Why is it always about Gordo, why does his name always come up? And how many top tier pros there are?

Paulo, you're right. In virtually every sport the best coaches were guys that did make it to a reasonably high level, but were not superstars.

The reason for this is simple ... they had to do "everything right" to get where they did. Their ability was less than others, so they could make fewer mistakes. So, they know how to get the most out of their potential. Furthermore, the best coaches know how to teach and how to get others to maximize their potential, but are still able to relate to an athlete in a high level position (the latter is why I don't recommend getting a coach that DID NOT do something a reasonably high level. They can help you "start out", but that's it).

It is very difficult for superstars to coach. First, they've never been mediocre/average (they've always been the most talented player in the field) and cannot relate to that situation. Secondly, they've never really had to improve, so they don't know how to teach someone to get better. Now, some of the techniques used by the superstar may be effective to some degree, but anything is effective to some degree.

Seriously, list the greatest coaches of each sport, and it's usually the same description ... guy with limited ability that maximized every advantage from practice strategy, to game preparation, to knowing the game, to improving what they could, etc. They can both relate to high level situations and teach others how to max their potential.

To be honest the coaches that bother me are the "stable owners". They don't talk about how much progress their athletes make, or how effective their strategies are, they talk about "who" they coach. They are primarily name droppers, secondary coaches. They specialize in coaching athletes that don't really need coaches.

I see quite a few of these and know a couple. What they offer is more along the lines of fast talk and programs from books, instead of progress from experience. There also seem to be A LOT of guys that make a pretty good living by just parroting what the big name coach says in their latest book/website ... even guys that have never "done" what they are coaching. I'm not going to start listing (non-triathlon) names, because that's not my place, but I very easily could. I won't go so far as saying it's intentionally dishonest, but at least it's misrepresentation.

I'll be honest about coaching, most anyone can do the basics, X's and O's, the practices, the drills, it's all pretty much standard-issue. Where a coach comes in handy, and where coaches are most valuable is dealing with the emotional/mental side, dealing with adversity, and making changes on the fly. Anyone can coach when things are going "according to plan", a valuable coach becomes really benenficial when things start to slide or unanticipated things come up.

Too often I have seen teams/athletes be successful in spite of their coach, not because of their coach. Almost just as often I have seen coaches that have done outstanding jobs with their athletes/teams, but go unnnoticed because they eventually lose to a team/athlete that has double their talent.

Triathlon, like a lot of other sports, seems to feature quite a few coaches that seemingly just parrot the basic advice from the latest major book/clinic/seminar/etc. But, many people are far too willing to part with their money for whatever level of coachnig they can get.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Great athletes may become great coaches, but I think it's unlikely while thier athletic career is still going on. I think to be great at coaching it requires a narrow focus just like it requires to reach the top level of ones sport and theres just not room for one person to narrowly focus on both of these things at the same time.

I think the motivation to coach for a lot of current athletes is to either A. supplement their income or B. coach a buddy or 2 just for fun. Neither of these motivations are necesarily wrong, just not the motivation required to be a great coach

I tend to disagree about top tier elites just having the talent and not knowing how to develop someone. The top tier athletes are the ones with incredible talent who then, in addition, do all the little things that it takes to be great.

As far as "flavor of the month" coaches, there are a lot of those regardless of whether they are/were a great athlete. I think that's because it's easy, it's been said before here that most athletes and coaches are nearsighted and believe that the training we do in the few months preceding our event is what determines our success or failure. This makes the idea of trying the "flavor of the month" appealing because if one "flavor" doesn't work, hey, try another.

Great athletes may become great coaches

Honestly, in our major sports, where there's lots of coaches, I can't think of many great athletes that have been successful coaches. Coaching, for many of them that have tried, has been a downpoint of their career. The list of "great athletes that became great coaches" is very small, and may be limited to one or two guys.

Triathlon may be different.

I am not saying this in a rude manner, but when looking at the comment I quoted at the beginning, great athletes could become great coaches. I am primarily interested in whether they HAVE done so ... and in amounts that make it a compelling conversation. Theoretically, anyone could/may become a great coach.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Good thought-provoking post.

There has been a lot of talk on this thread mentioning team sport coaches as examples or counter-examples to Paolo's original hypothesis. I would posit that coaches in team sports (football, basketball, etc.) need to have a different skill set to succeed than coaches in individual sports like swimming, triathlon, running, & gymnastics. Skills such as group psychology, motivating a large group of athletes from a wide range of backgrounds to achieve a single goal, managing a large organization (like an NFL team), simply aren't relevant to single-sport coaching.

Therefore, those coaches aren't as relevant to the subject at hand, which I would assume is triathlon coaching (or were you speaking generally, paulo?).

To Paolo's point, I would tend to agree with his primary point, which I take to be that great athletes are not necessarily great coaches. Since I've made my living in the sales/marketing business...I think of it as being similar to the concept that great sales people are not always great sales managers or business leaders. Sure, occasionally, you will get lucky and find one who is both....but the skills sets are different. The same with athletic success and coaching success. Each has its own set of skills that are required.

