Coaching qualities

i want the coach that makes me fastest, period. I can motivate myself. I want the guy that knows what he is doing: which workouts, when to do them, when to back off, when to push, when to slow down, he knows their runners, he knows the competition. I have enough friends, I don't need anymore. From your brief descriptions I choose B.

I choose B as well. Coach being amazingly friendly is kind of fake anyway....just to win people on his side.

I like the coaches that win people by being cool straight forward and knows his stuff.

90% of NCAA coaches unfortunately fall into A category....they make up their lack of knowledge by kissing ass.

gonna go with choice A on this one.

i would like a coach to have my best interests in mind, not his best interests. now if they are in the same line, then so be it. if a coach is out for his own personal glory, then he's going to coach you up until you've had a bad race--then it's the next person in line and you're done. think he's going to waste time with you? yeah right. he's not going to "develop" the talent. he's going to take the talent out of you for 1-2 big races--make you look great and him like a big shot. i think of a coach like this coaching some athlete real well for a meet like the one today: Stanford/ Peyton Jordan Invite. the athlete runs real well there, but craps out at the oly trials. yet the coach will still look good due to the good performance at the Stanford Invite.

type A is going to get the athlete to work well in the long term--a 4-8 year plan that will have the athlete run his best the summer of an olympic year with an Oly trial qualifier, oly trial champion, and olympic appearance. that's coaching: being dedicated to the athlete for more than 18 months of 4-6 decent performances to allow the coach to "move up the ladder."

Wow, the first 2 responses above peg A as a kiss-ass, friend, and fake. Nice interpretation by the modern American spoiled child-collegian. From the description above, he or she is described as "totally dedicated to running, excellent motivator and communicator, tough but understanding, hard working and caring."

Did I miss something in the modern day translation? Do those words above in 18-21 year old speak mean "kiss-ass, fake," etc.? Does "tough" and "hard-working" damage your fragile mental psyche, or does the possibility of meeting a real human being, as opposed to a Myspace accout holder, who cares and wants to help you, freak you out at some odd 21st century computer-child level we cannot relate to as coaches?

I love how these two claim to want a coach who breeds winners now, as opposed to a coach who appears to be dedicated to a long-term, best interest approach as in coach A. I would love to hear what "winning" these two have actually accomplished to make such bold claims.

Thanks for a brilliant response- you have just summed up the state of young western athletes today-Sad but only want a quick win to glory. No patience!

Cheers

PS Coach A puts in hours of voluntary personal time to help and support his runners. Also uses lots of mental psychology to prepare his athletes.

Harry Wilson vs Peter Coe?

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Harry Wilson vs Peter Coe?

moron

ura wrote:

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Harry Wilson vs Peter Coe?

moron

No, I think they fit the topic well. Peter was an engineer who focused on the application of science and Wilson had Ovett running up sand dunes and entering half marathons. He also had a very close relationship with Ovett.

If Coach A is totally dedicated to running, he/she must have some knowledge of the sport, or the lack of knowledge should have been spelled out in the description.

I would count myself as a Coach A type person. I want to be able to relate to the runners whom I coach. If they are still in school, I want to know about test schedules, other sports, girlfriend issues, so that I can adjust workouts due to different stresses. If the kid was up all night working on a school project, are you still going to have him run a heavy interval session? Maybe or maybe not. If the runner is older, work and family issues become important when planning workouts. In both cases, being able to motivate comes in handy. I don't view motiviating in a rah-rah sense; I view it as showing the person what he/she is capable of doing, preparing them for it, and let the results speak for themselves. For example, at our state meet, they pin the athletes in a holding area for up to an hour before their race. They will allow you to leave the area to use the restroom. I have my athletes "going to the restroom" about every 10 minutes so they get away from everyone else and stride out a bit. Just thinking about the little things can relieve stress for the athlete and allow them to run their best.

You just can't have a cookie-cutter type plan that fits everyone even if it technically advanced. You can have a basic plan, but it needs to be adapatable. There are just too many variables with human beings to have a "one size fits all" plan.

