Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [dominator] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that will be hard to define. Someone like Eddie B has a College degree from the Old School Eastern Block of Hardmen, but probably is as modern as any of them. A lot of the Old School guys were the old Andy C's of their day. Some just keep reading and are current.
When Eddie B told my friend who was 6% body fat but buffed up like a weightlifter to go to "Concentration Camp" one month to lose weight, I was thinking "Old School "to the max. Then he gets into total periodization with the best of them. Hmmm? What school is that?
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman,

Consider adding these two important things to old school coaches:
  1. Race by feel (watches are strictly forbidden)
  2. No bike computers of any sort for racing or training

Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you are heading down the wrong track. Old v new school doesn't really help anyone out. What would help out would be determining a formula to define how successful a coach is over a period of time.

You can talk to 100 triathlon coaches and maybe 15% really know how to coach, that is the ability to interpret the science that is coming out, look at past results of athletes, current workout data, evaluate it come up with a proper plan to develop the athlete both short term and long term then be able to execute that plan into a daily level.
20% of coaches have no freaking clue and should not coach. Period end of story.
Another 30% will regurigate Friel to you and ~ half of that group may understand why they are doing something.
The rest will be broken down into rephrasing what some coach is writing online,or triathlete magazine said about training or they give out what they did without understanding how it impacts overall performance. Their philsophy (come to think of it they probably should not be coaching either) changes as the wind blows.

Criteria might include how successful are athletes in getting faster year over year for a 3-6 year period under one coach. Is the coach more successful at LC or short course (or does the coach specialize in one vs the other). Can the coach effectively communnicate how the here and now fits into the there and beyond.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amen, Mr. Desert Dude Amen to that.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey guys, a few key points left out that I think are important:
  1. How well does the coach motivate his/her athletes
  2. How well can the coach communicate both in person and remotely
  3. How well does the coach impart the technical elements of the sport
  4. How well does the coach impart the strategic elements of racing smarter

These can fall into be old and new school...the coach might have to use all the new fangled tools on some athletes, while others athletes want to get better by throwing out the heart rate monitor and powermeter and training log...can the coach handle both types of athletes, or does the coach fire himself because he cannot adapt to the desired path of the athlete.

Coming back to the motivator role, if you look at coaches in team sport, some are just better in extracting the best performance out of each player by figuring out what makes that player tick...some need hard love, some need care and nurturing...no different than being a manager in a corporation or leader in the military (note how I used manager for corporation and leader in the military, because in general, corporations lack leaders....)

Bottom line is that the coach's role is not simply about handing out workouts, but getting the best possible results out of the athlete :-)

Dev
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My two cents:

Old School:
1. Rocky Balboa training camp. Hay bail stacking, ice house working etc...
2. When you puke it's a good thing.
3. Coach has impressive track record in the sports filed, both personal and their athletes.... from the 1980's
4. KISS (Keep it simple stupid)
5. personal contact with athletes regularly for consultations or training sessions
6. RPE is the scale to know
7. PB&J works great for training and race fueling
8. When hurt, RICE (rest, Ice, compression and elevation) will heal an injury
9. If it aint boke, don't monkey with it.

New School:
1. Know thy heart rate
2. know thy training zones
3. electronic training logs
4. focus on the mental aspects of racing too
5. LT, AT & Max HR testing is necessary
6. All athletes should know more than basic nutrition and physiology.
7. RICE is good but Active Release, Massage, micro-current or muscle stimulators will get you back faster and more efficiently.
8. Coach has recent accoplishments in sports, coaching or publications that show they are doing a good job preparing people and are not done learning.
9. Sure it aint broke, but can we make it better?

I'm interested to see what you plan to do with all this stuff from everyone. Keep us posted!

Dave


Dave Stark
dreamcatcher@astound.net
USAC & USAT level 2 certified coach
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
if i may add a considered opinion: i don't think you will get a good definition of what is 'old school' vs. 'new school' coaching because there are far too many possible definitions and variations and combinations of the two types.

so if I were starting a coach listing, i would only make one big distinction between these 3 types of coaches (listed below) because, before an athlete even begins to interview coaches, i think the athlete usually knows which way he/she wants to go in these areas:

- coaches that focus that on coaching in the flesh, i.e. athletes must be local

- coaches that focus on remote (usually online and telephone) coaching, athletes can be anywhere.

