Coaching Part 1

So one of the big problems with coaching is there is a lot of imbreeding (metaphorically speaking) "I had to do this so now you do." I am no different, you guys do alot of workouts that I had to do in college at CMC (500 bds, in&out 200s (old style, not the kind where we actually run to in&out), 50 sec repeats, hammerstrides) Those all came from Claremont. My feeling was we won 4 conference titles in my 4 years there (they are going for 19 straight conference titles next spring) it should be good enough for you. While studying other coaching styles in track I have discovered that at CMC we took alot of our workouts from Jim Bush (coach at UCLA for many years). SO at LO we are doing similar workouts to UCLA in the 70's and 80s.

So why is this a problem?

Well most track coaches look to other track programs for ideas and change but say I talk to someone who follows Bud Winter's (SJSU head coach during speed city) approach that seems like a good idea except Jim Bush was influenced by Bud Winter. WHen you start to study track you realize there is so much imbreeeding of ideas that horrible ideas are reinforced. I have completely stopped looking at track people for references, I no longer ask my old college coach for training advise, I don't read books by track coaches period, and I don't ask other coaches what they do. I cut track off about 2 years ago. Every book or resourse I use is from people outside the sport. I read what athletic trainers are saying (they say static stretching hurts perfromance when done before expolsive activities) so we cut it out of our program. Mark on the other hand is training at West Valley college and they still static stretch. Why? because Bud Winter used to have his athletes do it. His coaches blindly follow what Bud Winter did, the other coaches they run into reinforce it because they were influence by someone who was influenced by Bud Winter too. At the end of the day it seems like 'hey 1000s of coaches are doing this it must be right', turns out 1 person actually decided to do it, everyone else just followed.

Now I read blogs by strength coaches. Books by psychologists. I find as much info as I can and hope there isn't a single mention of track in it. That leaves it up to me to interpret how it fits or doesn't fit into our program. I also like reading things totally not related to sports and find connections, Seth Godin has a great blog about Marketing that I have found with alot of parallels to track. (I even bought his book "The dip" which has no sports mention whatsoever but felt to me like he was talking precisely about track). Malcolm Gladwell's books are awesome for athletes none are about sports.

If you are wondering why is this important? My response is look at the results of the 84 olympics in LA and 08 Olympics in Beijing besides Bolt is their much of a difference? Our sport is stagnating, why because coaches are still doing the exact same things they did in the 60's today. We need some fresh DNA in the track gene pool, way to much imbreeding.

Here is a quote from Seth Godins blog today: "One study found that when confronted with a patient with back pain, surgeons prescribed surgery, physical therapists thought that therapy was indicated and yes, acupuncturists were sure needles were the answer. Across the entire universe of patients, the single largest indicator of treatment wasn't symptoms or patient background, it was the background of the doctor." In our sport almost all the doctors have the same background. How can we advance?