A nice essay from Wolf

[Mark Rippetoe]

The talented practioners on the other hand are more likely to continue with teaching/coaching because their lives naturally lead them in the direction of teaching/coaching after they are done practicing. As such, even if a similar proportion of talented and untalented practioners have what it takes to teach others, a higher proportion of the talented will end up teaching because it's assumed they know their stuff.

We know what actually happens. The point here is that talented athletes ALMOST NEVER make excellent coaches, despite the fact that there are lots of talented athlete/bad coaches in the business.

[Adam Skillin]

There is an argument to be made for selection criteria from the 2 different groups though. Mediocre practioners that become coaches/teachers are more likely to have become so because of either a talent for teaching/coaching or because they're so passionate they work towards that goal. The talented practioners on the other hand are more likely to continue with teaching/coaching because their lives naturally lead them in the direction of teaching/coaching after they are done practicing. As such, even if a similar proportion of talented and untalented practioners have what it takes to teach others, a higher proportion of the talented will end up teaching because it's assumed they know their stuff.

This is not to say that meciocre practioners might make better coaches/teachers, but that the statistical effect might be just as significant.

I'd argue that whether that's the case or not is irrelevant to the analysis portion of the argument.

A mental genius to whom calculus makes intuitive sense, or a natural athlete/physical genius to whom power cleans come naturally is, by virtue of said genius, less well-equipped than someone who came by their ability to understand differential equations or jump and catch a barbell through hard work and lots of practice to convey this information to those to whom they don't come naturally.

And those people are much less in need of good coaches anyway.

[perman]

I'd argue that whether that's the case or not is irrelevant to the analysis portion of the argument.

A mental genius to whom calculus makes intuitive sense, or a natural athlete/physical genius to whom power cleans come naturally is, by virtue of said genius, less well-equipped than someone who came by their ability to understand differential equations or jump and catch a barbell through hard work and lots of practice to convey this information to those to whom they don't come naturally.

And those people are much less in need of good coaches anyway.

I agree, though I'd say this does not say anything about the ability to teach or coach, more about which level it would be applicable to do so at. Unless you're the world's best, you've struggled at some point with your field or practice. I'm studying math and physics to become a high school teacher. I know that I don't have what it takes to teach at university level because I'm struggling too much and getting mediocre grades. The question then is whether for instance the professors who struggle with graduate level shit would be too far above lower level education to connect with the students. Gifted or talented are cliché terms, because even at a rare level of the bell curve, there are still plenty levels above that.

Education and coaching for sports might be dissimilar enough that the phenomenons aren't completely analagous between teaching and coaching though.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I agree, though I'd say this does not say anything about the ability to teach or coach, more about which level it would be applicable to do so at.

I don't think you understand our point.

[perman]

I don't think you understand our point.

I do, I just don't take other's wisdom fully for granted. Not as if you're spouting rocket science here.

[Michael Wolf]

I do, I just don't take other's wisdom fully for granted. Not as if you're spouting rocket science here.

I don't think you do, perman, because if you did you would understand that the teaching thing is an example of the same principle, but that the two aren't perfectly analogous. When it comes to lifting, you can (theoretically) completely and entirely master every aspect of performing and coaching the squat, but still only be able to squat 135 lbs. We know enough about human physiology to know that this would never actually occur with a healthy young male, but the point is that you can master everything there is to know about it, but not be very strong. We have enough experience with the broad range of genetic potentials to know that even men who are quite disadvantaged in that department but otherwise healthy (and not seniors) can get their squat up into the 300s with time and hard work. Someone like that may in fact become a good coach if he sticks with it long enough and works with a broad enough population to know that he's on the short end of the genetic stick and to expect more from most people.

This analogy doesn't exactly hold true with every other discipline. You can't master rocket science but not be very good at it. It's not a perfect analogy. You can, however, have two people who have mastered it but one struggled mightily to do so while the other breezed through it as a natural. You might rather have the second one working at NASA, I don't know, but you almost certainly would rather have the first one teaching it to a group of students, most of whom will not have the natural aptitude of the second guy.

Also relevant:

[perman]

Well..

I don't think you do, perman, because if you did you would understand that the teaching thing is an example of the same principle, but that the two aren't perfectly analogous.