- coaches that accept both kinds of clients.





Where would you want to swim ?
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Criteria might include how successful are athletes in getting faster year over year for a 3-6 year period under one coach. Is the coach more successful at LC or short course (or does the coach specialize in one vs the other). Can the coach effectively communnicate how the here and now fits into the there and beyond.[/quote]
a great idea for a 'coaching quality' criteria, but i would love to know how the connection between athlete improvement and coaching skill could really be reliably connected, i.e. athletes typically all get better with time but very often major factors other than coaching cause big performance increases (and decreases).





Where would you want to swim ?
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [GregX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
typically it is easy to develop an athlete for a year or two, but I'd suspect that you as i have, have seen many athletes stay with the same coach for 3-5 years and show no improvement over the latter years. Is this, measuring performance year over year, a precise way to measure? No. But many times when a coach has no clue what they are doing development stalls or performance gains are minimal. And yes I realize that a 2% performance gain may be great for some athletes (elites, people many years into their development), but if you have someone who has been in the sport for only 3-5 years I'd suspect more then 2% would be possible. Maybe it would be better if we required coaches to write a pre and post eval plan with athletes. Sort of this is where I want them to go development plan and then every X years a recap of what they did, (both coach and athlete), to see how they implemented the plan, adapted to adversity, overcame challenges, and managed the development and growth of that athlete.

I'm not sure there is a precise way to measure how good a coach is or is not.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [LarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Old School Coaching in running:
1. An old school coach has the art of coaching down. They can take one look at their athlete without using scientific data and know how the athlete feels. Often they detect the slightest limp before the athlete even knows he or she is injured.
2. An old school coach has a very generalized training plan for the season but everything is subject to change. They don't write down the plan either.
3. New school looks for scientific justifications to avoid volume. Old school doesn't care what the scientific justifications say because the race results say volume is important.
4. Old school doesn't mind repeating the same cycle over and over. They go through running workouts like 10x1000, 3x1.5 mi, 6 mile tempo run for weeks on end before moving on to the next thing. New school changes things up every week because some study says so.
5. Old school could care less about getting USA Track and Field or USA Triathlon coaching certificates. You won't find them at the coaches association meeting either.
6. Dan, if you want to go see a really good old school coach in action go visit Steve Scott at CSU San Marcos :)


I resemble those remarks! ; ^ )

It's funny, on another thread I was told I was not forward thinking and I said, "Well....yeah. You're right."

Edit: I left an ambiguous answer in the original.

You wanna see some good old school training, you should meet Greg Watson some day. I'm pretty sure he didn't even use a speedometer during his bike workouts.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Last edited by: BarryP: Dec 27, 07 11:59
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I pose as a new coaching prospect, what is the question I'm asking that you are trying to answer, Dan? Put another way, depending on the sort of questions I'm asking or parameters I'm considering, any given gradient/score/coding you come up with may or may not be adequate to help me.

If I'm concerned about becoming too laden down with gadgets and gizmos (most of which my hypothetical self may not already have) your score may push me toward the arbitrary "old school" side, when in fact, one of those types of coaches may be less than effective for me.

I'm guessing you're philosophizing over developing a system to help athletes assess coaches based on a set of inputs...I'm not initially inclined to think that is a meaninful outcome based mostly on my observation (and, admittedly ASSUMPTION) that successful athlete/coach relationships have more to do with the individual interactions than with the particular tools, methods, or philosophies used.


