Quote:
|
Originally Posted by geoffretired I am drawn back to Rgsphoto's idea that archers need different things from coaches at different stages in their archery. This is another key issue, I feel.
I ask the question here, " Do recent beginners need a high level coach?" |
Probably not Geoff, but why do we call them coaches at all - is their some stigma about calling a person and "Instructor" who is good at imparting general knowlege about technique and can replace clearly bad form with better form, based on the best and most up to date published information?But what is a coach? Why are some of the best sports coaches not necessarily goos sportsmen at all but damn good psychologists?
A coach needs to deal with the person first and the technique second - completely opposite to what is often recognised as good instruction. Why? Well not many people like asking for help - some are better than others and I admit I am bad at it. People usually try and sort out problems for themselves and only resort to help once all their internal wranglings have failed to produce the result. This means that quite possibly they have arrived at the right solution but failed to apply the right answer to the problem, thus discounting it. A coach has to break through those barriers before he can convince his student to adopt a better aproach.
So after nearly 3 years of being in archery could I instruct a beginner - probably yes, with a little training myself. Could I coach - Hmmmm, not at all sure. could I deal with an frustrated and often dismissive archer at the end of his tether, talk him down from the roof and gradually gain his confidence enough to help - tall order, yes?
Coaching needs a good skill base, but more importantly is about dealing with people - we often forget that.