The value of USATF coaching certifications

Guy that took a bunch of coaching courses wrote:

USTFCCCA Strength & Conditioning - I literally hate the subject but I took the course so that I can monitor my athletes in the weight room, know whether the trainer is training my athletes properly, and recommend specific neural and non-neural lifting protocols, if necessary, based on my athlete's running schedules. I got all of that out of this course so I would say it was worth it. I think this course can be taken with the goal that I had wanted for it or in combination with a real strength and conditioning certification. It's not good enough to train an athlete on your own in the weight room without more education.

Impressive! As to S&C, please tell me there was at least some talk about how running is a rotational movement and squats, deadlifts and planks are not specific to the act of forward movement. Any good strength coach knows resistance band training focusing on horizontal movement is more specific to running than vertical movements with two feet planted on the ground.

Good post. For me, coaching youth/HS endurance, it's just a credential but for advanced and technical events, I think there is value.

I wish they could simplify the bookkeeping so everything, membership, background, training, safesport, etc is in one place.

They did not get into this in great detail either given the time constraints of the course or who knows what else. There was a lot of talk about how static lifts can mess with proprioception so they should be done sparingly like once every couple of weeks at most with very few reps and a lot of weight particularly in the competitive phase.

They also discussed Olympic and static lifts are better to be performed on high neural workout days like a hard "speed" workout or race with any lifting occurring after.

We do band work at practice. My top athletes go to a trainer that I trust. The focus there is core / hip strength. I would say comfortably that the course has allowed me to weed out the trainers that are not in tune with the protocols and recovery from running. Most S&C coaches don't understand that lifting is not the main exercise in a distance runner's training. It should take a supportive role only.

One thing I noticed this year, is that the athletes that are working with the trainer I trust are far more durable than the athletes who are not, so we were able to have some very heavy training weeks mid-season in XC which resulted in a couple of major championship wins later on.

TZ444 wrote:

Good post. For me, coaching youth/HS endurance, it's just a credential but for advanced and technical events, I think there is value.

I wish they could simplify the bookkeeping so everything, membership, background, training, safesport, etc is in one place.

How far did you go with your certification?

I did not learn much from the endurance part of Level 1 or even level 2.

Boo does touch on this which is why ( to him) squats are not a primary exercise after a general prep phase.

So...you say it was a good deal because you got to talk to people like Joe Vigil and tinman?

coach wrote:

Biomechanics guy wrote:

Impressive! As to S&C, please tell me there was at least some talk about how running is a rotational movement and squats, deadlifts and planks are not specific to the act of forward movement. Any good strength coach knows resistance band training focusing on horizontal movement is more specific to running than vertical movements with two feet planted on the ground.

Boo does touch on this which is why ( to him) squats are not a primary exercise after a general prep phase.

Yes, he is not a big fan of squats. The course covers all Track and Field events so you have to sort through what applies to what you are coaching.

Mostly what I take away when I see certifications is that the coach has at least some knowledge of events outside of their own specialization. If the coach at the local high school is a former collegiate 400m hurdler whose main claim to fame is consistently producing great sprinters and hurdlers, I don't need to see a certification to know that he knows how to coach the hurdles and sprints. A certification might give me some hope that he is less than 100% clueless about coaching my kid in the mid-d events, though.

I don't think a certification proves much depth of knowledge. If you competed in an event through college and you have even the most basic knowledge of physiology, you're probably already ahead of most certified coaches in your discipline. It does show some breadth of knowledge, though, and at least provides some evidence that you know the basics of the events that you didn't compete in yourself.

Given the choice, I'd still rather have a thrower coaching the throws and a distance runner coaching distance and a true strength and conditioning expert overseeing the weight room etc. than at USATF certified coach trying to be jack of all trades and do all those things, all else equal.

dependz wrote:

So...you say it was a good deal because you got to talk to people like Joe Vigil and tinman?

Tinman was a student / classmate of mine. He was not an instructor. The USATF / IAAF course was a 6 month effort and I met with my mentor for an hour or more every couple of weeks throughout the period. My mentor who I will not name here is someone you might even know.

Yes, I had breakfast with Joe Vigil and talked about training strategies with specific members of my team for an hour. On the same trip in addition to the course itself I had many questions answered by Scott Christensen who I still consult on a regular basis. Scott has taught me how to train athletes according to fiber type and gender. I will not get into specifics. I am confident my knowledge for a high school coach exceeds 99% of the coaches out there both from experience and the certification process. I also met Marcus O'Sullivan there, who was a childhood idol of mine. Yes, well worth the trip. I can only imagine what you did that weekend.

Again, I have known coaches that are some of the best in the world that do not hold these certifications. But, through the process I have had access to them and their knowledge on a level I could have obtained otherwise.

