That's fine. But I'd be careful placing too much weight on experience. It's often loosely correlated to quality.

I would suggest that before you look to grade experience that you explore your definition of "experience" much more deeply (as you see it in relation to the answer you are trying to ascertain).

It is context related, it simply isn't that black and white. IMHO coaching is pedagogic not purely knowledge or status based. Some folks can be incredibly good teachers with little "time based" experience and a good understanding of first principles.

Just some food for thought,

Best,

David

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

I agree with the other posters. One of the unfortunate things about the coaching business in any individual sport, be it triathlon, Olympic weightlifting, ski racing etc. is that "experience" is often the only criteria by which many athletes judge a coaches abilities and therefor the value of that coach.
In my opinion, just because someone has been doing it for a long time, or was good at racing themselves, or has all the certifications does not make a good coach. Don't get me wrong, "experience" as you define it can be of valie. But only if the coach is able to learn from their years of practice and adapt their methodologies to constantly progress their art and develop their abilities, but far too often it is the case that a coach has their single approach and refuses to deviate from that and adapt to new science and different athletes.
I have seen coaches with masters degrees in keniesology or exercise science who have absolutely no idea how to apply their knowledge to an athlete in the real world, on the flip side I have seen coaches who are athletes best friends and adapt to every athletes specific needs but don't have the first idea of the physiological side of things and sabotage athletes that way.

Don't even get me started on the whole "well my coach is fast so he must know what he's talking about" mentality

Good question, I'm interested as to what folks say here as I am trying to "break into" coaching down here in the Fraser Valley. Mind you, I think the ST demographic is um, a bit skewed.

---

http://www.fitspeek.com the Fraser Valley's fitness, wellness, and endurance sports podcast

David, Thanks for a thoughtful response and I totally agree with what you say.

There are so many other aspects to what contributes to an overall level of coaching ability
besides number of athletes worked with. However if a coach is considered "good", then
certainly the more numbers of athletes said coaches have worked with over the years will
broaden their experiences specifically in regards to dose and response to training and how
it has varied amongst different athletes of different capabilities and training volumes and
intensities.

My view is slanted since my work as a pilot for a good part of one's career is about getting
more "hours" hence experience. This works up to a certain point where any hours beyond
do not mean much more in the experience category.

-- I could be wrong here but I try to put this on to coaching in this respect--

A coach will gain experience working with more athletes up and to a certain point. Let us say
to where the coach reaches "elite" status where they have the ability to not cater to clients but
the clients come to them and they get to choose who they want to work with. This may actually
be the elite of the elite in coaching as it is a small marketplace in triathlon.

So as an outsider to coaching looking to insiders who do have a lot of experience what do you
consider a coach who has "seen a lot"

As an outsider if I go to the coach and one of my questions (among a hundred q's if I am paying
multiple 100's of $ per month) is how many athletes have you worked with and they tell me 4 over
the past 2 season, versus 40 over the past 7 seasons I am going to view it differently.

So again to someone inside the industry what do you think the benchmarks are in terms of number
of athletes worked with time in the sport?

I absolutely agree with everything you say as well. Thanks also for
an insightful response. It is unfortunate that "experience" is what a lot
of people look to. When you look at the higher price points in coaching
you can easily be into a couple thousand for a season. And this is what
I am wondering. There has to be some benchmarking inside amongst
the professionals.

If you set up your coaching tent at 275 USD per month and you have
been at it for 2 years and worked with 5 athletes with one outlier I am
wondering a bit....

Same scenario but the coach has been at it for a decade with over
80 athletes... sure.

I am not looking to raise any hackles but just trying to get an idea what
the thoughts are inside the coaching world.

A coach's ability and practices are what matter. Everything else is secondary, or worse.

I think this tri coach and experience thing is all a bit dodgy. Most people who call themselves coaches can't provide feedback and real coaching to get athletes to perform better. Too many of these folks who were likely fast at one time rely on what worked for them and post workouts for their athletes. Any feedback costs more money. I'd look for a coach who has an education in the related fields and provides good instruction and feedback on your training performances. Then I would look at the performance of their athletes to find out where they've started and what they have achieved. This nonsense of picking a coach based on numbers is a popularity contest. Most people will improve if given a structured workout where they've had none. You can find workouts in magazines and the Internet and save tons of cash. If I'm paying a coach a nickel, they had better be at the workouts coaching, perhaps participating but in an effort to provide feedback. If you're a self starter, go find someone to give or sell you a workout schedule and then fine tune that by hiring a real coach for one on one periodically. You'll be miles ahead and save tons. If you are a herd animal, plonk your money down and remain a middle of the packer!

