is the better coaching duo?

kkkkkk wrote:

Daniels and Bowerman vs Lydiard and Salazar. Who is the better coaching duo?

Jack Daniels runs. He was an Olympic medalist in the Pentathlon, which involved running.

I've gone on a few runs with him. Super nice guy.

I'd probably go with the coach who has run all his life. Sure, running is pretty scientific and it's pretty important to observe runners, but I feel like part of the reason a coach is good is because he has been in the same position as his athletes and is willing to make better choices and fix mistakes that he made as a young athlete. It is important to observe runners, but that can always be done, but a coach can't always have found himself in the same position of his athlete.

Did Joe Vigil ever run at a high level? Did he ever run a marathon? Did he ever run?

kkkkkk wrote:

Daniels and Bowerman vs Lydiard and Salazar. Who is the better coaching duo?

I'll throw some more hats in the ring, in addition to Glenn Mills:

Steve Francis (MVP club in Jamaica--Asafa Powell & Fraser Pryce, never ran, education is an MBA from Michigan).

Brother Colm O' Connell (went to Kenya as a missionary, no coaching background, and I believe no running background ever)

Peter Coe (professional engineer, never ran as far as I know.. Influenced everyone with the only significant inovation in middle distance in the last 50 years, according to Renato Canova).

Lydiard and Salazar against those guys. If you add up the world records and medals, it's not even a fair fight.

Not enough data to answer conclusively.

Coaching question wrote:Who's the better coach?

The coach with the best coaching results.

I can see benefit to both.

Coach who has never really ran: Knows the science behind it all, gives training, splits, paces, etc. on how the runner should be running. This may help a mentally weak runner, ya know?

Coach who ran competetively: Knows that some days you just feel awful, understands some workouts may go better, or even worse than planned.

I guess it just depends on the level you're training for, the athlete, the coach, and so many other variables. Interesting topic though!

Ruling out all of the other variables I think I would prefer the educated observer instead of the lifelong runner.

Every runner is different and responds differently to stimuli both physiologically and psychologically. A person versed in several different training theories and the ability to understand how a runner reacts to good/bad performances and shows/hides shortcomings, injuries, etc provides a lot more opportunity for a runner to benefit from the proper style of mentoring and training.

A lot of good runners has success because they partner with a coach that gets the right response for what that runner needs to succeed. Because of that I have found that most successful runners aren't able to cater coaching other runners on a program or style that differs from what was employed to them. If they had success with it, their runners should have success with it--and that's not always true. The other problem is that their program they succeeded with is the only program they know, the coaching style used with them is the only way they know how to handle an athlete.

If I wanted to build my labrat of a coach, I would want a lifelong runner that had a moderately successful career, but was plagued with a multitude of injuries which allowed for some shiningmoments, under multiple coaches, and studied biomed. Also would want this coach to be well-read on multiple training theories and have raced a variety of distances.

Running experience confers utterly nothing in the way of theoretical or philosophical knowledge. Observation, though an important part of the learning process, does not itself count for anything; one still has to have the skill of knowing how to induce valid conclusions from observed data, which the overwhelming majority of running coaches and theorists do not.

The coach with the most wins.

Phreed wrote:

Coaching question wrote:Who's the better coach?

The coach with the best coaching results.

The coach with the best RECRUITS

A coach needs to be a

- Coach

- Teacher

- Guru

- Trainer

- Biomechanic

- Physiologist

Not necessarily a runner.

The 9 Ft Strides wrote:

Not enough data to answer conclusively.

This is the correct answer.

You're missing an important part of coaching: motivation. I don't care if you know all of the science in the world. If you can't motivate your athletes and make them believe in themselves, you're finished before you've started.

Jack Daniels, for all of his lab work, was successful because his girls believed in him and believed in the training. This is what guys like Magness will never understand. The science can take you only so far.

I think all coaches should have an athletic background, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the sport they coach. My coach in college was an All American when he ran in college and freakishly talented. He was a decent coach, but his training was solely based around what he did in school and nothing else. It never occured to him that all runners weren't like him.

The women's coach at my school never ran competitively. Instead, he played lacrosse, swam, and even played a couple years of football. He wasn't up on the latest running science, but the women's team were always national contenders because he had a basic program, individualized as necessary, and was a master motivator. He took girls who never broke 21 in high school and had them earning AA certificates by their senior year. He didn't know how to run, he had the most basic understanding of training theory and scinence, but he knew how to coach.

kkkkkk wrote:

Daniels and Bowerman vs Lydiard and Salazar. Who is the better coaching duo?

what has salazar ever done as a coach?

apart from the highly suspicious mo farah

How fast were the 2 best middle distance coaches in the US? Scott Raczko and Bob Timmons

If I had to pick between two new coaches - the coach who ran his entire life. They both will end up using the "one size fits all" approach at first, but the coach that has observed runners has not had any hands on experience with them. In turn, he has to start by using a base layout like Daniels, Lydiard, etc.

If I had to pick between two VERY experienced coaches - the coach who observed runners his whole life. More often than not the coach who has ran his whole life either will use what made him successful or will make sure he does not use an approach that didn't work for him (Alberto Salazar is a prime example). A coach that has observed runners his whole life recognizes that every runner is different and sees how they react to different forms of training. He will also realize what they will need to do in training.

5-10 years of experience this one is a toss-up but generally its the coach that has observed runners. you guys are all saying that he has never experienced pain himself, but given the observation of runners over the years he has at least seen the pain that we go through. Also has had some hands-on experience with runners himself. Also, this is the worst case to deal with a coach who has ran his entire life because he is still transitioning to observe runners and is primarily using his preferred training methodology.