TargetTalk

robf wrote:
Direct instruction methods were still reckoned to be implemented to a much higher performance level than I anticipated, and it's reckoned by one european coach with a proven track record that he can take them within 98% of a perfect score if they follow what he says, within 2 years.

Rob what did he mean by this, taking a shooter to 98% of perfect score (588/600) within two years? If so that is pretty impressive considering there aren't all that many shooting 588 regularly in the world in AP.

Good points and yes that is all the stuff that is gone over is most coaching courses, and I've found the types of learning also change with the level of the athlete.

Richard H wrote:Chris Carmichael, one of Lance Armstrong's coaches (who he personal gives credit to) never raced at the pro-tour level.

Actually, Chris Carmichael was a member of the 1984 U.S. Olympic cycling team and raced the 1986 Tour de France with the 7-Eleven team, so he most definitely did compete at the highest level. Unlike Lance, however, he was a domestique and not a team leader. His experience as a supporting rider is partly why he's such a good coach, as he spent so much time watching what everybody else was doing (for good or bad). Everything else you say is spot on. :)

What confuses me is the difference between being an "instructor" and a "coach" and when you stop being one and morph into the other.

Jason

Richard H wrote:

robf wrote:
Rob what did he mean by this, taking a shooter to 98% of perfect score (588/600) within two years? If so that is pretty impressive considering there aren't all that many shooting 588 regularly in the world in AP.

Yes, that's what was said. Don't worry my jaw hit the floor pretty hard as well.

Mind you, it was said as a demonstration on the varying approaches.

This was in 10m AR.

robf wrote:

Richard H wrote:

robf wrote:
Rob what did he mean by this, taking a shooter to 98% of perfect score (588/600) within two years? If so that is pretty impressive considering there aren't all that many shooting 588 regularly in the world in AP.

Yes, that's what was said. Don't worry my jaw hit the floor pretty hard as well.

Mind you, it was said as a demonstration on the varying approaches.

This was in 10m AR.

Well at least with air rifle there are a lot more shooting 98% that won't even get you on the first page of the results ;)

2650 Plus wrote:First , I believe a coach can be .a valuable asset to the shooter ...

I would uprate the coach to '...the most valuable asset...'. The coach provides an ongoing resource that:
- is external to what the shooter thinks he is doing (as opposed to what the shooter is doing), what the shooter thinks he is seeing(as opposed to what the shooter is seeing),
- designs (and modifies) the training plan to suit the shooters needs
- encourages / cajoles / prods / coerces the shooter to follow the training plan
none of which the shooter can do objectively.

2650 Plus wrote:...if he has shot the scores the shooter is striving toward...

Being a coach who had his hand come off second best to a hydraulic press within days of making the state squad, and the trigger finger on the other hand never recovered from a much earlier encounter with a shaping machine in the workshop...

2650 Plus wrote:...He is not responsible for the shooters performance nor should he take credit for that performance...

but there is a quiet inner glow when the shooter performs well

Jason wrote:

Richard H wrote:Chris Carmichael, one of Lance Armstrong's coaches (who he personal gives credit to) never raced at the pro-tour level.

Actually, Chris Carmichael was a member of the 1984 U.S. Olympic cycling team and raced the 1986 Tour de France with the 7-Eleven team, so he most definitely did compete at the highest level.

What confuses me is the difference between being an "instructor" and a "coach" and when you stop being one and morph into the other.

Jason

Yep my mistake at least Bella wasn't a girl gymnast, was he? ;)

When should safety be taught? Shouldn't that occurr before handling firearms,and continue throughout a shooters career? The US Army requires strict adherence to safety standards, but the best and safest ranges I have ever been on were being run by the Lavaca county ,Texas 4 H coaches training junior shooters. The attention to detail was impecable . This county is mostly populated by German and Checkoslovocian emegrants and Its possible that they brought this skill with them from the European countries of orrigan.Ibelieve it is easier for the coach to maintain a safe range when he has just one or at most two shooters to monitor. When a larger number of shooters are on the range they should be moved to the line in pairs with only one firearm , One shooter is designated and the other is on line to watch for safety issues. This is very basic but absolutely necessary for the coach to be able to send all the shooters home at the end of the shooting day. Good Shooting Bill Horton

When working as a coach how do you arrive at selecting the method of coaching? I once was the designated coach with twenty shooters to train, plus I had to shoot the comps myself. In this circumstance I elected to only teach what I was doing. I won every match we fired in and the shooters often stacked up in the top five places.A problem arose that of the twenty shooters, five or six were able to shoot the way I did, five or six more were average and the remainder just didn't get it. I hope Ragnar Skanaker has better luck with the shooters he will be training If the coach is not shooting himself I believe he will hace a much greater latitude in his approach to each of his shooters and should taylor his coaching method to the needs of the shooter. Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:If the coach is not shooting himself I believe he will hace a much greater latitude in his approach to each of his shooters and should taylor his coaching method to the needs of the shooter.

IMHO a good coach cannot shoot in a match where his "students" are also shooting. He needs to be watching their performance.

I would guess that the top coaches (with top shooters) split their time 80% observation, 20% communication, maybe a bit more on the observation.

David Levene wrote:

2650 Plus wrote:If the coach is not shooting himself I believe he will hace a much greater latitude in his approach to each of his shooters and should taylor his coaching method to the needs of the shooter.

IMHO a good coach cannot shoot in a match where his "students" are also shooting. He needs to be watching their performance.

I would guess that the top coaches (with top shooters) split their time 80% observation, 20% communication, maybe a bit more on the observation.

I'd say so as well. There's so much observation involved. Especially if you're trying to spot the flyers that spoil the soup that only occur once every 10 shots.

