well, as one that's just going through the CSCF system right now while coaching (and the one probably being picked on here since I just posted an MA), i can say that technique and tactics are just 50% of coaching an athlete. There is a ton of safety, coaching/training/learning and physical and psychologycal stuff that has not much to do with technique - i will get a lot of flack but this is how i see it.
also, per the CSCF if you look at their progression, it would be VERY HARD to get to teach high-level racers:
http://www.canskicoach.org/en/certification-programs/structure-progression. I just failed my level 2 DL and I know for a fact that it's hard to get the (performance) level 3 while there's only like a hand-full of level 4 (High perf) and these are the guys that should be coaching high level athletes.
on the other hand, it's also club specific - our club is small and doesn't quite care about the CSCF guidelines because it can't afford big time coaches and lets a level 1 like me coach 13 year old racers that can out-ski me anytime
.
i am having difficulty already - i have athletes at 12-13 that ski already much better than I and it is hard for me to analyze their skiing and find major improvements - they show everything as far as I can analyze and I am working on other stuff with them. my lack of experience is probably showing: i have some trouble doing MA for some of them... i worked on that by reviewing a lot of MA on this forum and epic, but I am stumped. you may see a sample soon... i need ideas.
even if i don't know how to advance their technique much at this point, as far as technique goes, there is a lot of other stuff i can and do work with them: refinement, creative variation, adaptation, different snow conditions, different course setups, tie their hands behind their backs and challenge their balance etc. There are certain processes that allow us coaches to work on stuff and improve what they got without addressing technique specifically.
that being said, I largely agree with you and I have no intention of stopping my own progression and the reason being that I need to keep learning and getting better so I can keep up with my own kids... (they're the reason I coach)... that's why my hyperactivity here for instance, or spending a total of maybe 20 days in courses until this season is over, plus an 8 day masters racing plus whatever I can get my hands on (or rather feet on).
do not think parents are stupid. they watch and observe and think for themselves. so do athletes. and when they see the coach skis like crap like me, AND want to, they can take action. If I see some athlete that i can no longer improve, i will make sure to tell his/her parents, so they can do whatever they want (like start spending the really big bucks).
at the same time, do not discount the extremes. in my opinion, IQ makes up for a lot of experience and there are some that have it... maybe Karolyi or Kostelic are examples.
to summarize:
1. to be a high level coach, if done properly, should be very hard and only really good racers can make it, at least in today's CSCF
2. there's more things to train than just technique - that's only one aspect of a coach's job
3. how do you grow a WC coach?
P.S. rule no 5 of improvement is "be willing to be stupid". i put my own skiing up to critique. I can take it because I need it because I need to get better, because my kids are getting much better much faster than I - you're not getting rid of me that easily
P.S. I can't yet believe that today, in the age of the internet and public information and forums like this one, a coach that can't ski can get to teach high level athletes.. I don't think this is a big issue, as you raised it. it's competitive and the parents, the clubs, the racers themselves will rid of the stupid coaches through a very much Darwinian process. The really good issue in my mind is: shouldn't it be so that only high level coaches train beginner kid racers? that's when you ingrain the proper movements? Today, the common practice as i see it is to allocate beginner coaches with small kids and go up (somewhat) from there... now that would be a good discussion, eh?
P.S. I have a question as well: as I understand it, at the higher levels, WC included, the athletes are usually pretty well matched in conditioning, technique even... i mean finishing within tens of a second of each-other shows you that... Why do you insist on the 50% so much and completely disregard the other 50%, which is mental preparation, train-as-you-race and such?
cheers,
Razie