TravelingTri, let me try to break down my responses (that are wholly mine based on my experience and to an extent referring to coaching as a whole whether it is triathlon or soccer or basketball…) to yourself and a few other posters.

Firstly I think it is important you define what you see “success” as in a coach. Is it titles? Is it how they have positively influenced folks lives? Is it how they have helped kids develop athletically and grow up with good attitudes they can apply in the real world? Is it all the above? You choose.

Now you’ve defined you “success ruler” you need to decide how you want to measure, breadth or depth or both?

By this I mean …..

Breadth…. They have a wealth of experience working with kids all the way through to active elderly folks, completer’s, competor’s, age grouper’s, elites, para-athletes….. etc….

Depth…. They have honed their skills and gotten results getting the very best out of a small niche of individuals whether that’s juniors, professionals, just female, just male etc… etc…



IMHO, I think as a coach it is very difficult to be “all things to all folks”, not impossible but difficult, that adage of jack of all trades master of none.

Also personality is always a factor, a good manager I had back in my corporate days said "people buy people, they don't buy product", I try to remember this.

gregn wrote:

A coach's ability and practices are what matter

I agree with Gregn, that really their ability and their practise are paramount.

But now defining ability goes back to definition of success above and how you measure it.

Practise is an easy one IMHO…. What's the injury prevelance in said coaches roster or past athletes?....Is it a standard deviation away from prevalence seen in generally exercising population or normative?....This is important because it is widely evidenced about 70% of injuries are training load induced. Particularly rapid ramps in load. A recent study I saw presented evidenced >1.5 ratio between ATL & CTL (if you are familiar with Training Peaks terms) as a highly significant tipping point.

TravelingTri wrote:

So as an outsider to coaching looking to insiders who do have a lot of experience what do you consider a coach who has "seen a lot"

Tough one. I am not being deliberately evaisve in my answe but would offer this sage advice. If they can discuss meaningfully a plethora of scenario’s an athlete may find themselves in or talk about their experience helping others achieve similar / same goals as you desire based on your personal circumstances i.e. they coach you not their system then you are on the right track.

TravelingTri wrote:

As an outsider if I go to the coach and one of my questions (among a hundred q's if I am paying multiple 100's of $ per month) is how many athletes have you worked with and they tell me 4 over the past 2 season, versus 40 over the past 7 seasons I am going to view it differently. So again to someone inside the industry what do you think the benchmarks are in terms of number of athletes worked with time in the sport?

I think that is simply too reductionist approach to take, for example I know Darren Smith, he has openly shared in interview that in a Olympic year he paired his roster down to those few folks competing roughly 4. What I think you are more driving at is whether the coach does this for a living or whether it is a “side job”, not saying either is explicitly right or wrong simply that that may provide context for you.

TravelingTri wrote:

I absolutely agree with everything you say as well. Thanks also for an insightful response. It is unfortunate that "experience" is what a lot of people look to. When you look at the higher price points in coaching you can easily be into a couple thousand for a season. And this is what I am wondering. There has to be some benchmarking inside amongst the professionals.

I have spoken with numerous peers as well as observed commentary hear on Slowtwitch. Plenty of folks across the USA charge between $250-450. You can quite easily use your google-fu to discover what some of the more prominent folks charge but $600-900 is definitely not uncommon there’s also a handful $1,000-1,500. Now I am not debating what $$$ is right or wrong, that’s like debating whether some Christian Louboutin heels are worth their $650+ and reflect quality as such….it is personally subjective.

But let’s be honest good coaching is not a simple as stacking shelves in Walmart nor is it as complex as being a cardiac surgeon saving lives.

TravelingTri wrote:

If you set up your coaching tent at 275 USD per month and you have been at it for 2 years and worked with 5 athletes with one outlier I am wondering a bit....

