There are, in my estimation, about eight to ten elite-level triathlon coaches here in the United States. This ain't many, given the number of triathletes (elite or otherwise). I've asked other coaches and athletes as much, and they each reckon a comparable figure. For what it's worth, I consider an elite-level coach as one who coaches elite-level athletes to perform (and win) at the highest levels of triathlon. I do not necessarily consider myself one, although I've helped guide a few such athletes over the years. Coaching, to me, is more about working closely with an athlete, regardless of level, than it is simply producing victors (or, as most multisport coaches seem to think, building a bu$ine$$). A coach's ego should be inferior to the athlete's performance, even if the two go hand in hand.
Interestingly, as coaches, we are in many ways in the business of putting ourselves out of business---a sort of planned pursuit of obsolescence. At the very least we should endeavor to minimize the contribution needed to assure our athletes' performance. The better we perform our responsibilities, the more likely the athlete can move forward without us. We should strive to prepare the athlete to handle the demands and pressures of competition on their own. The best of the elites eventually figure this out: that they can continue to figure things out for themselves.
Two heads may be better than one (and are certainly better than none), but once two heads have meshed into one (not a pretty sight, I realize), that single unit is---or should be---able to proceed without interruption. Nevertheless, I think it wise that all athletes seek to find a (valued) second opinion when possible. Further opinions may even be prudent, but a point should be reached where the athlete's judgment and knowledge must override all others, or the athlete may never accomplish what he or she is truly capable of.
Interestingly, as coaches, we are in many ways in the business of putting ourselves out of business---a sort of planned pursuit of obsolescence. At the very least we should endeavor to minimize the contribution needed to assure our athletes' performance. The better we perform our responsibilities, the more likely the athlete can move forward without us. We should strive to prepare the athlete to handle the demands and pressures of competition on their own. The best of the elites eventually figure this out: that they can continue to figure things out for themselves.
Two heads may be better than one (and are certainly better than none), but once two heads have meshed into one (not a pretty sight, I realize), that single unit is---or should be---able to proceed without interruption. Nevertheless, I think it wise that all athletes seek to find a (valued) second opinion when possible. Further opinions may even be prudent, but a point should be reached where the athlete's judgment and knowledge must override all others, or the athlete may never accomplish what he or she is truly capable of.
7 comments:
But even if an athlete is ideally prepared, isn't there something to be said for accountability, or, in other words, that athlete rolling out of bed at 5am to do their bike intervals because they know coach will be asking about them later?
Ben,
Above all else, and in order to truly succeed, an athlete has to hold him or herself accountable, regardless of whether a coach is there to facilitate that process. If an athlete cannot do that without another person involved, it is highly unlikely he or she is the type who can achieve their greatest success. That's not to say a coach isn't of benefit; just that the entire motion is set forth by the athlete. Accountability is nothing more than responsibility and, ultimately, responsibility lay directly upon the athletes' shoulders.
I will say, however, that a bullhorn and a bullwhip can help the coach maintain the athletes' responsibility.
-V
I love this idea. For sure, the coach's role is to help the athlete know him or herself. But I think there will always be a place for outside feedback. As aware as an athlete can be of his or her own body, it always helps to have someone on the outside looking on. It also helps to have someone to push you to do the extra set when you need to, or to tell you not to do it when you don't. I don't think it's true of all elite athletes that they can make that decision on their own, no matter how experienced they are. It's the nature of training: your brain is telling you no (or yes) and your body is saying yes (or no).
I like to put it this way: no one can do it alone, but only you can do it.
I LOVE that line JTL: "No one can do it alone, but only you can do it."
I'm sure I'll be sharing that one in some of daily pep talks to the crew. I think we see eye-to-eye on all this, as such a simple but poignant statement symbolizes my point precisely.
-V
Hi Chuckie,
I've been on your and Gordo's site for years and have used to "self coach" myself. Thank you for the great info you constantly put out there! I was wondering what your thoughts on the fast then far approach? (Endurance Nation). I'm doing my first Iroman Race next August and was wondering how long I would follow the Working Stiff plan you wrote before I start building up the long run/ride and doing race sim workouts? Also, I've read the Ironman Taper, but how would the average age grouper taper, can you please give me specifics? Thanks again for all of the great info! Billy
Hi Billy,
Thanks for the kind words. As per your questions, I'm not sure of the specifics that the Endurance Nation folks recommend but from the sounds of it they tout the "fast then far" approach. I use a similar approach for those who tend to be training time-limited (few of whom I guide, to be honest). There's really no other way when someone has a family and holds down a job and is forced to deal with winter's onslaught (i.e., crappy weather and limited sunlight). Really, very few age-group athletes can train long that time of year anyhow, so the decision is already somewhat set.
The issue is whether the body is ready for the "fast" stuff when it's introduced and can continually adapt to (and benefit from) it. It pays to be especially cautious in how such training is introduced, with perhaps more of the hard work done in the pool and indoors on the bike, with limited harder/more intense running. Of course, it depends on the individual and his or her background and existing fitness level.
As to when farther/longer training bouts or race-simulation should be introduced, I say whenever possible! Ours is an endurance sport and most age-groupers aren't limited by their raw speed so much as their endurance or their ability to maintain a higher percentage of their God-given speed. Their lack of efficiency/economy is what ends up hurting them; not their speed or their motor's top end. And longer bouts help with this more than shorter, faster workouts tend to. But again, it depends on the race being targeted and the individual and how he or she responds. Some of us are high-responders and can benefit more than those who aren't nearly as responsive to comparable loads. In the end though; training is primarily about specificity; if your race is long, you need to train as such. All the meanwhile, you'd need to look for clues to see how you're responding. You should be improving over enough time, and always so. Fast (more intense) training almost always has the athlete plateau sooner than does less intense stuff.
As for your last question, that's almost impossible to answer. I believe most age-groupers overdo their respective tapers and, as such, I generally avoid prescribing long tapers (i.e., 2-3 weeks) for anyone but those who've built tremendous training fatigue (and thus fitness) over a long period of time. As training loads increase over time, so too must the athlete's taper. Most age-groupers are physically capable of being fitter (due to their chosen lifestyle constraints) and they need to understand that their taper is designed to have them reach peak form at the right time given these constraints, and not just to rest up by reducing their training load. Tapering is about peaking, not solely about recovering from previous loads. Naturally, "life's stress" must also be accounted for, and that's why this is an especially tough topic.
-CV
Very true and well-communicated. If we as coaches do our jobs well, resourceful athletes should outgrow the "need" of us. As teachers, mentors, parents, pastors, we "guide them in the way they should go, and (hope)when they are grown, they'll not depart from it." That is the ideal and I totally respect your forthright admission to this fact. From that point forward, the coach-athlete relationship is more of a partnership. You have coached my son Josh and I know he's learned some valuable training lessons from you. I cannot overstate the value of a good teacher who takes the time to hone his/her skills and as you said, to know the individual athlete. You do that. That's huge! Kudos! Susan Kelly
Post a Comment