post #1 of 37
9/20/04 at 11:27pm
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
What about guys like Paul Brown, Tom Landry or Vince Lombardi? These guys were pretty good right out of the box. Is there any chance that there are coaches who are naturals? Paul Brown is an interesting case having achieved such a high degree of success at every coaching level.
Another case comes to mind. How about an athlete who has participated at a very high level for many years? One of the iron men in the NFL at present is Fontenot. Could he not beat the ten year learning curve and step right in at some level as a pretty good football coach?
Originally Posted by skiingman
Two of my coworkers were there when Bode decimated the field at JOs in 1997. What were all the coaches telling their kids about skis with deep sidecuts then?
Originally Posted by SnowDog
Evolutionary leaps forward require free thinking mavericks who can look beyond the widely accepted status quo ways of doing things and dare to try something different. Bodie is such an individual. Once in a while a coach will emerge who is driven by the same maverick spirit and he will create better teaching models and technical tweaks. But the more common theme, even at the top of the proffession, are coaches who just follow the herd for fear of riducule by their peers if they step out onto a path of their own. If they do things like everyone else they can never be accused of doing things wrong, but at the same time their choice leaves them doomed to the fate of perhaps equaling, but never surpassing, all those whom they follow. For most coaches that's good enough.
Originally Posted by JohnH
Just as a general blanket statement, since I don't know you, is that yes, it would be your youth that would lead you to that conclusion.
You don't know what you don't know. For older people, that's a giant "no shite Sherlock", but younger people tend to think that they know what they don't know. Take your average 5 year old. They think they know everything. Then your average 13 year old is SURE they know everything.
The older you get, the more you will understand how much you don't know.
Someone here, a while back, coined a phrase that I really like. They said that a Level 3 cert is "A license to learn", because you finally "get it" enough to really start to learn. Yet, you'll find a lot of L1 and L2 instructors that think they know all there is to know. Then, if they take the L3 exam and don't pass, it's obviously someone else's fault, and they bash the system and quit.
Also, I don't think that great superstars of a sport necessarily make great coaches. There are a lot of WC skiers out there who do what their coaches tell them, yet have no idea why, or what it was that they actually did/do to go faster. There is no way that someone like that could get another athelete up to their own ability level. Sure, some understand it enough to coach it, but as an example look at the Mahre brothers. Amazing racers and skiers, and probably okay coaches, but how many of their students are WC level racers?
Then, take a look at the coaches of the greatest athelets. Were they also at the top of their sport? How many majors did Tiger's coach win? How many WC titles did the US team coaches win?
I would suspect that some sports would lend themselves to the great champions being great coaches, because the nature of the sport would require that you completely understand what is going on in every aspect of what you are doing. Maybe things like sailing and rock climbing??? But I don't think skiing is one of those sports, since you can be taught to be very fast, yet still not really understand why you are so fast.
|Athlete’s who have access to expert coaches, gain a huge advantage. "Meticulous planning of practice is one hallmark of coaching expertise." Voss et al. (1983) found that expert coaches spend more time planning practice and were more precise in their goals and objectives for the practice session than their non-expert counterparts.
The authors note a time motion analysis which showed that non-expert coaches spent 22% of their time on instruction, 30% in active drills and 48% in non-active practice. In a study of higher level coaches, the athletes were active 77% of the time.
Originally Posted by nolo
I meant the coach that lectures doesn't learn much about the athlete. A coach has to observe and inquire to learn much about the athlete.