On the other hand, I think if you look up "old school" in the dictionary you'll find a picture of a Marine gunnery sergeant in cotton running kit, knee high, striped tube socks, and black combat boots! ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
While well intentioned, I doubt that this thread went the way his slowness expected. It seems most posters had an old high school coach that was well 'old school', because you worked your a** off and those that survived thrived those that didn't joined the chess club. (My old school coach passed out salt tablets during spring training and warned against getting blotted by drinking water, that'll toughen you up)

Fleck's point is a good one. I would consider Richard Quick old school but I think he's probably pretty well 'up' on things. Is Lydiard old school? Lasse Viren, probably old school, Ryan Hall's coach = new school, Eddy Merck = old school, Lance Armstrong = new school. I don't think you're going to get a much better picture of old v new school. You might do better to look at if the coaches approach is emprical (say ex-athletes who become coaches) or more 'scientific' coaches (say those with graduate phy ed backgrounds, kinesiology). I doubt Vince Lombardi had a degree in excercise physiology but who knows?


Jim_n_La
...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but only until it kills you - Cousin Elwood
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey, backward is the new forward!


Jim_n_La
...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but only until it kills you - Cousin Elwood
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"as a new coaching prospect, what is the question I'm asking that you are trying to answer, Dan?"

i've got three reasons for asking the question:

1. to what degree are old and new schools really coaching in the same way, just with different nomenclature?

2. to what degree are the schools NOT coaching in the same way? is there a qualitative difference, for example, in how each views historical/experiential truisms versus evidence generated using the scientific method? what weight does a coach give to each when it comes to devising his own coaching theories?

3. is there data about coaches that can be archived and queried in meaningful ways for use by prospective clients? what if you could search coaches based on the technologies they use, and the pricing, where they were geographically located, their certifications? what if you wanted a coach that used training peaks, or workoutlog, because all your data was archived in one or another format?

i'm not heading in a specific direction with my questions. i do know for sure that we'll be writing a lot about coaching, and coaches, and systems, and technologies, and science of training, in 2008. we're not just going to write articles willy nilly, rather according to an overarching theme and direction. i'm pretty close to knowing how it is i'm going to approach this, but the forum provides me an elegant opportunity to see how people respond to different themes. i'd rather have that data now, instead of after i'm going down a road that is ill-conceived.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
- no speaking in acronyms (WKO

Just an FYI: WKO+ is not an acronym.

Other than that, I don't think I can help you, as I have no idea how you might accurately classify someone as "old school" or "new school", nor what good it would do...
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1. to what degree are old and new schools really coaching in the same way, just with different nomenclature?

If they really know what's going on from a physiological perspective, their really should not be that much of a difference in the approach. The basic fundementals have not changed that much in the last numver of years. It's all pretty straight-forward -Build the aerobic and endurance base as high as you can and then fine tune for specific race prep.

2. to what degree are the schools NOT coaching in the same way? is there a qualitative difference, for example, in how each views historical/experiential truisms versus evidence generated using the scientific method? what weight does a coach give to each when it comes to devising his own coaching theories?

The difference here that I see is in how performance is looked at. The Old School view is that the clock and the results sheet does not lie. It's a pretty clear and precise indicator if something is working or is not. The newer view is to depend more on test results be they, with heart rate, Power Meters, or other testing protocols to evaluate improvement and progress. With people racing less - maybe even doing just one race a year( a big IM) perhaps their is a use for this.





Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
- subjects have portable blood lactate analyzers for use during interval sessions
I'd move that one to 'old school'--seriously...
I would as well...although doing so would seemingly make someone like Max Testa "old school".
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 27, 07 12:11
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
These abstracts actually make me consider Exercise Physiology as being "Old School".

....toying with models and gross explanations that can nowadays be adressed much better by more advanced technologies.

___________________________________________
Ego numquam pronuncio mendacium,
sed sum homo salvaticus
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

excellent articles, thank you,
FWIW, i wasn't intending to promote Dr Noakes theories but point out that the science of 'endurance exercise' is not 'Not much has changed in the past 15 - 20 years'. i think our understanding of physiology has changed significantly and the meaning, application and understanding of our knowledge is still developing.
additionally, the statment that LT 'is perhaps THE most important physiological parameter' is not confirmed by the reseach.