Education and coaching for sports might be dissimilar enough that the phenomenons aren't completely analagous between teaching and coaching though.

As for the rest...

When it comes to lifting, you can (theoretically) completely and entirely master every aspect of performing and coaching the squat, but still only be able to squat 135 lbs. We know enough about human physiology to know that this would never actually occur with a healthy young male, but the point is that you can master everything there is to know about it, but not be very strong. We have enough experience with the broad range of genetic potentials to know that even men who are quite disadvantaged in that department but otherwise healthy (and not seniors) can get their squat up into the 300s with time and hard work. Someone like that may in fact become a good coach if he sticks with it long enough and works with a broad enough population to know that he's on the short end of the genetic stick and to expect more from most people.

This analogy doesn't exactly hold true with every other discipline. You can't master rocket science but not be very good at it. It's not a perfect analogy. You can, however, have two people who have mastered it but one struggled mightily to do so while the other breezed through it as a natural. You might rather have the second one working at NASA, I don't know, but you almost certainly would rather have the first one teaching it to a group of students, most of whom will not have the natural aptitude of the second guy.

I agree with all this. I am studying to be become a teacher and detailed where my limits were in the post above, and I'm not a natural phenom at lifting, so you're really only saying things I've thought myself without having put it in a post.

I get that it's common to assume the least about someone when they're in disagreement with you, but assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups as they say.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Not as if you're spouting rocket science here.

And this is where it seems you come a little adrift of what SS and it's teaching model, intends to impart to prospective clients.

Rocket science is the bleeding edge of the envelope. SS is about teaching newbies how to get strong quickly. Also about fixing bad and unsafe lifting practices that may have plagued longtime lifters for years or even decades. You are conflating something very complex with something comparatively not as complex. SS isn't about developing top athletes to D-1 or pro performance levels. I'm sure there are SSC's that might do that with some clients, but most people sold on SS are not after that.

Think back, Rip has repeatedly turned away programming and form questions about powerlifting in this Q&A. Because he's not interested in that aspect of strength training or developing competitors in that.

This is a key difference between your analogy of teaching math and physics at either the high school or college level. They are different animals and for different audiences. All that said, the "natural" in either such field for whom either the physical performance or grasp of abstract concepts never gets a sense of what it's like to stumble over their own feet trying to do simple movements or to look at a board full of equations and see nothing that makes sense to them.

[perman]

And this is where it seems you come a little adrift of what SS and it's teaching model, intends to impart to prospective clients.

Rocket science is the bleeding edge of the envelope. SS is about teaching newbies how to get strong quickly. Also about fixing bad and unsafe lifting practices that may have plagued longtime lifters for years or even decades. You are conflating something very complex with something comparatively not as complex. SS isn't about developing top athletes to D-1 or pro performance levels. I'm sure there are SSC's that might do that with some clients, but most people sold on SS are not after that.

Think back, Rip has repeatedly turned away programming and form questions about powerlifting in this Q&A. Because he's not interested in that aspect of strength training or developing competitors in that.

This is a key difference between your analogy of teaching math and physics at either the high school or college level. They are different animals and for different audiences. All that said, the "natural" in either such field for whom either the physical performance or grasp of abstract concepts never gets a sense of what it's like to stumble over their own feet trying to do simple movements or to look at a board full of equations and see nothing that makes sense to them.

I said that flippantly about this topic specifically because the concept of natural athletes not making good coaches is not that complicated. I did not say that about the SS platform in it's entirety of which I have enormous respect and mostly utilize per instructions with some own personal alterations. I in fact, once again, agree entirely with what you say, so I'm not sure what opinions you are attributing to me here.

I had some thoughts about the basis of this phenomenon which weren't really that much in contradiction of what Rip said, and suddenly several people had to defend his honor or something. The bandwagon effect can be strong in this section on occasion, I'ma go back and chill in E & P.

[franklie]

Richard Feynman, a Nobel prize winner in physics, was also a very good teacher of physics to the students at Caltech.


As a matter of fact I consider the Feynman Lectures on Physics to be the physics world's equivalent of Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training and Practical Programming for Strength Training in terms of clear writing, complete and well thought out.