Coaching higher level athletes

One of my coaches a couple of weeks ago commented on the fact that when our program director finds coaches for the athletes at our club, that he needs to find coaches that "ski better" than the athletes themselves.  I reflected on what he said and I am not sure that I completely agree.  After all, this isn't the situation you find at the world cup level.  Are the coaches that coach the world cup athlete's better skiers than the athletes themselves?  I think that there is a possibility that some day a coach might end up having to coach an athlete, who could possibly be a better skier than the coach themselves.  Is this a reason for the coach to be nervous of being that athlete's coach?  In my opinion the answer to this question is "no." I think that a coach can still have a lot to offer an athlete even if they are a "better skier" or more "athletically talented" than their coach.  If a coach is put into the situation where they are requested to coach an athlete who is at such a "high level," then I think the coach should look at rising to the challenge of coaching this type of athlete.  Of course it will be a challenge for this coach and there are a number of things which will facilitate this process.  Here are just some of the things for a coach to consider if they are coaching a high level athlete:

• the athlete needs to believe that the coach has something to offer them.
• the coach must be confident that they have something to offer the athlete
• the coach and athlete must have a good relationship.
• the coach and athlete must be able to see things from each others' perspectives.
• the coach must use the athlete's knowledge and experience as a benchmark from which to teach the athlete
• the coach must not feel threatened by the athlete's athletic abilities and success.
• the athlete must respect the coach's knowledge and be open to feedback.
• the learning process must be dynamic for both the coach and athlete.

At my ski club there is a core group of master's racers and coaches who have been with the club for a number of years.  In this group there are a number of different opinions on this subject.  For example, some of the higher level athletes feel that the coaches of our ski club have nothing to offer them, and therefore they do not commit to training.  Some on the other hand feel that the coaches do have something to offer and are committed to training, however their training routines are different.  Some will show up for gate training only, and some will show up for gate training as well as technical training.  I will show up for both gate training as well as technical training, including all of what our ski club has to offer.  This is because  I believe that every learning experience has something to offer, regardless of the athlete's level.   And this is true for both the athlete and the coach.  Gate training, can give an athlete feedback just through the experience of skiing through a course.  It doesn't doesn't really matter whether the coach is a "better skier" than me or not.  In fact a lot of the times I just use my coach more as a "pair of eyes" to help me indentify the elements of my skiing that might need improvement.  Yes, sometimes they don't give me an appropriate correction which matches the detection.  In fact it is very rare that the correct is appropriate, but I figure it is more up to me to figure out how to make the correction, based on my own knowlegdge and experience.  I do need the coaches input though, because I am not able to "watch myself" ski through the course.  The coach also learns from watching their athletes ski through their courses.  It is interesting for the coach to watch higher level athletes modify their technique as the course set and conditions change.

I also think it is important for an athlete to show up for technical training.  In my case I have a good technical coach that really understands the foundational technical elements of skiing.  Even though I am a high level athlete,  I still feel that I need what this coach has to offer me.  I am not saying that I am a "better skier" than my coach, only that it doesn't really matter which one of us is a better skier.  For example, in alpine ski racing you often have to modify your technique in order to ski different types of courses.  I need someone who understands the technical elements of skiing in order to ask how to modify my technique to match the different course sets.  Alpine ski racing is almost a different sport than freeskiing, even though the technical building blocks are the same.  I also would like to be able to understand the technical elements in detail, in case some day I have to teach someone else how to rise to my level and experience in alpine ski racing.  For this reason, I need a coach who can explain these technical elements to me in a way that I would be able to explain it to someone else.  So what does all this mean for a coach who is coaching a high level athlete?  If you have an athlete who is either a "better skier" or who could potentially be a "better skier" than you, do not be afraid to rise to the challenge of being their coach.  Figure out what you have to offer them.  You might have to teach them how to be an active learner if they are a passive learner.  A couple of my earlier posts explains the difference between active and passive learning and how to manage them.  A higher level athlete can be fun to coach because you can experiment with different teaching strategies to find which ones work:  higher level athletes will probably be able to do what you ask them, so it is easy experiment with different technical corrections.  And don't forget that higher level athletes still need a coach, coaching them can be a rewarding experience because you will really be able to push the limits of your teaching skills.  This is something that is not possible with lower level athletes.  There is the potential to make incredible leaps and bounds in your ability to teach, if you stick with the coaching relationship you have with your higher level athlete.

