Your coach is pretty active around here. He might just see this… and see the rest of your signature. 
Plenty of good coaches are not good athletes themselves. Doesn’t make them worse by definition, it just means they have one less source of experience.
This seems a bit like another WTC bashing post. The same thing in the your post can be applied to USAT coaching certification. You can achieve the highest level of USAT coaching certification, coach exclusively at the 140.6 distance, and never have done a 140.6 race yourself. What you stated isn’t isolated to just the Ironman University.
I’m not saying that obtaining the Ironman University coaching certification is a good or bad thing. I’m just saying that what you stated can be applied to other venues or sports. Red Auerbach, for example, never played in the NBA but is one of the greatest NBA coaches of all time. Good coaching and being a good athlete or experienced at performing at a certain level isn’t necessarily related.
Disclaimer: I don’t have a coach, don’t ever intend to get one, and have zero desire to become one.
Def not a bashing thread, I am huge fan of WTC. I think they do a great job.
The point was that I could see why established coaches did not like the idea of it.
But I took it down for the sake of being Mis understood
I think it goes beyond established coaches. Any professional in any profession probably do not like the idea of anyone with very little to no experience, in their own ranks, calling themselves experts. For example, in my chosen field of field (IT), there is a professional certification. A lot of govt agencies put a premium on said certification when they solicit proposals. I can tell you that I’ve interview enough people with said certification to know that, like all other certifications out there, it’s just mean that you passed a test. It doesn’t mean that you know anything.
Bad tri coaches with certifications are discussed on ST because this is a tri forum, but the problem exist everywhere else in life. WTC is just getting on the bandwagon to get their piece of the action. I don’t fault them for that.
You could have left it up!
I will leave you the with the classic line, “Those that can, do. Those who can’t, teach”.
I will leave you the with the classic line, “Those that can, do. Those who can’t, teach”.
“Those that can’t teach, teach gym.”
(or coach.)
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
The guy who ran 16 min 5k in high school without training? He’s got Talent but not a good coach.
the whole thread came off of this IG post.
I was simply saying when it first was announced I was unsure why coaches were not happy about another avenue to promote and get some clients. After seeing the post I realized its because anyone will be able to claim the know;ledge to coach even with zero experience.
I personally think IM U is not a bad idea. I just believe that having some experience should be a prerequisite as you will be coaching people to race race where they could get seriously injured.
http://i1257.photobucket.com/albums/ii510/surfnjmatt/2EAF638C-53C2-4FE9-8405-E39979C4C448.jpg
I will leave you the with the classic line, “Those that can, do. Those who can’t, teach”.
As a professor I had a student say that too me once. It was cute. He wasn’t aware of my 15 years in corporate banking prior to becoming a professor. A career that was successful enough to allow me to semi-retire (35 years old at the time) and focus getting a doctorate in my passion: economics. He also wasn’t aware that teaching is a very small piece of the job. I can make more money consulting with corporations and governments. During the recession, banks were paying me stupid money to help with their commercial loan portfolio and capital requirements. Then along came Dodd-Frank and banks hiring me to help become compliant. I actually stopped taking consulting gigs because I missed the classroom. I do understand my position is unique. All the other professors are pure academics. However, I bet 40% of their time is teaching while 60% is professional work.
I just believe that having some experience should be a prerequisite as you will be coaching people to race race where they could get seriously injured.
I didn’t understand the negative comments about the Ironman University either to be truthful.
However to your point above, like most of these type of certifications I reckon it will start out being quite easy to obtain the certification but as time goes on the requirements will get harder and harder.
The things I find surprising it are the $40 per month fee to stay in the coach matching service, or rather to be part of the Ironman Coaches Association. The other surprising thing is that it’s only worth 3 non-USAT ceus. I think the USAT home office are intent on screwing them over with that.
As it stands, I suspect that in three years we will look back and wtc will have won that battle with coaches getting wtc certified and not usat certified. However, if USAT adds a level 3 long distance certification they might hold their own - there are hundreds of level 2 usat coaches who have no way to progress due to not being involved in olympic style racing.
In the medical profession, there is the following saying: “see one, do one, teach one”…
You draw your own conclusion to the previously mentioned idiotic saying.
I will leave you the with the classic line, “Those that can, do. Those who can’t, teach”.
