The Coach,for good or bad

[2650 Plus]

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. And I believe he is an asset like more ammo or a good gunsmith. He is not responsible for the shooters performance nor should he take credit for that performance. More to come. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[David Levene]

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.

But if he is a lousy coach then that credibility soon disappears.

Having been a good shooter does not necessarily make you a good coach, nor is it a pre-requisite.

Shooting is just like any other sport; good coaching is a great advantage in maximising on potential. That does not meen however that a good coach will be able to help all shooters to be, for example, 580+ Air Pistol shooters. Not all shooters have that potential.

[RobStubbs]

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. <snip> Bill Horton

I tend to follow David's line of thought, and here's why;

A coach starting out on the coaching path needs to earn respect and the shooters trust. Initially it helps if he (she) is or was a very good shot - that respect is started already. But very shortly afterwards, it's their coaching skills that do the talking. As David mentions you can very easily be a great shot but a rubbish coach (educator), and vice versa.

Is he responsible for their performance ? No not directly but he's responsible for guiding them towards it. The coaches 'job' is after all to get the best out of the shooter to their maximum potential.

Rob.

[Spencer]

This could be an interesting thread!

[Barney]

I agree, might be some heated debate coming!!!

[BPBrinson]

I disagree, Bill, and let me give you some examples. The US National Pistol Coach has never shot pistol competitively, however he is a great coach despite what many have said in the past, including me, however after spending time with him, I have changed my tune. One of the best coaches I know and is a familiar name in the shooting world, has never been a "great shot", I have never known him to shoot over 550 AP. He has a large group of young people that have moved to the top of rifle, pistol and archery. He coaches the readers of USA Shooting News every month! I have coached pistol for about 5 years but have had coaching experience in other sports, but only coached rifle for the last 1 1/2 years, but with good results. I have two parents that have never fired a shot in competition that are turning out to be GREAT coaches. Bill, I suggest, that you think out very carefully what you post, you ARE MISLEADING some beginning shooters into thinking they have nothing to learn from a majority of coaches out there. Your archaic mentality, if taken to heart by someone that wants to progress and does not have a coach available or limited coaching, may just give up and not get involved. Of course, a good coach NEVER takes responsibility for a shooters performance. "The teacher and the taught create the teaching." I have learned the most from some of my most difficult students. It is a new world from the one you came up in and I think it is better. Bill, on this, you are SO wrong! Sorry, Bill, I have always considered you somewhat of a troll.

Brooks
teamshootingstars.org

[Guest]

Wow, you're going to start this debate again? It HAS been slow at TT lately, this may get things going ...

[jackh]

What kind of coach are we talking about? The professional in the business of coaching, or the weekend coach that helps me raise my potential.

Are we in the mode of development to learn to shoot, or the mode to learn to compete?

[David Levene]

Are we in the mode of development to learn to shoot, or the mode to learn to compete?

An extremely good question Jack.

Should we be looking at 2 distinct ability sets, the first being an "instructor" and the second being a "coach" (or some other titles).

Even top level coaches (in the traditional sense of the word) will have the different ability sets in varying degrees. My own coach (sadly deceased) for very good on the shooting skills, but superlative on the competition skills (bother shooter and coach based).

[Richard H]

A coach that works for one athlete may not work for another and vice versa.

Especially when you get to a high level athlete it is a very personal relationship different athlete need different things and different coaches have varying abilities to provide those things that athletes may require.

[jackh]

A coach that can turn a goony bird into an Expert is not always the coach that can turn the Expert into a Champion

[2650 Plus]

I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone, especially those who unselfishly devote time to helping shooters excell in our sport. Now for an opinion. I believe that the potential coach and potential shooter should, early on in their relationship come to a clear understanding of purpose and goals of each. These may be completely incompatable and justify each goiung their own way. I sincerly hope this is not the case and the two can find a way to join forces and work toward a common goal. Next is the task of informing the shooter as to the basics of marksmanship in the discipline chosen. I believe this to be a never ending task and one that must be repeated over and over as the relationship matures. More to come Good Shooting Bill Horton

[JamesH]

A good coach can be great, if they have acheived greatness in their shooting that gives them additional credibility.

There are also a good number of 'coaches' who don't really know how to shoot or coach and horribly confuse new shooters.

[BPBrinson]

..

[Ed-WI]

I'll open my mouth so someone can stick my foot into it if they wish, LOL. Mostly people don't learn the same or interpret words the same. Coach to me means support & only constructive criticism. Best if no criticism is percieved by shooter. Most people have the ability to be very good shooters & a few really great. With kids just keep interest up and encourage them to accept the challenge & point them in the direction. It's up to them to make the journey. I hope all my shooters quickly pass my ability to help them & pass the skill set on to others. Then I have done my job. My personal skill is irrelevant as long as I help move them forward & recognize when to pull in a better coach.

