Does a great coach have to have been a great runner?

Simple answer- no. Plenty of examples of the so so athlete turned coach that produces great athletes. Just because you were "touched by God" and given great genes does not mean you can coach.

NO...............one is brother Colm of St.Patrick's High School Iten In Kenya never did any running in his life,but what a better coach!

I do not believe that a coach has to have been a good runner (or a runner period...) to become a great coach. Coaching does not require fast muscle twitch fibers or 51 second leg speed. In perspective, coaching requires the adequate amount of skills and knowledge involved in coaching inspired and motivated athletes. I will admit that if a coach has years of experiance actively participating in running himself that this would be somewhat helpful. However, coaching is not about the coach himself; it is about the athletes he is training. Therefore, involving personal biased views on how to train could be a major set back for a coach who has ran in the past. Either way my point is that you DO NOT have to have been a great runner to become a great coach.

does an oncologist have to have had cancer to treat patients?

A coach can be great if he understands his athletes, and he's more likely to understand them if he has been one himself. Plus, like someone alluded to, it gives him a sort of instant credibility that is hard to come by otherwise. I don't think a coach HAS to have been a good athlete, but it helps.

On the other hand, good athletes definitely do NOT necessarily make good coaches. A lot of athletes think that just because they had some measure of success in running or any other sport, they will be great coaches. Not true at all.

Being a runner can be both a help and a hinderance. It can be a help for obvious reasons, but can be a hinderance if the coach assumes that all runners are like him or herself, and is thereby restricted to using only those methods that worked on him or herself.

I agree with "math dude." As a former athlete, I became a MUCH better coach once I actually started treating my athletes as people in my care and I learned to subordinate my interests to theirs. I always treated them with respect, but I had to come to grips with the fact that they would be better served by my helping them to develop into their own people rather than my helping them to become clones of me. It's sound educational practice, in general.

No, and that's actually fact, not opinion.

How many times does this obvious answer need to be given?

At least a few hundred more times before this board gets it.

duh wrote:

How many times does this obvious answer need to be given?

I didn't know that this subject had been discussed before on this board. I haven't read every line of every thread since the start of letsrun.com . . .

If things get repeated on messages boards, particularly message boards with hundreds of threads, what's the big deal?

Many great running coaches are great runners or former great runners, simply because great runners are usually very interested in the sport. Great runers also are usually high achievers, which is a good quality for a coach to have. From this pool of high achievers, who also are very interested in the sport, a lot of great coaches are developed. It is not a necessary condition, however.

In other sports, this does not hold true, so I don't see why it should be any different with running.

A great coach is simply a great leader. It helps to have a solid training philosophy and an understanding of exercise physiology. But none of this means anything if you are not able to motivate your people to perform the workouts you give them.

Out.

Wait a minute...

High achievement is not a result of the coach's motivation, it is a result of the athletes inner drive.

Top athletes have the drive within them.

Mediocre athletes or mediocre performance may be generated via coach's motivational ability, but not top performances.

No. Does an Ancient Chinese History scholar have to be Chinese?

If you had to hike through a primitive jungle filled with poisonous plants and scorpions and snakes, deep chasms, quicksand, and man-eating beasts, who would you rather have as your guide?

1) A top scientist with three Ph.D.s and an I.Q. of 200, who had over 100 articles on jungle life published in scientific journals during his 25-year career, and who carried on his person a rifle loaded with powerful tranquilizers, a GPS system, a water distillation kit, and the antidote for every poison on the planet

2) An amazingly fast-running, strong, agile, and fearless explorer who was the sole survivor of a group of 20 men who braved an expedition through that very jungle 10 years ago.

3) An unkempt savage with no special physical skills, who could neither read nor perform basic arithmetic, but who had spent the last 30 years living solo in that jungle, who knew every trail, every shortcut, every hiding place, every safe water source, every rock, every tree, every edible food, every quicksand pit, and who spent half his waking life avoiding being eaten by wild animals

Does the unkempt savage care about me making it or himself making it

I detest the word unkempt(no offense). That usage should be unkept. I cant believe i just looked and kempt is actually a word also which is also disgusting. "Oh look at that kempt person" Ugh that word needs to go.

Another thing i hate that i just thought of is the over/wrong usage of grow in the last 5-10 years in the context of "We need to grow the business" or "you can grow your portfolio". First of all this just sounds totally wrong possibly because grow should be applied more to living things. Also you wouldnt say we need to grow the corn or you can grow your beets. You grow corn not the corn- the reason it is awkward is that it shouldnt be used there. Businesses can expand and you can increase your portfolio- grow is obv correct i suppose but it sounds horrible and now tons of people have started saying it which is aggravating.

Sorry about this raving lunacy and btw no a great coach doesnt have to be a great runner but its good to be a runner.

Most the time they are closed minded.

Yes, every guide is bound to do his best for you.

There's another type of guide you could include - the guide who has never been near a jungle, has no compass or other equipment and has never even seen a picture of a jungle plant or animal in his life, but really, really cares about you making it and can instill a deep-seated belief in you that you can make it no matter what odds you face, as long as you think you can and give your all.

You might even throw in still another guide (analogous to Charlie Francis and his ilk) - the chap who just equips you with a state-of-the-art armored tank to plow your way through the frickin' jungle with zero regard for the pristine condition of the place or the wildlife in your path.

I always hated the word "unkempt," too. When I was very young, I thought people were mispronouncing what should obviously be "unkept," and they were all unkept savages. Turns out the offending word was a real one, after all.

Here are a few words for which a mispronunciation has become accepted:

harrassment === the accent is supposed to be on the first syllable, but everyone places it on the second

despicable === same story; the accent should be on the first syllable

short-lived (or long-lived) === the "i" should apparently be a "long i" (that is, as in "pie" and not as in "pig") ... it was short-lived = it had a short life; it was not live for long

And there's a major usage problem with the word "work" in reference to cleaning up a highway accident. Radio reports say something to the tune of, "There's an accident working at exit 37 on Southbound Q Blvd." No there isn't! How can an accident be working? Accidents don't work; people work.

While we're on about random things that bother us ... in those old Tarzan movies, why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?