You dont see most other sports with coaches who were the best at their sport coaching...so why do times come into play when deciding if a coach is good?
I am super slow around an 18:00 5000m runner. Lack of talent, opportunity, whatever...i still think I can coach well. I know many training methods and used them myself and understand the psychology aspect of running. But if I were up against someone who ran 14:30 5000m that knew less of coaching I would lose out on the job.
This is an obvious question. Answer it yourself and I would take the 14"30 guy too.
Disagree. You don't have to be a fast runner to be a good coach. You need to understand running, training cycles, physiology of the body, and the psychology of dealing with teenagers (or college kids). If you are competent and confident in these areas and you interview well, you will get the job. Just because someone runs a 14:30 does not mean he will be a good coach.
You don't need to be fast to be a good coach. It is important to have competed in the sport at some level. I know plenty of very fast guys who have made or would make awful coaches.
Jack Daniels can't get out of his own way. Peter Coe, Bowerman, Renato? Harry Wilson.... I'm not sure if your theory is sound.
The biggest way a good athlete helps in coaching is that they have the experience knowing that there are no miracle workouts to being great.
On the opposite side, those great athletes as coaches could also present problems - too often they think their athletes can handle the load they were able to handle. Sometimes they were great in spite of this and not because of it.
seven up wrote:
Disagree. You don't have to be a fast runner to be a good coach. You need to understand running, training cycles, physiology of the body, and the psychology of dealing with teenagers (or college kids). If you are competent and confident in these areas and you interview well, you will get the job. Just because someone runs a 14:30 does not mean he will be a good coach.
I double-plus disagree. STRONGLY.
Running knowledge certainly helps, but knowing how to weigh and filter that knowledge is more important. That's why many of the aspiring coaches, like the OP, wouldn't ever be good coaches.
My high school coach, Robert Budd, ranks right up there as one of the best coaches I've ever met (and I've met a lot), or ever heard of. He knew almost nothing about running, but he knew everything there was to know about provoking and motivating young athletes into believing they could go above an beyond the limitations that most people put on themselves.
The most important credentials for coaching is the ability to connect and command trust. After that, the most desirable trait a prospective coach can have, is the desire to coach solely for the benefit of his athletes, not for himself.
Connect and command trust.
johnsons big johnson wrote:
On the opposite side, those great athletes as coaches could also present problems - too often they think their athletes can handle the load they were able to handle. Sometimes they were great in spite of this and not because of it.
If they 'often' think that, then you should be able to cite many examples?
st nick wrote:
You dont see most other sports with coaches who were the best at their sport coaching...so why do times come into play when deciding if a coach is good?
I am super slow around an 18:00 5000m runner. Lack of talent, opportunity, whatever...i still think I can coach well. I know many training methods and used them myself and understand the psychology aspect of running. But if I were up against someone who ran 14:30 5000m that knew less of coaching I would lose out on the job.
Are you coaching runners or are you coaching racers? That's a serious question. I'm sure that anyone with enough know-how into the physiology and psychology of training runners of any age group could get it done as far as seeing improvements in their athletes, but I would also think that it would help for a coach to have some high-end racing experience when trying to coach athletes in the same high-end races.
In other words: getting a 14:30 guy to run 14:00 is one thing, but having that same 14:00 flat go and compete for a conference title, or qualify for the NCAA meet is something different I think. Your take?
Well, daniels got out of his own way enough to win an olympic medal I believe. Gags, Wetmore, Lananna
Cygnus Olor wrote:
Jack Daniels can't get out of his own way. Peter Coe, Bowerman, Renato? Harry Wilson.... I'm not sure if your theory is sound.
Doug Blevins.
umdsfafsfs wrote:
Well, daniels got out of his own way enough to win an olympic medal I believe.
Ummm. modern pentathlon?
Eh, one's kick is mostly based on their fitness, so I think the distinction between runner and racer is pointless.
Who had the best kicks in the NCAA this year? Andrews and Wheating, right? Well, they happened to be 1:45 and 1:44 guys. So yeah - they will outkick 1:46 and 1:47 guys regularly. Hell, Wheating is a 3:30 guy! Of course he is outkicking the 3:35-3:37 guys of the NCAA like they are standing still.
The kick is overrated unless it's a really slow race. Most races the fittest guy has the best kick.
jiperama wrote:
Eh, one's kick is mostly based on their fitness, so I think the distinction between runner and racer is pointless.
Who had the best kicks in the NCAA this year? Andrews and Wheating, right? Well, they happened to be 1:45 and 1:44 guys. So yeah - they will outkick 1:46 and 1:47 guys regularly. Hell, Wheating is a 3:30 guy! Of course he is outkicking the 3:35-3:37 guys of the NCAA like they are standing still.
The kick is overrated unless it's a really slow race. Most races the fittest guy has the best kick.
