A Coach's Competitive Experience

[oso97]

A thought suggested by a previous thread, and posed to the entire board...

What is the acceptable differential between a coach's competitive experience, and that of the level he or she is trying to train students to acheive?

Would you train with a coach who had never competed at the level at which you were trying to be successful? For comparisons's sake, lets assume a relatively new coach (not BRAND new) with 3-5 years of experience under his belt, with a couple of students who have been performing decently at the level they have been competing.

Vote for the lowest level you'd select.

Note there is no choice for flawed! Tell us why if you think the poll is flawed .

[fencergal33]

You should have made the poll so that you could choose more than one option.

[RoninX]

Interesting question but the question is flawed...

...it should say "I would not train with a coach who has never competed _____"

[keith]

Anyone who studies and trains to become a coach is going to end up a pretty handy fencer.

I do not care if a coach can perform a complex multi tempo action all I care about is that they can make it a natural part of my fencing.

[mlr2fence]

I would rather base my selection, all things equal (cost, availability, etc) on the level the coach has trained students too, rather than the level he/she themselves have obtained competitively. Not every fencer has the same opportunities and therefore the competitive level they have achieved really doesn't indicate what they could have done with top coaching, bouting, etc. available to them. Since if I'm looking for a coach that can get results with his students, thats the most important.

[Mr Epee]

Every notice how this issue is always hammered around by coaches who feel insecure about their competitive results?

Truthfully, there is no clear answer.

A coach must be intimately familiar with their sport. In fencing, like most sports, the easiest path to familiarity is participation at a relatively high level. By definition, not everyone will be a champion, but spending a career getting blown off the strip (assuming the individual is not mentally/physically handicapped) is not good preparation for a coaching career. There's probably a good reason for not making at least adequate results.

Obviously, credible results do not automatically make a great coach, but they may indicate the intelligence, understanding, commitment, motivation, love-of-sport, and work-ethic required to become a truly excellent coach. This aspect is often overlooked.

I am HIGHLY suspect of coaches who do not posses either
1) competitive results,
2) a university level education in physical training
3) an extended (think 4+ years) apprenticeship under a recognized/established coaching authority.

Preferably, one should have a combination of these three...

These standards are fairly similar across sport

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I am HIGHLY suspect of coaches who do not posses either
1) competitive results,
2) a university level education in physical training
3) an extended (think 4+ years) apprenticeship under a recognized/established coaching authority.

While these are certainly things a coach should have (although I reckon only 3 is the essential criteria) you forget the single most important thing that a coach must have before they can be recognised as a great coach; a single highly talented and motivated pupil .

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Every notice how this issue is always hammered around by coaches who feel insecure about their competitive results?

Actually, there are other reasons to ask the question. One important one is marketing. Many coaches are finding now that it is becoming more and more important to pay attention to the business end of things as independant salles become more and more financially viable (due to rising interest in fencing among the general population). And one of the components of that is how does one best market one's services?

The answer to that is of course, what target population are you trying to reach, as a different marketing campaign must be designed for different populations. The marketing campaign I would use, in a large metropolitan area with several existing fencing clubs (but that are geographically distant), and I'm centered in working and middle class neighborhoods, but with some upper middle class neighborhoods nearby is going to be very different then a club that is in a different part of town, where there is a higher median income and level of education. And would be very different for a club in a downtown location. And would be very different for a club in a medium sized city.

So, saying that its a silly question posed by insecure coaches is stupid.

BTW, for those who might be interested, I'm working on a marketing plan emphasizing my apprenticeship and certification credentials and regional results of my better fencers. There's a LOT more to it of course.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by keith

While these are certainly things a coach should have (although I reckon only 3 is the essential criteria) you forget the single most important thing that a coach must have before they can be recognised as a great coach; a single highly talented and motivated pupil .

Absolutely, Spot on!

[oso97]

Originally Posted by keith

While these are certainly things a coach should have (although I reckon only 3 is the essential criteria) you forget the single most important thing that a coach must have before they can be recognised as a great coach; a single highly talented and motivated pupil .

Ain't that the truth!

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oso97

So, saying that its a silly question posed by insecure coaches is stupid.

I didn't say it was silly.
I made an observation.

I am quite capable of expressing myself.

Good luck with your marketing plan, but you may want to start by defining your sport product (which is rarely the coach, or his accomplishments).

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I didn't say it was silly.
I made an observation.

I am quite capable of expressing myself.

Good luck with your marketing plan, but you may want to start by defining your sport product (which is rarely the coach, or his accomplishments).

Naturally. Perhaps I should have said that the aspect of the marketing plan dealing with the instructor empahsizes... etc. Its a small part, but hopefully it fits in well and dovetails with the rest.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by keith

While these are certainly things a coach should have (although I reckon only 3 is the essential criteria) you forget the single most important thing that a coach must have before they can be recognised as a great coach; a single highly talented and motivated pupil .

If they have one or more highly talented and motivated pupils who actually succeed they can make outlandish requests. They can use the pupils to further their own carreer and I do mean USE.

The momster

[hpfencing]

Originally Posted by oso97

BTW, for those who might be interested, I'm working on a marketing plan emphasizing my apprenticeship and certification credentials and regional results of my better fencers. There's a LOT more to it of course.

Would be nice to hear more about your marketing paln, maybe a new thread.....

I think everyone needs to market the sport more!

[DanInMI]

Well, the question is flawed, so I didn't answer it.
But I don't think that you have to have been a world class fencer to be a world class coach. In fact I know you don't.

I perfect example is Mike Nemecek from Grand Rapids MI. He was never rated higher than "C" as a fencer, but he has been the primary coach of Sam Nemecek for the past 5 years.

[rudd]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I am HIGHLY suspect of coaches who do not posses either
1) competitive results,
2) a university level education in physical training
3) an extended (think 4+ years) apprenticeship under a recognized/established coaching authority.

Not saying all of these criteria aren't important but didn't Beck lack all 3 and in spite of or maybe because of revolutionised, German fencing specif ally and fencing in general.

[RebelFencer]

It depends. I would very much prefer a coach who may not have had a tremendous amount of success as a competitor, but has trained world cup caliber athletes to someone who was successful as a competitor, but has only trained a few decent fencers. If you can get both, that's even better.

[fencerbill]

There are always exceptions, such as Joe Pechinsky from Peabody, Massachusetts. Never competed but developed a handful of Olympians. He was a fireman by profession. Quaint to hear his students reminiscing about lessons between the fire trucks.

[VERITAS]

Competitive success can be a product of good teaching, but it is not required for good teaching.

I'm more interested in my teacher's ability, knowledge, and dedication to the students.

[keropie]

In many/most other sports, coaches were not necessarily distinguished competitors. NCAA basketball coaches tend to be the guy who sat the bench and watched games, for instance, instead of the star player. Dean Smith certainly never distinguished himself as a collegiate player, but anyone who argues he wasn't one of the greatest American coaches is simply wrong.

Now, if a coach hasn't competed at all in the sport, that would make me wonder a bit. But it wouldn't disqualify him from being a decent coach.