---

__________________
JP

my twitter feed

Nice post. Without getting bogged down with semantics, I'm taking away the ideas you layed down and will make it a part of my thought process before dishing out advice. It's important for me to know not just what "seemed to work for me in the past," or "what *I'd* like to try tomorrow, " but rather, "what's likely best for the athlete I'm coaching."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

<< When Mark Allen Online boasts about having X # of athletes q for Kona, is that a reflection on his coaching,

do you really think that Mark Allen is coaching all of those people? Better yet, do you think he is coaching any of them? If you do, there are a couple of South African entrepreneurs that you need to be introduced to.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

Wait, first I want to sell him some seaside property right here in the city where I live in :-D

I think your post is pretty meaningless until you define what a successful coach is. That's a pretty subjective term. Can you give us your definition ?

Greg.

How do you define success in sports?

hahahahaa

I'm sorry. Was my question was too difficult for you, or is there a certain etiquette one must adhere to, in order to get a reasonable response from you?

Greg.

It seems you're taking lessons in manners with your friend Julian. Good night.

It was only a matter of time before your Gordo complex reared its head on this thread. Why don't you just come out and say it?

Are these the ad hominem attacks that czone was talking about?

This thread is not about me. It's not about Gordo either, even though some people want it to be about Gordo. That is very interesting in itself.

There is no correlation (positive or negative) between a person's athletic level and achievements (current and past) and their competency as a coach.

What are the attributes of an effective coach? What are the particular personality traits, knowledge, attitude, or skills that determine success?

Your arguments are indeed meaningless. However, your unsupported arguments are entraining and well written.

Greg,

Easily done.

A successful coach is one who fulfills his/her aims as regards coaching, whatever those aims may be.

An effective coach is something different. An effective coach does all that they can to help their athletes fufill their aims, whatever they may be, to the best of their ability.

Now, do you have a worthwhile point to make?

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

"An effective coach does all that they can to help their athletes fufill their aims"

No it is not. That is a dedicated coach.

Effectiveness is the extent in which goals are met. Or in more clear terms - The ability to achieve stated goals or objectives, judged in terms of both output and impact.

Efficiency it is also important. Could the coach allow an athlete to achieve the same level using more efficient methods?

However, the underling issue is the lack of studies to support the arguments that Paulo is proposing.

And how do you methodologically control the impact of the coach on performance? For example, you cannot have a control group, the same person not being coached. How do you know if it is the coaching method or the coach? To what extent it is the coach and not the commitment of the athlete to be coached?

Gordo reminds me of Terry Laughlin from Total Immersion .

Whenever someone talks about triathlon swimming , Terry comes up as well?

I guess it has to do with writing books ? The difference is that Gordo knows what he's talking about, and TI is just voodoo...

You should write a book. It seems that triathlon training material is limited to old school stuff or the Friel/Gordo approach. From reading your posts , you seem to offer something new.

>Just like I won't follow a colonel into battle that
>does not have experience, I'm not keen to follow
>someone who has not experienced what he is about
>to impart without having done it himself. This really
>applies to technical sports like swimming, XC skiing,
>baseball, tennis or soccer, more so than triathlon.

Why can't we just examine the coach on an individual basis, instead of trying to use some absolutist rule like "great athletes make bad coaches" or "those with no experience can't coach"?


What about Mike Leach, the football coach at Texas Tech? He was a lawyer, don't think he ever played football.

"No it is not. That is a dedicated coach."
Semantics somewhat, but I'd suggest that a dedicated coach may do all they can for their athlete, but not necessarily get them anywhere. IMO effectiveness requires dedication, but dedication does not necessarily lead to effectiveness.

"Efficiency it is also important. Could the coach allow an athlete to achieve the same level using more efficient methods?"
Again, part of effectiveness in this discussion I feel.

"However, the underling issue is the lack of studies to support the arguments that Paulo is proposing."

Much as I love studies, not everything is about double-blind testing. Good athletes do not always make good coaches in the same way that academics do not always make good teachers.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Don't take it personal , there are some on this forum that just wait to jump on someone like a pack of wolves.

I've noticed certain things about them besides being a bunch of cowards. They suck as triathletes , they think of themselves as intellectual , and they will always " make it about you".

Gordo wrote a pretty good book and has a good website , being that you both coach elites I guess some assholes are going to try and create drama everytime you say his name.

Murphy'sLaw is a good guy though, and a good athlete. I think he just wanted to know what you thought of Gordo's methods ?

Fade,

Yes, I do have a point. Who is, or is not, a successful coach is really something that is for their athletes to decide. If the athlete being coached is happy with their relationship, I'd say the coach gets a passing grade. For someone not involved personally, like Paulo, to judge whether or not a coach should be deemed successful, you have to set some criteria to base your opinion on don't you think? So I'm asking, what are you basing your judgement on? How many athletes the coach has? How many of his athletes return? How much money he makes? How many of his athletes have won Ironman Hawaii? How popular he is on Slowtwitch?

I think it's a pretty simple question. Does it insult the intelligence of some to be asked such a simple question?

Greg.

Paulo,

I don't think you're really qualified to talk about manners.

I simply want to know what you think makes a successful coach. You started this topic so I assumed you wanted opinions from other people. What are you getting your back up for?

Greg.

my hats off to the parent who stepped up and took charge..