I would based off their philosophy and ability to adjust training based on fatigue, adaptations and life stressors.

Personal performance is basically irrelevant to whether they are a good coach or not. This holds true across sports.

^Exactly right.

To coach, or teach someone, is about having extensive knowledge on the subject and being able to communicate that information to the student/athelete. Experience definitely counts, but doesn't always make for a good coach. I have known a number of high level triathletes... some would make good coaches, and some wouldn't.
I would say that for some people having a coach that has a history of a high level of performance (greater then their own) would make a difference, and for others it wouldn't...as they are just looking for guidance and direction to achieve their goals.

---

---

Member of the Litespeed Factory Team
www.litespeed.com

Same here...Most of the times the best coaches have not been the best athletes!

---

"Discipline is the highest of all virtues. Only so may strength and desire be counterbalanced and the endeavors of man bear fruit."
Nikos Kazantzakis, The Rock Garden

Of course; coaching ability has no correlation to speed.

Yes, look at Sutto.

That being said, having been an elite athlete helps in marketing yourself to AGs. The theory goes that you know how to get into top shape, and there is the ability for folks to say they are being coached by an Olympian, former IM champ, etc.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Not quite the same, but I just engaged a "non-top-level-athlete" coach for this past season's marathon training. He was fabulous and helped me enormously. He has technical expertise (he is a doctor) who understands fitness in a physiological/medical sense. He was a member of the Nike 2:00 hour team and is an athlete but not a top-level one. Nonetheless, he made a big difference in my performance.

In my real world experience, newer coaches have to usually "bank" on their athlete achievements, especially as they are trying to "impress" potential athletes to be hired by them. The more experience you get as a coach, the easier it is to suddenly only promote your coaching credentials/background/philosophy/athlete results to the point that what you were or weren't as an athlete is irrelevant.


The simple answer is it doesn't matter, the reality is that there are going to be athletes who ask that info. It's also a head scratching question to begin with, but none the less; it is part of the reality that "new" coaches have to deal with.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Definitely agree with all the posts here. In my experience, I’ve had both top level athlete and non-top-level and the latter of the two provided the better experience, coaching, and cost. :)

Yes, sometimes people that are really good at something have trouble working it out with folks who aren’t as good or talented.

Give me a coach who knows the how and the why and can give it to me in a way I understand. I couldn’t care less what their Ironman finish time is.

I'd say its probably good if a coach has been a practitioner of the sport themselves at some point, but its almost an asset if they were not a top level athlete, but very good analytically and very strong in human psychology. A less than top level athlete, when they were a practitioner would have had to learn about every possible gain to be made in the sport by intelligence that would not come naturally.

A good tennis coach may be able to break down a tennis serve into all the pieces that make a Wimbeldon winning ace, whereas Djokovic may not be to explain it becuase he can just go "do it" without thinking. Now having said that if you're Djokovic, I just picked the wrong example since Boris Becker is his coach LOL.....but I think you guys know what I mean....maybe we can use Bjorn Borg's first coach Lennart Berglin (never a singles grand slam winner in his day, but top Swede).

there are outliers like sutto. perhaps he choose the right athletes. But in general, a coach should be able to apply their knowledge to themselves

If one were of the mindset that anyone can become an elite athlete, regardless of genetics, if they just train, then sure... applying one’s knowledge to themselves should result in an elite athlete.

I am not of that mindset.

No an outlier at all. Across sports there are tons of top coaches who never competed at the top level. Bill Belichick never played pro ball.

I question the understanding of why an athlete is seeking an coach when I meet athletes with this mindset.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

100% I would. Great coaches are great motivators and teachers. Great athletes don't need to be either of those.

"It’s interesting that many people think ‘a great athlete will make a great coach’ yet there are not many who would think that ‘a great coach will make a great athlete’.
It seems that in the second paradigm we understand that the skills do not transfer well - they’re different domains; but in the first paradigm the misconception is that the skills do transfer well."

Read this
https://propelperform.com/dear-former-athlete/

My coach just happens to be a pro, but that didn't play into my decision in hiring him. I was looking for a one on one swim technique coaching session and was super impressed with his ability to identify and communicate. I felt comfortable in engaging him as a coach before I read his athlete resume.

In my line of work I have spend years developing instructors and I can tell you that not all those who can do don't necessarily know how to teach. By all means, technical proficiency aids credibility at first meeting but some of the best instructors I have met are not the best in practice. What they do have is an excellent understanding of the skill set and how to communicate it in multiple ways to a trainee/client.