You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
I understand your point wholeheartedly. All due respect, however, one thing that I would beg to differ is that a good coach should be able to teach athletes how to train by feeling; to develop his/her “inner coach”. In essence, teach them how to fish instead of giving them fish. The whole point of Lydiard saying that “the best way to motivate athletes is to teach them WHY they do certain exercise, not only WHAT and HOW” is this. If, “as soon as the coach turns his head to acknowledge another athlete who needs guidance, the first kid is running too fast... or once in a while too slow,” that’s because the coach has not done his/her job of explaining WHY they are doing that particular workout and motivate them to do it the way it should be done.
Second half of Arthur’s life was dedicated to “coach coaches”; that is to spread the principle of “how to fish” instead of handing out fish one by one to each and every individual who seeks it. If he’s the only one who knows that magic touch, and hadn’t passed his preaching to his disciples, then the Lydiardism would have been dead with the old man. That was neither his intention nor his wish.
I personally much prefer the way Kim’s friend does; a Daisy run. Numbers can be way too threatening to young developing athletes regardless of how much they love to have them. It is the old American way of business; MBO (management by objective) that Dr. Deming so disapproved of. As a statistician, his conclusion of “quality control” was “to make employees happy.” How much more “objective” do you want to be? Or do you need to be?
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.