[robf]

Agreed with comments from David and Rob. At face value, a coaches shooting performance, history and experience may install confidence in the student when they are exploring unfamiliar ground. Beyond that, there's a hell of a lot more to it.

And I also subscribe to the theory, a good shot is not always a good coach, and a good coach does not have to prove themselves to be a better shot to coach someone. A simple example of this is perhaps a physical disability that prevents them doing so.

It's the coaching process that will solidify the relationship, and the methods and tools used should also generate a good feedback cycle between coach and shooter...and it's important to remember that one coach might not have all the answers... a coach might seek out another coach to explore areas that they themselves are unfamiliar with. The chain of influence is also something to establish and respect, and this also needs to be objectively assessed to make sure it's of benefit.

The relationship and development of that relationship, and the shooter's performance are extremely wide ranging.

To that end, i'm working with a shooter who far exceeds my own performance, who's experience exceeds mine, it's not my native discipline (or the one I do match or exceed his performance and experience in), yet it seems to be proving of value. That's hopefully because i'm using my coaching tools to help, rather than my shooting skills.

It's an aspect of coaching/instruction, but it's not the be all and end all, which is why coaching qualification courses are run over several days of tuition rather than just running your finger down a list of scores and picking someone :)

Remember there's only 4 principles of a good shoot. The ability of knowing them and teaching them is not always matched by the ability to do them for a variety of reasons.

[Richard H]

It puzzles me why some in the shooting sports seem to feel shooting is different than every other sport.

Here are a couple coaching examples, Béla Károlyi probably the best female gymnast coach ever, I don't think he was ever a female gymnast. Chris Carmichael, one of Lance Armstrong's coaches (who he personal gives credit to) never raced at the pro-tour level. There are football coaches, baseball coaches, hockey coaches, athletics coaches, ect. that coach athletes at the top level of their respective sports yet never competed at the top levels themselves. Yes there are coaches were great athletes and there are coaches that were mediocre athletes.

It seems that many (please read not all) shooters have little to no exposure to any sports outside of shooting, which is a shame because many great things can be brought from outside and applied to shooting, from conditioning, mental training and planning.

If a coach's only job was to demonstrate to an athlete, then it would be of great importance that the coach be a great at that skill themselves. Some coaches place great importance on the demonstration part because that is what they know how to do. It doesn't require them to learn anything or challenge themselves as a coach to learn anything new. It's the "what worked for me will work for you and will always work for everyone". It may work, or it may work to only a certain level. Some coaches have different philosophies, its up to the athlete to choose what works best for them, because all athletes learn differently.

[isuguncoach]

Another point of "interest" is the level of shooter being coached. Work with a beginning shooter in any discipline is vastly different than coaching an advanced or elite shooter. With some of the opinions expressed here, should the shooter have different coaches at each level.

Or should a coach know the sport well enough to start a shooter, and help them progress thru the different levels with the shooter motivation and devotion to the effort required to advance upward in levels of performance. Is the good coach a technician or a motivator?

[David Levene]

....should the shooter have different coaches at each level.

IMHO the answer is yes. I was lucky enough to have a club instructor who took me from "this is a pistol" to county level, another coach who took me through regional squad level and another coach who took over once I reached national squad level.

Is the good coach a technician or a motivator?

That obviously depends on the level of the shooter being coached and his/her potential.

In my case I would guess that the split was:-

Club Instructor - 100% technical (motivation at the pure novice stage has to be from within).
Regional Coach - 70% technical, 30% mental/motivation
National Coach - 20% technical, 80% mental/motivation

Just as a bit of background and explain the difference in levels, this was under a system where you had to shoot 3 x 560 Standard Pistol or 3 x 575 Centre Fire (pre '89 targets) in qualifying matches in the year, before even being invited to the National Squad trials. You then had to compete with existing members for the 6 squad places in each event.

[robf]

If a coach's only job was to demonstrate to an athlete, then it would be of great importance that the coach be a great at that skill themselves. Some coaches place great importance on the demonstration part because that is what they know how to do. It doesn't require them to learn anything or challenge themselves as a coach to learn anything new. It's the "what worked for me will work for you and will always work for everyone". It may work, or it may work to only a certain level. Some coaches have different philosophies, its up to the athlete to choose what works best for them, because all athletes learn differently.

This was something we covered on our coaches course, the different methods of coaching, and the various levels at which you might change.

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.

That said, in my limited ability and often with shooters not at those heights, I find a mix between direct instruction and facilitative learning, and a slight amount experimental learning gives good results (but it's all about the shooter and assessing how they learn as well). For many I leave off the experimental aspect, because they're not ready for it.