It is important to understand how to train different athletes. For example, that 400 meter hurdler from college might think that the proper take off distance from the hurdle is the same for everyone.

I agree in some respects to level 1. that does not make you an expert in anything. It only strengthens what you already know and helps you supervise your specialty coaches that might be helping your program.

I had very mixed feelings about Level 2 Endurance. Some of the material was fairly dated, and the core of the curriculum was too rigidly prescriptive. I would've preferred a dialectical approach that acknowledges that coaches and athletes have had tremendous success applying a variety of methods, within certain broad parameters. Instead it was more like Vigil's paint by numbers (not to take anything away from Vigil).

The parts of the course that made it really worth it were mostly the Q&A periods towards the end of the sessions. I felt like that was when you really got some insight into how different coaches, who are all successful and experienced, tackle particular issues. It was especially interesting hearing where the instructors disagreed with each other. And of course talking to other participants during down time was fantastic.

Tl/Dr

I mean c’mon. That was a fckn novel.

Anyway

How many USATF certs does Malmo, Brother O’Connel or Patrick Sang have?

Nice topic, thanks.

I wonder if hiring more certified coaches that can teach and certify their hs students Level 1 might help get those with a passion for the sport on track for further certs during their college and pre-professional experiences? Having bodies in front of you with the plan in hand is obviously the key but Ive always mentored my better athletes to begin that process while in hs. Some are ready developmentally by their jr/sr year to start helping younger athletes in a variety of ways without interfering with their own training. My contribution to survive the sport I guess. While I have had the pleasure of being a part of 20 state team championships or runner-ups it hit me early that theres a lot more responsibility to the athletes if they decide they want to coach someday. Having so many former athletes coaching at all levels and continuing thay process has meant a lot to me.

A big part of that process is communicating my training experiences and how I go about learning. Kids need to know its an ongoing process for sure. Ive taught various subjects that students can gain industry certs and dual credits so why not coaching at an early age?

Now...all of that education doesnt mean squat if you arent organized, have the resources needed including some darn good athletes, a heck of a communicator/motivator, great assistant coaches with a similar mentality etc... but you can get consistent development and positive results rather than just relying on the athlete completely. A lot of our "success" on the scoreboard is due as much to those factors and a culture that kids want to be a part of. Theres only a few programs in the state that can actually approach top 3 consistently mostly because they have the right lerson directing traffic with the right resources behind them. However, my original point is that if you have that environment, think a lot about lushing some of those kids into teaching/coaching and to improve the sport. My legacy wont be from rusty trophies.

You're absolutely correct that the ability to communicate, motivate create a culture and lead are most important. I have a few certifications but admittedly am not strong on those crucial areas which is why I'm just an average coach while some of my friends and mentors who have no certifications are outstanding coaches.

Kudos to you for instilling the love of the sport to those around you and to the OP for self improvement.

800 dude wrote:

I had very mixed feelings about Level 2 Endurance. Some of the material was fairly dated, and the core of the curriculum was too rigidly prescriptive. I would've preferred a dialectical approach that acknowledges that coaches and athletes have had tremendous success applying a variety of methods, within certain broad parameters. Instead it was more like Vigil's paint by numbers (not to take anything away from Vigil).

The parts of the course that made it really worth it were mostly the Q&A periods towards the end of the sessions. I felt like that was when you really got some insight into how different coaches, who are all successful and experienced, tackle particular issues. It was especially interesting hearing where the instructors disagreed with each other. And of course talking to other participants during down time was fantastic.

I agree completely

We've been through this.

So NO athlete should do ANY static lifts since they ALL perform some level of running/sprinting?

Alan

I have had similar thoughts. The tough part is that they kept delaying the instructor training course which I was going to take but now since they have converted to zoom for level 1 I am not sure they will offer that anytime soon. I suppose the athletes can take the course on-line.

I do gather my team now and then and talk about the science behind their training. You cannot undersell the "buy in" that you get from this sort of approach. If the kids believe in what they are doing, they are far more motivated. Motivation is an enormous piece of the puzzle that can draw in on your not so committed athletes and help your overall team culture.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Biomechanics guy wrote:

Impressive! As to S&C, please tell me there was at least some talk about how running is a rotational movement and squats, deadlifts and planks are not specific to the act of forward movement. Any good strength coach knows resistance band training focusing on horizontal movement is more specific to running than vertical movements with two feet planted on the ground.

We've been through this.

So NO athlete should do ANY static lifts since they ALL perform some level of running/sprinting?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18460997/

Alan

I did not say they shouldn't nor did Boo. There is a way to do it and it should be partnered on the appropriately matched high neural running day.

Patrick Sang ran the IAAF centre in Eldoret. So he probably has a few IAAF certs.