Good example, I was thinking more along the lines of performing along an entire season/peaking in my post. An athlete that had been able to perform at his/her best during the championship season could have done so either by pure luck or by learning through trial/error the best way to go about the season, and if they know how to go about the season it'll be easier to share that.
I guess another way you could look at is is just by experience. A 14:30 guy will have more experience by virtue of having been in 14:30-level competitions already himself. Someone without that sort of talent who has coached 14:30-level athletes would have a similar level of experience, but it would take more time.
There's a lot more to race strategies than just having a kick. And there's also a lot more to having a kick than just being fit.
A kick also can come from good tactics - going out slower. It is why Ereng outkicked Cruz in Soeul. It is why Yuriy Borzakovskiy outkicks others in most 800s. It is why Wheating and Andrews kicked in the NCAA final.Who was in last place and 2nd last after 200m in the NCAA final? Andrews and Wheating. Who was in last after 200m in every male race in Soeul from 800m to 5000m - the gold medalists. Especially at 800m, this is common to see.
jiperama wrote:
Eh, one's kick is mostly based on their fitness, so I think the distinction between runner and racer is pointless.
Who had the best kicks in the NCAA this year? Andrews and Wheating, right? Well, they happened to be 1:45 and 1:44 guys. So yeah - they will outkick 1:46 and 1:47 guys regularly. Hell, Wheating is a 3:30 guy! Of course he is outkicking the 3:35-3:37 guys of the NCAA like they are standing still.
The kick is overrated unless it's a really slow race. Most races the fittest guy has the best kick.
Nearly every coach at the higher levels of other sports were considered much better at their sport than a 14:30 5000 meter runner. For example every manager of a major league team made it to the major leagues. Jim Leyland is the only one I know currently that didn't.
And while all the coaches in the NFL including assistants didn't play in the NFL you can bet they all played and started at the college level.
A 14:30 5000 runner is a top notch high school runner. I doubt it would be on list of the top 150 times in a given year.
Here is the deal bro, your times matter because they speak volumes about your experience in the sport. With no other knowledge about the candidate here is what those times say.
18:00 5k= Probably only ran in high school. Never done high level work outs. Limited experience and exposure to meets 4 years or less at a limited HS schedule (even if you ran in college it is unlikely you traveled unless you went to a very slow school). Your experience is most likely limited to seeing and interacting with runners from your home state and no where else. Limited exposure to advanced training techniques.
14:30 5k= Probably ran in college most likely decent D1 or a good D2 school. Has done high level training involving advanced training techniques. Has around 8+ years of experience and exposure to high level meets involving runners from all over the country not just one state.
These are just generalizations however when an AD is choosing candidates he is looking for these types of things. Your argument has several problems as well, first of all you are saying you know many training methods and have used them yourself. This would clearly state to me that these methods don't work very well as evidenced by your slow times. Also you claim to understand the psychology aspect of running yet you have written off your career to "lack of talent, opportunity or whatever" this would say to me that you know nothing of what it takes psychologically to succeed in running because you clearly haven't faced your own problems/issues with the sport. Im not saying that you can't become a great coach but you really don't come across as knowing much about the sport in this post. If you really have the knowledge then you should be able to convince an AD of it. I doubt that they would base their decision solely on your times and not take in to account your experience and knowledge. On a closing note try looking around and see how many head coaches you find in basket ball or foot ball who never played above a JV level.
It's not surprising to see an NFL, MLB, Hockey, or NBA coach that never played in their leagues. Mediocre runners many times seek a magic formula that nobody possesses. It also allows them to blame someone else when they don't improve like they believe they can.
malmo wrote:
seven up wrote:Disagree. You don't have to be a fast runner to be a good coach. You need to understand running, training cycles, physiology of the body, and the psychology of dealing with teenagers (or college kids). If you are competent and confident in these areas and you interview well, you will get the job. Just because someone runs a 14:30 does not mean he will be a good coach.
I double-plus disagree. STRONGLY.
Running knowledge certainly helps, but knowing how to weigh and filter that knowledge is more important. That's why many of the aspiring coaches, like the OP, wouldn't ever be good coaches.
My high school coach, Robert Budd, ranks right up there as one of the best coaches I've ever met (and I've met a lot), or ever heard of. He knew almost nothing about running, but he knew everything there was to know about provoking and motivating young athletes into believing they could go above an beyond the limitations that most people put on themselves.
The most important credentials for coaching is the ability to connect and command trust. After that, the most desirable trait a prospective coach can have, is the desire to coach solely for the benefit of his athletes, not for himself.
Connect and command trust.
He listed psychology of dealing with kids which covers your connecting and trust.
Your comment about him not being a good coach based on three sentences is unduly harsh and far afield, especially for someone who has never coached a team ever in his life. Do you normally judge a book by its cover?