How much coaching is needed

[Amyers]

I think my proposal(s) are confusing everyone.

I was just saying that if you want to make the Bronze, Silver, Gold certifications more important and relevant....there needs to be changes and I proposed some changes. Everyone seems to hate the idea of requiring anything (education, skill, money, knowledge) to gain a coaching certification...which is FINE...but then you still have the problem that the certification system is meaningless and there's no way to know a "good coach" from a "bad coach" other than random opinion. It also is a system that doesn't encourage coaches to move up the chain because as long as you got the meaningless bronze certification you can simply say, "Oh well...silver and gold aren't worth much and are too expensive anyways."

As a quick defense of what I was proposing:
1) I've been coached by more people at more levels than what, 98% of this site? So...I've probably paid for and experienced MORE coaching in the last 2 years from a greater pool of coaches than anyone else on the site. I even attended the youth coaching seminar put on by the USBC.
2) Coaching is like teaching. You can have all the skill in the world...but if you can't teach...if you don't have the right "bedside manner"...you'll be ineffective. SO...shouldn't there be some type of requirement that coaches learn to "teach"?
3) You can be the best teacher in the entire country...but if you don't know how to bowl and aren't good at it...then your skill level comes into question and your students are going to be less likely to listen to you. Success MEANS something. There are things you learn over decades of perfecting a craft and through the trials and tribulations of actually competing at a high level that MEAN something.

And remember (I read this somewhere last year), the biggest reason a bowler stops listening to a coach is based on their individual success. In other words, if you "coach" someone and it WORKS...and they get BETTER....and they score HIGHER...they WILL listen to you. But no matter your credentials, no matter how "right" you are...if what you teach doesn't translate into success in a VERY SHORT timeframe...they will stop listening to you.

So...I'm not trying to offend any coaches by saying they need to win titles or get a degree in teaching...I was just throwing out some ideas on how to make the levels relevant. So far I haven't heard any other realistic suggestions on how to do that. There's a lot of complaining about the current system requiring too much and being too expensive...but isn't changing that going to just further water down the meaning of the certifications?

And, like my discussion with Rob about bowling ball arsenals in another thread...the question can actually be simplified to: (Mudpuppy Cliff Notes Question): "How do YOU suggest a bowler looking for coaching differentiates between a pro shop owner/experienced bowler that can't coach and has very little skill versus an elite bowling coach that is in the top 10-20% of his/her piers?

Now that you've thought about it I think we can draw the obvious conclusion of why a quality system is hard to make. How do you effectively judge a persons competency from a distance? The answer is you can't and if you try even on a up close basis your individual biases come in to play. Some of the best coaches/managers in all the major sports never played their sport at a high level.

[NewToBowling]

Now that you've thought about it I think we can draw the obvious conclusion of why a quality system is hard to make. How do you effectively judge a persons competency from a distance? The answer is you can't and if you try even on a up close basis your individual biases come in to play. Some of the best coaches/managers in all the major sports never played their sport at a high level.

I would change that to most

Take any sport and the best coaches/managers have been just your average players. None of the superstars were ever great coaches. Superstars don't worry about x's and o's and practice. They generally have a natural born gift (cue Iceman) and thus never had to worry about much, their natural ability covered up for it mostly

[Amyers]

I would change that to most

Take any sport and the best coaches/managers have been just your average players. None of the superstars were ever great coaches. Superstars don't worry about x's and o's and practice. They generally have a natural born gift (cue Iceman) and thus never had to worry about much, their natural ability covered up for it mostly

This maybe true. I have always wondered if it is this or just the fact that most of them have enough money that working the hours that a coach does just isn't appealing.

[NYMIKE]

It comes down to that there are a lot more mediocre players than star players, therefore that group produces many more excellent coaches.

[Aslan]

I think if you look at most major sports, the reason is a combination of all 3 of your responses.

Star players can rely more on natural talent and may not learn the fundamentals as much. And I think star players have a greater tendency to just retire and enjoy their wealth versus stick around the game as a coach. And I also agree that it's a numbers game so yeah, more mediocre players = more mediocre coaches.

