Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Planes, Trains and Automobiles. I rolled on the floor laughing first time I saw this movie with John Candy and Steve Martin. Thats not what we are talking about though. Listening to Walter Norton give a great talk this weekend at a clinic in SoCal, he reminded of an analogy I like.

I'm going from Los Angeles to Chicago to coach a lifter in the Pan American Championships this week. I could get there by any of these three means. Each has some advantages and dis-advantages, but in the end, each could get me there.

The plane will get me there fastest without a doubt. Now I will probably pay more (although not recently with gas and cheap flights). I won't see much, will be relatively uncomfortable and confined to my 2' x 2 1/2' space. Cant chnage my mind once we start and doesn't work well if you are afraid of flying. Still its the fastest and most direct route.

The train is faster than car but significantly slower than the train. I can see a lot more scenery and have more freedom to move around. Since someone else is driving, I can read, relax, work or whatever I want to do. I can't however, change the route we our taking or have flexibility in the schedule once the journey is started.

Going by car will take longer and I will be driving. This means I can change the pace or the route whenever I want during the journey. I can see the scenery and detour if I please. Of course I have to do the driving, can be affected by weather more, and if there's a breakdown it's up to me to deal with it.

End of the day each of these very differnt methods will get me the final results I desire, getting to Chicago. Training methods are often the same. We have coaches in sports performance that argue ad-nauseum that there is only one method and they are the keeper of the secret (available for $19.99 on there new DVD).

There is nothing wrong with believing in your methodology. You had better. You also had better realize that there is more than one way to get to Chicago. It seems like too many belive that for their methods to work, all the others can't. Not true. There's more than one way to Chicago, they are just different and which is better depends on the circumstances.

Coaching: Art or Science?

What is performance coaching? Art or Science.

It's both, and that's the problem.

Some coaches are scientists. They test and measure and make calculations. They understand the the mechanics and mechanisms of human movement. They can design the optimal program based on their knowledge.

Other coaches are artists. They inspire and challenge and connect. They understand how to communicate with the athlete and tap into the athletes motivations and personality.

There are several problems caused by this seeming dichotomy of art and science:

1. Outsiders are confused. Which are we? Is it art or science? Because they are presented opposing views, or come from a bias for one or the others themselves, we often seem like charlatans. When they encounter a coach who is all science or all art and they don't match or the results are poor, the perception is negative.

2. As a profession, we are confused. Look at the conferences and seminars and you'll see it quickly. Some are all about the science, others have no science and all art. All science and you have academia with theories, but no ability to apply it in the real world. All art and you have some successes and many failures but never know why.

This is also where many coaches are turned off from the other view and the battle lines are drawn. The artist sitting listening to the scientist will hear a blowhard talking about theory and see nothing they can use. The scientist witnessing artists doesn't understand why the artist can't give them the exact formula or proof for what they do and they see a con-artist.

3. We don't recognize which aspect is needed. You may have the best science in the world, and the perfect program, but if you can't communicate it and get the athlete to buy in, it won't work. The real world isn't a lab and you can't control all the variables. You have to have the artistic skills to adapt to the athlete appropriately and make decisions based on the day to day. You have to be creative and at times follow your gut instinct.

On the flip side if you are the artist, you may get some great results because of your talent and instincts, but eventually you will run into trouble when you are working with the right canvas, When the athlete is different or has different needs and you don't have the scientific knowledge to help guide your direction. You need the science to build you art upon.


When you witness a truly great performance coach you find genius. Most have a bias toward one side or the other, but the great ones learn to develop both. The greatest coaching staffs have a blend of both. Leonard da Vinci may be the perfect example or artist/scientist. The epitome of a "renaissance man." When you can master both sides of the performance coin, then you are a master.

Can you be that good?

Keep An Open Mind

It's been a busy couple of weeks so haven't posted much, but a lot of thought going on. This past weekend I spoke at Robert Dos Remedios' Cougar Strength Clinic. I was pleased to speak with a line-up that included Alwynn Cosgrove, Chad Waterbury, Greg Vandermade and Valerie Waters.

Now the last person there didn't appeal to me because Valerie is one of the top Hollywood fitness trainers. It's just not my scene. I like things built on performance and reality.

The discussion over getting a "red carpet" look just didn't seem interesting. However, I try to keep an open mind. One of the things I preach to my staff all the time is that if someone is having success, there is something to learn from them. Why are they successful?

Well two of Valerie's key points for her success, work for sports coaches as well in many cases.

First, she talked about listening to clients and hearing what THEY want. LISTEN. Yes, this seems obvious, but many of us violate this regularly. It's not a question of what we think they need or what would be best, but what THEY want. In her case its about actresses telling her they don't want to be bulky and that they want "long lean muscles". She needs to listen to this and acknowledge it.

Coaches need to do the same. When the player comes in and says "I don't want to hurt my back squatting". Listen. You may think squats are the entire key to success, but you better spend time listening, and acknowledging this concern.

Her second rule was to speak the clients language. Its so true for sports. It doesn't matter if you are the best technical speed coach in the world if you can't get your athletes trust. Speaking their language helps to both get their trust and to communicate your points.

If you are going to work with athletes from a certain sport, learn the language. There's a time to speak technically and with the proper scientific jargon, but it doesn't always help get your message across to the athlete or sport coach.

It was a great reminder that you never know where you will learn something so keep your mind open.

Mechanics

Communication. Most coaches you ask will tell it is they are critical.

Many are also terrible at it.

One of the places this shows up is in the terms we use to describe sport and training. Don’t believe it. Go look at many arguments in sports performance or coaching forums online and you’ll see there is a lot of mis-use and disagreement about terms.

A recent series of forum posts on EliteTrack.com helped point out a common one in coaching speed. Coaches readily jump into discussions and arguments about mechanics, but often, are not talking about the same thing and can’t give the same definition of mechanics.

MECHANICS DEFINED
Mechanics (Greek Μηχανική) is the branch of physics concerned with the behaviour of physical bodies when subjected to forces or displacements, and the subsequent effect of the bodies on their environment.

me•chan•ics (m -k n ks) n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of physics that is concerned with the analysis of the action of forces on matter or material systems.

me•chan•ics
Pronunciation: \mi-ˈka-niks\ Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Date: 1612
1 : a branch of physical science that deals with energy and forces and their effect on bodies

One of the clear things from these definitions is the connections between forces and their effect on objects (in our case humans). It involves both the kinetics and the kinematics.

KINETICS and KINEMATICS
When a lot of coaches talk mechanics or technique, WHAT they are really focused on is kinematics. The positions and motions observable to their eyes. Its easy to see how this happens; after all, your eyes are the tool you always have with and use while coaching. Early on it was easy to start using still sequence photos to analyze “mechanics”, then film, and now access to video is instant and everywhere.

Don’t forget however, that there are forces acting that create the motion and motion that is creating forces. They are there, if you don't have a force plate with you. They go together and true “mechanics” involves both. If you are only thinking about one or the other, you’re only half coaching your athlete.