Working with the limiting factor

Coaching adults vs. coaching young children probably require a slightly different approach.  When working with children, it is probably common to focus on the fundamentals of skiing rather than speed and tactical skills.  If a child develops good skiing fundamentals at a young age, it will probably set them up for success later on, so that learning to develop speed and good tactics will become much easier.  For adults or masters, the approach might be slightly different, in this case you might want to focus on the factors that are limiting their speed in gates.  The focus might be more on tactics and speed development as opposed to "technical or fundamental skiing."  This doesn't mean that you don't focus on technical skiing at all, it just means that you might give them a couple of technical pointers in the beginning of the season and work mostly on tactics and speed development once they get in gates.  Most adult racers prefer to spend most of their training time in gates because they feel they get a better return for their investment on race day.  For this reason it might be better to focus the tactical issues that may be limiting their speed in gates.  Here are some examples of what is meant by this approach.  Let's say you are working with an athlete, a 65 year old woman.  It is probably correct in assuming that she might have issues with strength and she may have a certain "comfort zone" with respect to how fast she would like to ski.  Upon watching her ski, you notice that she goes directly at the gate and then checks her speed by skidding sideways past the gate to slow down.  This speed check at the gate not only "dumps a lot of speed" but also makes it difficult for her to set up for the next turn.  A good focus for her would be to ski a rounder line where she makes a round turn between the gates with a lot of methodical pivoting, finishing her turn just as she goes by the gate.  This will keep her speed more consistant and make it easier for her to set up each turn as she descends through the course.  Now let's look at a second example.  Let's say a 30 year old woman.  This woman may be a bit stronger and able to hold a tighter arc, however she may also have a limited "comfort zone" with respect to carrying speed.  Upon watching her ski, you notice she carves the beginning of her turn and goes directly at the gate, but then to check her speed she will jamm on her edges just after the gate to slow down.    For this skier you might want to teach her to make a rounder line between gates with a bit of pivoting at the beginning of the turn.  This will allow her to travel at a speed at which she is comfortable enough to carve a cleaner line in phase three.  If she can do this she will finish her turn at the gate and easily be able to set up for the next turn.   The goal for any masters racer is to learn to maintain a consistant speed through a course.  This speed should be the maximum speed of their "comfort zone" and become their "race speed"  The focus on tactics will help the adult racer experience more success on race day.  Then when you have a chance to free ski with your athletes, work on their technical skills, keeping in mind how it will link with their tactics once inside the gates.

Quoting the latest technical theory. Is it helpful?

 Quoting the latest technical theory probably isn't all that significant, unless you are in a room full of other coaches.  Your athletes are only concerned with the following:  being faster with better racing times, and improving their skiing from a technical and efficient point of view.  If you are one of those coaches who stands at the top of your training course, telling every racer to "move forward and start your turn early," then you aren't really doing your athletes much good.  First of all, in a random sample of alpine ski racers, there is a good chance that some skiers are turning too early, some are turning late and some are turning just fine.  So telling everyone to turn early is mostly a waste of your "good voice."  It probably only helps some of the skiers anyways.  A better approach to helping your athletes with their line, is to ask them where they feel they are losing speed and where they feel they are able to gain speed.  Also, it is important to ask them how it feels when they ski through the course.  For example, are the gates coming too fast?  Or or they coming too slow.  This gives insight into what could be going on with their line.  Sometimes, athletes need to work on speed management skills, so that they can manage a more efficient line.  It is also important to ask them what they think of how it went.  For example, to one skier, the gates coming at them more slowly could mean they have improved their timing, line and speed management skills.  To another skier, this could mean that they are skiing on a slow line, and they need to pick up to a more direct, faster line.  One of the most important things a coach can realize is that although it is important to be up to date, with the lastest technical knowledge, it has little meaning to your athletes because alpine ski racing is not a "one size fits all" sport.  Your athletes will find success, if you as their coach work with them as individual's and not consider them to be carbon "cut outs" of the lastest "alpine ski racing god."

"Over coaching,"

You can "over-coach" an athlete.  Athletes don't need constant feedback from a coach unless they "true" beginners in the sport.  Skiing is a feeling, and being good at ski racing takes experience.  Many times, just setting up gates and allowing your athletes to just run the course, will provide them with enough feedback if they have racing experience.  Be conscious of providing too much feedback.  One unsolicited technical pointer a training session should be enough.  Get used to asking questions such as "what are you working on this run?" or "how did that run go?"  "what did that run feel like?"  "did you do anything differently than last time?"  It is important to remember that from the athlete's perspective, skiing is a feeling.  An experienced athlete can feel where they lose speed and where they gain speed.  They also can feel how the force of gravity interacts with the body, and how their body reacts to the forces as they descend down the hill.  They may need a little more direction when it comes to line choices, however when it comes to technical aspects of an athlete's skiing, it is difficult to make adjustments without knowing exactly how it feels for that skier to ski through a course.  Here is an example of what I mean, observe the following video:

If you watch closely you can see that Grandi switches edges so quickly that he doesn't find the platform before he moves from turn to turn.  It is easiest to see when his skiis are slightly airborne.  The problem with not finding the platform first is that it is difficult to transfer all the energy from one turn to the next.  Now the truth is that in SL, you really don't need to do this because of the rapid turning nature of SL courses.  There is a lot of steering used in SL and it is very easy to get a lot of impulse from the skis.  The impulse will help transfer the energy from turn to turn so you don't necessarily have to transfer all the energy in order to make a fast and efficient turn.  As Grandi's coach, you could tell him to be more patient and find the platform first before he switches edges, but is it all that necessary?   From Grandi's perspective, how does it feel to ski in an SL course?  Does he need the extra energy created from finding a platform first?  He might find that gets enough energy transferred from turn to turn already.  If the coach emphasizes this unnecessarily, it would be "over-coaching."  Another example can be observed in the photo below:

From the observer's perspective the skier in the photo above appears to be skiing in the "backseat."  As their coach you might be tempted to try to get that skier to move a little farther forward so they feel more pressure on the front of the skis.  This photo was actually a screen shot taken from world cup SL footage.  I don't know who the athlete is, but if they are in the backseat, it works well for them.  If you saw the rest of the footage, you probably would agree that this skier doesn't have issues with their stance.  It would be like trying to correct Bode Miller's interesting approach to stance.  It may not be all that necessary and could be "over-coaching."

How do you know when you are over-coaching your athletes?  First thing I would consider is not giving unsolicited feedback, especially to experienced athletes.  Get used to asking them how it went from their perspective.  For example if you have an athlete who flies down an SL course in the backseat, but still makes all the gates.  Ask them how it felt.  They might say:  "great!" and in that case you might have the next Bode Miller on your hands.  However if they say:  "it felt awful, it felt like I was barely hanging on to each turn." then try a different approach and ask them::  "why do you think it felt that way?"  Look for information from them, that could give you insight on how to help them make the skiing feel more efficient.  Stance is a tricky issue, where and how people feel balanced is personal.  What works for one skier will not work for another, because people have different body types.  If you work from the athlete's perspective and coach them based on feedback you receive from them, you will never risk over-coaching.

The qualities of a good coach

To determine the qualities of a good coach, all you have to do is reflect back on all of the coaches you have had over the years, and think about what it was that made them a good coach.  I have been involved in alpine ski racing for about 10 years, and in that time I have probably had about 40 coaches.  Some of them I have only had as a coach for as little as half a day.  And some of them I have had for years.  Here is my inventory about their qualities or coaching that has made them memorable and in some way has helped contribute to my success:

Coaching techniques:

• fostered the "self coaching" method.
• explain things in detail.
• described what it should feel like.
• gave one specific piece of feedback with a simple correction
• gave feedback once in awhile
• set courses that matched racing conditions
• explained how to modify line to match course set.
• explained how they themselves ski faster, not just quoted the lastest ski terminology.
• connected exercises with correct skiing technique.
• had an open approach and was willing to work with their athletes to strengthen their understanding.
• had a flexible agenda
• had a plan and provided a summary of their session with homework.
• worked well as a team with other coaches.
• upgrades their technical knowledge
• appreciates the technical as well as the tactical elements of racing.
• has a racing background and draws upon that background to explain things to athletes.
• trys to find success for all their athletes, using a realistic approach to improvement.
• pushes athletes out of their comfort zone.
• helps athletes to make their own connections.
• encourages active learning, but can also manage passive learning as well.

Personality traits:

• really cares about their students and their success
• had a sense of humour.
• could accept feedback "negative or positive"
• takes things in stride
• enjoys coaching
• works hard
• is punctual and dedicated
• answers questions to the best of their ability
• tells it like it is without being too negative.
• is organized
• social and works well with other people.
• is aware and is sensitive to athlete's emotional and intellectual needs.

It is true that coaches can't always be perfect, but the more good qualities a coach has, the higher the chance that their athletes will find their own personal success.  Hopefully there are other points I have missed that can also be added to the list.

How do you train for good coaching?

One of our race directors at our club expressed his frustration to me, about finding coaches who meet the needs of the master's racers at the club.  I completely empathized with him.  Unfortunately a lot of masters racers are type three athletes; those that lack the natural ability but have motivation to succeed.  Any masters racers falling under the type one or type two category, often don't complain or just don't even bother with coaching.  Their natural talent often takes them where they want to go, and so they have little need for coaching.  I am a type three athlete, so my success depends very much on what coaching has to offer me.  In recent years I have learned to become "less dependent" on my coaches and have become more self directed.  I now use my coaches more as a "tool" in my learning process.  It is my personal opinion, that once an athlete has made this kind of transformation, success becomes much more attainable.  I am now a very active participant in my learning process, as opposed to when I first started racing.  What does this mean?  If you followed me for a day's training, and watched how I assimilated information and turned it into a learning experience, it would become more clear.  Here of some examples of the things I do.  Each time I go out, I have a focus.  I record information, I ask a lot of questions, not only to my coaches but also other athletes.  And at the end of the day, I make notes.  The best way I can describe it, is like I am assembling a big puzzle, each day putting more pieces together and sometimes rearranging pieces if I have put them in the wrong places.  I am not allowing someone else to assemble the puzzle for me, I am doing it myself.  That is the difference between active and passive learning.