Cool and arrogant tells me that the guy is in it for himself. I've seen a lot of those people over the course of my life. As a runner, it was hard to tell if those people really cared about you.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

No, I think they fit the topic well. Peter was an engineer who focused on the application of science...

So this makes him, "Qualified to a high level, technically knowledgable,obsessed with personal glory and success, cool and arrogant?"

Nope.

the stag wrote:

If you had to choose between a distance coach who was either:

A) Totally dedicated to running,excellent motivator and communicator, tough but understanding, hard working and caring

OR

B) Qualified to a high level, technically knowledgable,obsessed with personal glory and success, cool and arrogant approach.

Which would you rather work with?

We have 2 xc coaches as above at our local club and the team are split between who they prefer to coach them.

Any views or opinions welcome.

I guess I'm not the only cvrr guy on here.

Truthfully, when I read about coaches like Jack Daniels and Lydiard, it is clear that they truly care about their athletes and are good at what they do not just because of their Knowledge but because of their great communication skills.

I was just making a simple comparison-instinctual/motivational coaching vs technical/scientific coaching.

What, I need to fit a coach to every single point the OP made? I said they fit the topic well, not perfectly.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

What, I need to fit a coach to every single point the OP made? I said they fit the topic well, not perfectly.

Fitting the topic "well" implies "to a large extent or degree." (Webster's) That means you believe Peter Coe is most of the following:

Qualified to a high level,

technically knowledgable,

obsessed with personal glory and success,

cool,

arrogant

Having met Coach Coe, I must firmly disagree with part of your assessment. He is certainly the first two, but just as certainly NOT any of the other three.

That's cool that you've met him. Seb said that he was "10-15 years ahead of his time" and I agree. Not that you have much credability posting under the name "ura moron".

The first two were the ones I was getting at-my point was contrasting Coe's scientific method with Wilson's more natural, perhaps impulsive approach, as I have mentioned a few times.

I'll leave it at that lest you whip out your dictionary again.

I disagree with the way you framed the question...everyone wants a coach that is...

the stag wrote:

dedicated to running,excellent motivator and communicator,

I've known too many Ph.D. professors and coaches that are...

the stag wrote:

obsessed with personal glory and success, cool and arrogant

If you have a choice and students and student-athletes rarely do, they would prefer someone they can relate to and communicate with. This isn't the army and the days of leading like General Patton are over. What you described for your Coach B are not qualities, just the opposite.

I've seen too many "Coaches" with all sorts of titles and accredidations, but they are lousy role models and human beings and no fun to be around. Do you want to be around someone who you dread seeing?

I've had more runners believe in me and follow me because I've taken the time to know them as individuals and get them to see and believe what I believe they are capable of.

You'd be shocked at the number of incompetents out there in positions of authority. Sure, they have advanced degrees which means they postponed getting out in the real world to coach and now that they have their degrees you would expect them to be brilliant from all the years they spent in classrooms. Your great expectations will result in great letdowns as these dim bulbs with the fancy titles have little to no practical experience, but they are set for life on some college campus as they meander and mosey and go through the motions to try to protect their tenure.

Bitter? Nope. Just telling it like it is. If you haven't seen or experienced what I have over the past 4 decades of running and coaching, that just means you're inexperienced or are lacking in vision.

Do the coaches running creditials affect your judgement or just his coaching results?

Like does it matter that he/she were a stand out distance runner with times faster than yours, or if they were a sprinter or weights guy?

I prefer a coach who I can relate with/to- surely successful running is a two way working partnership built on mutual respect and trust. Quals dont always mean good communication skills anyway.

I agree with some of the posters.

Coach B is often a former star runner who got old and slower and into coaching because they had nothing else going for them.

Most are college educated (so yes, technically they know their stuff), but are arrogant as hell and no fun to be around.

You get lectured and told how great they are (were) and it's their way or the highway. Thankfully they don't last very long as they alienate just about everyone they come in contact with.

Maybe they've been to the big show and try to convince you that only they can help you reach the next level. Don't believe their lies.

Look at the Coaches of Lindgren, Ryun and Shorter. You don't have to be a sub 4 minute miler or sub 2:10 marathoner to coach someone to those levels.