Look at this a different way….minimum wage in USA $7.25. At $275 a month what are you actually getting for that hourly? Service wise? Analytically? Feedback? etc… As such do you feel that is fair value?

TravelingTri wrote:

Same scenario but the coach has been at it for a decade with over 80 athletes... sure. I am not looking to raise any hackles but just trying to get an idea what the thoughts are inside the coaching world.

You make some valid points. Something additional to consider that moves into Gwcanrun’s points is how do you value your time?..... I’ll give you two examples….

1) Single parent lawyer, juggling career and parenting and desire to be successful at sport n.b. bill clients $500+ per hour….yes they can spend a just a few hours a week analysing their training and reviewing a wealth of information available online in today’s world and sort the bro’science & BS from real valuable commentary BUT is that really good use of their precious time and valuable time versus spending $275 per month on a coach?
2) ‘road warrior’ sales manager, married, three kids, good income, extremely time constrained what with work and desire to be with family but still wants some balance of being successful at sport, same question… is really good use of their precious and valuable spare time versus spending $275 per month on a coach?

There isn’t a right or wrong answer just what they each percieve is right for them.

Now to come full circle back to TravellingTri as a pilot, maybe circumstances timewise there mean that spending just a few hours a week analysing their training and reviewing a wealth of information available online in today’s world and sorting the bro’science & BS from real valuable commentary is both practicable and interesting thus irrespective of the price of coaching it becomes moot.

Likewise one could be utterly uninterested in researching and analysing and just want to be guided to their best potential so then the coaching spend becomes expedient :-)

GWcanrun wrote:

I think this tri coach and experience thing is all a bit dodgy. Most people who call themselves coaches can't provide feedback and real coaching to get athletes to perform better.

Gwcanrun, not sure if the “this” was referring to me but it seems unfortunate that you have that view. Yes I too have come across “snake oil” salesman but I also think there are a lot of folks out there coaching who are passionate about success for their athletes as well as empathetic and caring to their athletes needs and some of those charge and some of those volunteer with clubs / groups.

GWcanrun wrote:

Too many of these folks who were likely fast at one time rely on what worked for them and post workouts for their athletes. Any feedback costs more money. I'd look for a coach who has an education in the related fields and provides good instruction and feedback on your training performances. Then I would look at the performance of their athletes to find out where they've started and what they have achieved.

Excellent, point the journey enabled is very very valid.

GWcanrun wrote:

This nonsense of picking a coach based on numbers is a popularity contest. Most people will improve if given a structured workout where they've had none. You can find workouts in magazines and the Internet and save tons of cash.

Would agree for many simply being active across multiple disciplines, having fun, being consistent and varying what one does definitely leads to gains physical and mental. But that isn’t the same thing as maximising ones genetic potential based on time available (if that is the desired intention).

GWcanrun wrote:

If I'm paying a coach a nickel, they had better be at the workouts coaching, perhaps participating but in an effort to provide feedback. If you're a self starter, go find someone to give or sell you a workout schedule and then fine tune that by hiring a real coach for one on one periodically. You'll be miles ahead and save tons. If you are a herd animal, plonk your money down and remain a middle of the packer!

See my point above. Any plan is better than no plan.

Kind Regards,

David

www.tilburydavis.com/about

www.tilburydavis.com/athletes

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

I think the easiest way to gauge a coaches experience is if they use absolutes to questions or if they dig deeper and ask about factors that relate to the question. Fitness principles are really easy..... until you have to mix them with all of the athletes personal and historical factors... thats when the puzzle starts to take shape.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
COROS Sports Science

David,

Thanks again for taking the time... your replies have been very helpful and have made me realize that
I am asking questions about coaching based on my very narrow view of what I may want and need if I
thought I wanted to have a coach.

I know coaching is part art and part science, but given my nature I gravitate to the science side of it.
And actually probably a very small part of the science side of it. Because of this I am missing most of
what makes the coaching world tick. It doesn't seem possible to give an absolute on numbers because
the numbers will be highly variable based on where you place your value in the spectrum of coaching
services. Every athlete will be different and thus have a different answer based on their own needs.

I really appreciated your insight and feedback. Thanks again.