If i'm shooting in a comp, there's little room for thought outside what I am doing. Ok in FT we shoot in pairs or threes, so there is some downtime off the point to observe your partner shooters, but i'd forget it in 10m/3p.

There's also the added problem that they might beat you :D

Agree, an actively shooting coach is most likely doing neither of the activities to there full potential.

Great topic.

Some observations. I've never seen a successful coach of any sport that hadn't been "in the shoes" of their athelete. Practical experience is critical.

I'm a fairly experienced Boy Scout leader. I train and lead a significant number of youth and adults. As anyone can tell you, the difference between youth and adults is tremendous, but it can be done successfully. I find coaching skills (less knowing shooting mechanics) to equate to about 90% of my Scouting experience. For those who know that program, I'm a chartered organization rep for three units - 250 Scouts and about 80 leaders - and also sit on our district committee. Yeah, and I instruct and coach too.

The person being coached will react differently to different coaches. One famed local coach worked with one young lady learning offhand for the first time, and "gave up" to rotate me through to work with her. She had some mechanical problems and needed to see some success to spur her on. Four changes and two 9-ring shots convinced her she could do it, and this talented young lady finished her 4-position Winchester/NRA Expert in two visits to the range. Chemistry is important.

Jason wrote:What confuses me is the difference between being an "instructor" and a "coach" and when you stop being one and morph into the other.

I'm an instructor and not a coach, at least in the shooting world. I can teach you safety and the mechanics of shooting a pistol but I'm not going to turn you into a world class shooter.

A coach goes beyond instruction. A good coach is a mentor. A good coach will help a person push himself (herself). A good coach can help a person find capabilities that they didn't know that they had.

An instructor tells you how to do something. Mechanics, principles and techniques. ie pick up gun, hold it like this, point it at that, look through this, do that.

A coach takes that person, and accompanies and guides them along a path to develop that knowledge and refine that into a skill, which can be furthered.
ie observe your position, work with you on that, get you to understand how the principles relate so you can do some of your own thinking as well.

Could a coach shoot while his coachee is shooting? Depends on your idea of a coach. If the coach has done his job, his work is over before the match starts.

The winningest college football coach, whose name I've forgotten, said that the never told his players what to do during a game because all of his work took place during practice.

I officiated high school basketball for years and far too many coaches thought that they were the 6th player on the court. They'd run up and down the sidelines, yelling instructions to the players. I always thought, "if you had done your job, they'd already know what to do in this situation."

Wiley-X wrote:Could a coach shoot while his coachee is shooting? Depends on your idea of a coach. If the coach has done his job, his work is over before the match starts.

Not only is his work certainly not over for that match, he should also be working towards the next match.

He should be observing how the shooter is performing and, if he thinks it will be beneficial, be prepared to ask for the shooter to be called from the firing point and offer advice/reassurance/etc. He should also be watching for any "discussions" between the shooter and range staff/Jury and be prepared to step in on his shooter's behalf. He should also be considering what action will be required to better prepare the shooter for the next match.

The difficulty comes when the coach has more than one shooter on a relay. He will not be able to give each shooter his 100% concentration.

(I have used "he" when referring to the coach, but this obviously also applies to "she". I've seen some very good women coaches over the years)

good shooting is not just about a good score... so if you just look at the score at the end of the match you have no idea of how the shooter achieved it. Was it down to good shooting or did the shooter just put in a good score?

If there's a flyer, what was that down to? Did the shooter know why it happened... if that's unknown and you're not around, the opportunity to examine it is lost.

I got a PB this week. Without you being there can you tell me if I shot well or not?

There could be a problem with the pressure of the event, the presence of the coach might mitigate that, or provide motivation, or focus, but the coach can also assess how the shooter is performing with pressure.

It's better if a coach is there. But that's not always possible.

I am learning more than I would have thought possible from the comments being posted. Much of the information I dont agree with but I am satisfied that some of it tells us what not to do, and that is valuable also. By the way, one of the shooters I mentioned as being successful shooting with only the technique I was using, plus the way he modified my technique to fit his needs was the high new shooter in the All Army championships, breaking 2600 with hard ball in both center fire and the 45 900 aggragated. That aint bad for a less than six months training prior to the comps. gOOD sHOOTING Bill Horton

Please read JackH's post attachment in Olympic pistol, "A Guide to Reverse Engineering your shot" toward the bottom of page four. I believe all Coaches should be thourly familure with every thing in this post. Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:First , I believe a coach can be .a valuable asset to the shooter and is most valuable if he has shot the scores the shooter is striving toward. This increases his credability when he makes a sugestion for a change in technique or motivation for the shooter. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Yeah right and we shouldnt trust a doctor who tells us how to treat our cancer unless the doctor can demonstrate he also had cancer.

A coach who must point to his own past scores to persuade or motivate an athlete or to try a different technique, has a huge problem which all the medals in the world wont fix

While a coach who prattles on about his own personal accomplishments may initially spark interest, that interest is fleeting and vaporizes when this “coach”:

1.Dismisses as “nonsense” tried and tested alternative approaches to training on the basis that he himself never needed them in his own meteoric rise to shooting fame

2. Fails to put aside what he needs as a coach in favor of giving the athlete the unique and individual attention needed by that particular shooter.

My concern with using a coach who rests on his laurels is that he is so married to his own way that the only other one he knows is the highway.

In the end, I would rather know who my coach has successfully COACHED rather than what scores he personally shot during his own career. If I am to depend on someone as a coach, I would be much more impressed by his accomplishments as a COACH than I would be from his incessant reminders of what a good shooter he is or was.

But then again, I would also trust a doctor who tells me I have a broken arm without asking if he ever had one or my optometrist who tell me I need glasses even though he doesnt.