Most of the time I've seen players transition to coaches....it's usually because they weren't able to become star players but wanted to stay active in the game. So they end up retiring and then hanging around as an assistant coach and if they like it and are good at it; try to move up the ranks. But that leads to the saying (which I'm sure teachers hate) which is "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." Is it accurate? Not really. I mean, sure, there's SOME truth to it...but there are also people I've known (most of them women) that just always wanted to be a teacher...that's what they enjoy and the career they choose. But if you honestly think the statement doesn't have any truth to it...ask yourself this: "How many young bowlers start bowling competitively with hopes of someday coaching?" The answer, of course, is 0-very, very, very few. Of matter of fact, if bowling was more lucrative ($$$), I honestly don't think most of the PBA/PBA50/PWBA would even bother coaching in their off-time. I think they do that because they need that source of income.

I think it's too bad that bowling doesn't have a better system. We've all seen the USBC teaching videos and we all know a TON of bowlers that would benefit from watching them. It would be awesome to get that knowledge down to the leagues where people could get better. But there's just no way to do that without the USBC essentially certifying coaches. And then you get back into the discussion of what one needs to have to get to the next level.

[billf]

The USBC does certify coaches.
Two season ago, maybe three, they started a CEU (continuing education unit) program. So many people lost active status with no plans to spend the time and money to get or stay active they abandoned it. There are tons of Bronze and Silver coaches who obtained their certification years and years ago who have done NOTHING to stay current in the modern game.

[NewToBowling]

The USBC does certify coaches.
Two season ago, maybe three, they started a CEU (continuing education unit) program. So many people lost active status with no plans to spend the time and money to get or stay active they abandoned it. There are tons of Bronze and Silver coaches who obtained their certification years and years ago who have done NOTHING to stay current in the modern game.

Probably true. I've seen a certain coach coaching others at one of my bowling alleys. Seen him teach them to "reach for the sky" in the follow through. From reading here and around the web in the modern game that is actually discouraged now.

[billf]

Here's the break down according to USBC on the "find a coach" page

Coaching Level Designation:
Level I - Beginner bowlers (all ages and volunteer youth league coaches)
Bronze - Beginner to Intermediate Bowlers (up to 180 average, including High School)
Silver - Intermediate to advanced bowlers (180 or higher average including Collegiate)
Gold - Advanced to elite bowlers (Collegiate and Professionals)

Now we have good coaches and mediocre coaches heck even bad coaches in every sport. Urbana University has Phil Baker (Silver) as the head coach. In the last four years he hasn't shown a single bowler a single thing. He puts down a pattern and tells them the line to play. Two years ago they finished second in the nation. Looks great for his resume. So who helped the bowlers who didn't know more than one hand position? Those bowlers who didn't know how to adjust speed, rotation or tilt? The Silver coach who also happened to work in the same center as three bowlers on that team, me. Phil has a higher average, more 300s and 800s than I do. He is a much better bowler. Yet I will still run circles around him as a coach. He also owns the team's home center so he won't be going anywhere.

Making the levels relevant would require continuing education. So many clinics attended and given, seminars attended and given, on-line training, etc.. Basically all the things the USBC implemented a few years ago and then abandoned when the masses didn't go along with the plan.

[NYMIKE]

I'm observing other bowlers in my league over the passed year. There is a lady in my league she averaged around 90 last year, obviously the lower the average the more room for improvement, she never got any coaching, and guess what she still averages 90, and her mechanics wont allow her to average any more until she gets some coaching, she needs complete overhaul of her delivery. Then we have a husband and wife couple, I became good friends with them, both in the early 50s. Wife came in as a complete novice, she started as a sub 100 bowler, now she is up to 115, and I believe she will continue on getting better, cause she is working with a coach (same coach that I worked with). Her husband bowled in high school, he's been out of action for decades, he used to start really far back on the approach and I marveled that he was throwing 19 miles per hour, but his ball had no revs on it whatsoever, the coach at first made him come to the same distance I start at, last week he shortened his approach to a ridiculously short approach, and he posted a career high 227 game, at 14 mph his ball turns a lot more. Point of this, bowlers that get coaching get better, those that don't stay the same and get discouraged.

[billf]

Point of this, bowlers that get coaching get better, those that don't stay the same and get discouraged.

I will disagree with this to a point. The point that if a bowler will do things outside of getting a coach to get better, they will. Things as internet search for information, drills, etc.. Now they will get better at a slower pace than if they had a good coach.

Just wanting to get better isn't enough. You have to want it and be willing to put in the work to make it a reality.