So back to the original question, how do you train a coach to teach an athlete to do that.  Answer:  it is very difficult.  You see, passive learning is easier for the athlete but difficult for the athlete's coach.  The puzzle belongs to the athlete and therefore the coach has difficulty assembling the puzzle for them.  The pieces of that puzzle are stored in the athlete's mind, so it is very difficult for the coach to assemble the pieces because the athlete's mind is like a black box to the coach.  From the athlete's perspective, it is much easier for the them if the coach just tells them how to assemble the pieces.  An athlete who is learning passively, is the athlete that skis down a training course every run, waiting for the coach to tell them "what they did wrong" and how to "fix it."  If a coach wants to transform passive learners into active learners, then they must somehow convince the passive learners that active learning is more successful, even though it is more difficult.  A passive learner must first of all become aware of what the puzzle pieces are, inside their own mind.  Then they must learn how to make connections between the puzzle pieces.  Ex. how they are categorized, how they are related, how they interact and fit together.  The coach ends up asking the athlete a lot of questions.  The coach might also have to give the athlete insight as to how they themselves build their own puzzle.  An athlete can learn how to assemble their own puzzle by learning how the coach assembles theirs.  Sometimes having an active learner in your class with a bunch of passive learners can also be helpful. 

It is easier for a coach who is an active learner themselves to teach athlete's how to become active learners.  However a coach that has learned passively can learn to teach their athlete's how to be active learners.  It is considered an art form to know when to provide answers for your athlete and when not to, allowing them to discover things for themselves.  The process of guided learning is a challenge for any coach to master.  I had a coach once who was a master at this process.

What makes a good coach?

Jack Daniels in his book, "the Jack Daniels Running Formula" states that he has coached four types of athletes.  He describes them as follows:

Type One:  Has natural talent and high motivation.
Type Two:  Has natural talent and low motivation.
Type Three:  Has little natural talent and high motivation.
Type Four:  Has little natural talent and low motivation.

In his experience, type one becomes the athlete most successful.  He finds that the type two athlete can be frustrating to coach, and it is possible to sometimes covert them into a type one athlete.  Many coaches hold out for this experience, because they know this athlete has "the potential" to succeed.  Then there is the type three athlete.  These athletes don't frustrate the coach as much as they frustrate themselves.  If you are an experienced coach, you are familiar with this type of athlete.  They try and try, but are never the top athlete.  They often overtrain and frequently become injured.  The type four athlete, often drops out of the sport, regardless of the coaches best efforts to help them succeed.  A lot can be learned from Daniel's categorization of his athletes.  For example, if coaching a type one athlete, success is inevitable.  So much to the point of where the athlete rises above others easily with very little effort.  After all, natural talent can just take them to the top if there are few others with the same natural ability around to challenge them.  A type three athlete however has a different problem.  A type three athlete lacks the natural ability, so in order for them to get to the top, they have to find ways to compensate for their lack of natural ability.  This means training more, working harder, training smarter, and squeezing everything possible out of their coaches.  If you compare the road to success with climbing a mountain, it is easy to see that the type one athlete will most likely get their first.  Who will arrive next, maybe a race between a type two and a type three athlete.  The type two athlete will have the natural talent and the type three athlete will have the motivation.  Motivation is much easier to acquire than natural talent, so based on logistics, the type two athlete should arrive next.  If you are the coach of these athletes, then you should take credit for helping the type two athlete find the motivation to be successful.  And in the case of where second place goes to the type three athlete, then you should consider yourself "coach of the year" because you have helped the type three athlete compensate for their lack of natural talent, which is a very challenging task.  If you sat down and interviewed Jack Daniels about his opinion on the future of these athletes, he will tell you that type one athletes should become professionals.  Type two athletes should become "masters" athletes.  Type three athletes should become coaches, and type four athletes should just participate in the sport for the "health and well being" benefits.

So back to the original question, what makes a good coach?  There is a saying:  "the best athletes don't always make the best coaches."  Why is that?  If the road to success is an easy one, you might end up getting to the top, without actually knowing how you got there.  If you don't know how you got there, how are you going to explain it to other people.