sorry for staying from the topic. to help get back to it i would propose that Slowman not use the 'old school, new school' terms since they carry a lot of baggage that has very different meanings to people. i would suggest that coaches answer a series of questions with a scaled response. (sorry don't know the correct term for this type of questioning).
for example:
What is your coaching philosophy with regards to hydrating during long training bouts? (1-20)
with examples of a response spectrum
1= do not drink more than a minimal amount, you must learn/train to exercise in adverse conditions that you may encounter in races
3= drink to thirst
10= learn your sweat rate for various weather, duration and intensity levels and hydrate to try to replace X% of that, at a minimum.
19= drink as much as you can possibly drink and learn to drink more, at least X oz per hr. learn to exercise with a full stomach, never let hydration limit your exercise.
20= drink beyond that, so at times it is uncomfortable and possibly causes you to vomit. this will train you to increase your capacity, know you limit and keep you hydrated at all times.

so, you develop a number of catagories ie. Hydration, Nutrition, Periodization, Use of Telemetry....
then a series of questions under each catagories that have a response along a spectrum (like example above)
then room for a written position. ie. after the questions on periodization the coach writes..'my coaching philosophy is to incorporate periodization at a macro cycle level of 9 month periods with micro cycles of 5 weeks. these periods will vary with the students race agenda. also, i ......

a prospective student/client could then scan each coaches philosophy template and determine which they feel is best for them. then interview a few coaches and pick the one they feel would be best for them.

maybe also have a sponsorhip level disclosure with it.
XYZ - occasionally sends me last years model ... to use if i beg them from stuff to replace my aging parts.
ABC - provides me with all my sports nutrition, updates me on it's marketing methodolgy and encourages me to promote it's products.
QRS - gives me ... equipment and pays me when i win/place using it.


just some thoughts ..

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
All of this discussion may be well and good, but I'll maintain the coach/athlete relationship is a system. If you try to inform one on the other without considering the SYSTEM view the outcome will be meaningless. In other words, classification of coaches based on any arbitrarily set collection of values or codes doesn't really answer the question at the heart of this matter: "How do I find the best coach for me?" To answer that question, you (the athlete) had better examine yourself first. And I daresay many, if not most athletes, newbies in particular, have only the vaguest idea about what really works for them. If I don't know myself first, any evaluation system I'm using to answer the question is no better than a blindman's game of darts.

Heck, we can't even get people to truly understand the concepts of a physical problem like tri-bike fitting. Now we're going to attempt to evaluate something heavily dependent on psychological relationships?

I'll say one thing, Dan...no one should ever accuse you of taking the easy road... ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Good start... but what about a blend?

With my local younger athletes it's very much old school. They've got PM's and GPS's but it's when I talk with them and they with me that I learn the more than any number could tell me.

Then there's my distant athletes with whom I need to rely on the numbers and they're reflections on their feelings and mood to gauge where they are at.

Hmmmm in writing this me thinks that I am more old school touchy feely with a strong lean towards pace/power. So how does that get defined?

Looking forward to the finished product.

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ancient chinese proverb
'when the student is ready, the master will appear'

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [de-tri-mental] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
These abstracts actually make me consider Exercise Physiology as being "Old School".

....toying with models and gross explanations that can nowadays be adressed much better by more advanced technologies.
The science of exercise physiology certainly isn't as old as, say, mathematics or astronomy, but it's much older than most people realize, with the earliest studies dating to before 1900. I have no idea what you mean by your second comment, however, as there are no "...more advanced technologies...' available than those used in the papers I cited.
Quote Reply
Re: New versus Old School (coaching) [bermudabill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
i wasn't intending to promote Dr Noakes theories but point out that the science of 'endurance exercise' is not 'Not much has changed in the past 15 - 20 years'. i think our understanding of physiology has changed significantly and the meaning, application and understanding of our knowledge is still developing.

That may be true (or not), but citing Noakes is a very poor way of making your case, because his ideas re. the 'central governor' and how, e.g., this limits VO2max have failed to gain any significant 'traction' (as evidenced, e.g., by the fact that his papers on this topic are rarely cited by others, and typically only then by those refuting the idea).

In Reply To:
additionally, the statment that LT 'is perhaps THE most important physiological parameter' is not confirmed by the reseach.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with this statement any more strongly than I do.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Dec 28, 07 9:09
Quote Reply

Prev Next