In preparation for a coaching clinic in March, I've recently begun reacquainting myself with the work of Jack Daniels. For those who don't know, Daniels is a well-known and respected running coach and physiologist. Even his detractors, such as Dr. Timothy Noakes, grant that while "...[Daniels] uses an unproven and perhaps dated model to explain the physiological reasons for his success...in time, science will catch up with [him] and provide a more correct physiological explanation as to why his methods, field-tested for more than three decades, produce the superior results his athletes have achieved" (Noakes, The Lore of Running, 4th Edition, 2001).
That said, it's not Daniels' physiological model that interests me, so much as his approach to coaching.
While established within the context of modern physiology, Daniels' approach seeks above all to apply scientifically-tested ideas to the particulars of individual cases. This is important he believes, because "Everyone has different physical and mental strengths and weaknesses, and each runner must be treated according to his or her own mix. Take the time to evaluate in detail the factors, past and present, that influence a training program" (Daniels, Daniels' Running Formula, 2nd Edition, 2005). For Daniels', it's not a matter of devising a secret training formula (the title of his book aside) so much as the prudent application of knowledge according to the circumstances and abilities of individual runners.
Accordingly, we might then imagine Daniels' coaching approach as an inquiry into the basic needs of individuals, and how those needs can be met given circumstances. "We're all individuals," says Daniels, "and must train with this in mind to achieve success...Know your body, identify your strengths and weaknesses, establish priorities, and try to learn more about why you do what you do and why you might consider trying something new in your approach" (Daniels 6-7).
Too often one hears of coaches who impose a system upon their athletes without regard to the ability or needs of those athletes. In many cases, this leads to stunted development and/or injury, which usually precludes an athlete from ever maximizing their potential. This is unfortunate, because there are no doubt many talented individuals who think they suck at athletics simply because they're always getting injured or running poorly in the big races. And we're not speaking merely of would-be champions, but people of all shapes and ability who might have found in running a fulfilling, life-long appreciation of exercise and good health. The needs of these athletes, largely anonymous, are at least as important as those who make a name for themselves, however briefly, in the sport.
At its base then, the Daniels' approach relies on a close understanding between athlete and coach. Coaches and athletes may well benefit if they spend time evaluating what the athlete can do, what they'd like to be able to do, and the kinds of steps that may lead to realizing those goals in the near, medium, and long term. Flexibility, that is, a willingness to alter those steps due to circumstances, would seem essential. Understanding how and why an approach is working (or not working) seems equally so. At the end of the day, Daniels' coaching method therefore seems less a prescription for creating champions so much as a way of approaching unique cases of potential-maximizing. This approach may have great value.
Happy Friday, friends :)
No comments:
Post a Comment