As a professor I had a student say that too me once. It was cute. He wasn’t aware of my 15 years in corporate banking prior to becoming a professor. A career that was successful enough to allow me to semi-retire (35 years old at the time) and focus getting a doctorate in my passion: economics. He also wasn’t aware that teaching is a very small piece of the job. I can make more money consulting with corporations and governments. During the recession, banks were paying me stupid money to help with their commercial loan portfolio and capital requirements. Then along came Dodd-Frank and banks hiring me to help become compliant. I actually stopped taking consulting gigs because I missed the classroom. I do understand my position is unique. All the other professors are pure academics. However, I bet 40% of their time is teaching while 60% is professional work.
At my B-school the first milestone for a professor is when their consulting pays the taxes on their salary. The second is when their salary pays the taxes on their consulting. If you’re a professor of entomology YMMV though.
That has been my experience too. I have found that many elite athletes turned coaches underestimate/undervalue the role natural talent plays in training. They struggle working with people who are not extremely gifted athletes. Coaches who weren’t ever fast enough to be all-stars often have a much better feel for understanding how an athlete’s God given talent impacts training and are better about working to help any athlete improve regardless of skill level. That being said there are always exceptions and experience is critical. It’s nice to have a coach that has “been there” regardless of whether they were first or last.
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
This!
There is something in our modern society that somehow defaults to the idea that because a person does something exceptionally well, they will automatically be a great teacher/coach at that same thing. We see this particularly so with triathlon coaching. This actually may be the case with some - I know personally some former world class athletes who are great coaches, but it does not ALWAYS mean that’s the case!
The best coach I ever had was when I got into running as a teenager back in the mid-70’s. I was lucky to fall in with a club in Canada that had a collection of some of the best distance runners in the country. The coach was an overweight old-guy, who never ran and could barely get across the track to give us our splits in track workouts - but he was the best distance coach in the country. At one time his athletes held, all of the National Records from the 800 to the marathon!
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
Are you saying Bob Bowman was not greatest swimmer ever!? Has Brett Sutton even done an ironman?
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
Are you saying Bob Bowman was not greatest swimmer ever!? Has Brett Sutton even done an ironman?
haha.
But how often do you get a spam to the effect of
“Be coached by 14 time ironman winner Crowie for only $999 per hour!”
(I think there is a post like 3 pages back with this offer)
Clearly people sell coaching services based on the previous results of the coach. And I have no idea i Crowie is actually a great coach or not, so nothing against him.
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
The guy who ran 16 min 5k in high school without training? He’s got Talent but not a good coach.
Do you learn different skill sets working “really really hard to get a little past average” than working really really hard - to get to the top then?
Is it some sort of ‘acceptance of genetic disposition’ that sets these two athletes apart when learning to be a coach?
I’m intrigued with this line of thought as I read it a lot on ST?
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
The guy who ran 16 min 5k in high school without training? He’s got Talent but not a good coach.
Do you learn different skill sets working “really really hard to get a little past average” than working really really hard - to get to the top then?
Is it some sort of ‘acceptance of genetic disposition’ that sets these two athletes apart when learning to be a coach?
I’m intrigued with this line of thought as I read it a lot on ST?
It’s not just Tri though, look at most sports and the majority of the best coaches/managers weren’t superstar players. In English soccer the three most successful managers/coaches of recent times are Ferguson, Mourinho, and Wenger. As players, Ferguson was an above average pro, Wenger was a minor league pro, and Mourinho was the manager’s interpreter (no really, he was Bobby Robson’s interpreter at Barcelona), and yet they’ve all gone on to great things. Where as Glenn Hoddle was considered one of the most gifted players of his generation, yet was a mediocre manager at best - he even admitted himself that he had trouble training players who couldn’t do things with a ball that he found came naturally.
Honestly the best athletes in a field are not usually the best coaches. The best coaches generally worked really really hard to get to a little past average. That hard work made them know how to teach mortals.
The guy who ran 16 min 5k in high school without training? He’s got Talent but not a good coach.
Do you learn different skill sets working “really really hard to get a little past average” than working really really hard - to get to the top then?
Is it some sort of ‘acceptance of genetic disposition’ that sets these two athletes apart when learning to be a coach?
I’m intrigued with this line of thought as I read it a lot on ST?
It’s not just Tri though, look at most sports and the majority of the best coaches/managers weren’t superstar players. In English soccer the three most successful managers/coaches of recent times are Ferguson, Mourinho, and Wenger. As players, Ferguson was an above average pro, Wenger was a minor league pro, and Mourinho was the manager’s interpreter (no really, he was Bobby Robson’s interpreter at Barcelona), and yet they’ve all gone on to great things. Where as Glenn Hoddle was considered one of the most gifted players of his generation, yet was a mediocre manager at best - he even admitted himself that he had trouble training players who couldn’t do things with a ball that he found came naturally.
So 2 out of the 3 were Professional players - is that what you’re saying?