INSTRUCTION MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Only those with long practical experience of the "Iron Game" should teach it says Jim Halliday

INSTRUCTIONAL work is not regarded seriously enough in our sport (nor, I suggest, in many others) and, apart from a few dedicated enthusiasts, the instructors themselves are too prone to "make do" with a minimum of knowledge and technical experience.

There are too many opportunities for self-styled experts and, all too often, people of very limited knowledge obtain positions of authority in which they can do little good and may do a lot of harm.

At one time, when only the Olympic lifts really mattered, very few instructors were required, and these only needed a knowledge of technique, the aim being purely competitive.

Now, with weights being used to a much greater extent, for bodybuilding, training for other sports, remedial work, etc., a much wider field of knowledge is required and more responsibility is forced upon the instructor. This, I feel, is the point that matters, the responsibility.

To digress a moment. Recently I have come into contact with quite a few instructors in many fields of sport. I was amazed at the lack of anatomical and physiological knowledge owned by most of them and found they thought a teaching of correct action the only thing of importance. I even met a professional football coach who had no knowledge of anatomy whatsoever, no knowledge of injury treatment, thought progressive training (to use his own words) "strictly for the birds" and, in fact just "did not want to know" anything outside running round the track, ball control and practice games.

It is a fact, I know, that instructors, especially in evening centres and clubs, for all activities, are in short supply and principals are glad to take on anyone volunteering for the task.

We are a long way from the time when every instructor will have a diploma to prove his efficiency and when it will be necessary to have one before being accepted, but, this does not excuse the present inconsistent system. I feel anyone in charge of a group of people should assure themselves that a person accepted as an instructor is capable of doing the job.

I also feel the person accepted should not be satisfied with such acceptance, he should constantly be trying to improve his knowledge of all matters appertaining to the subject he is teaching.

This is a serious business. Serious I mean in regard to the results of training. Although this is done for pleasure in the main, everyone trains with the intention of benefitting in some way. This can only come from correct training. Incorrect training, not only results in lack of benefit, it can also have detrimental effects.

It is obvious that the initial training which is usually done under an instructor, must be on the right lines, and I feel that anyone attempting to do this job without the necessary and proper knowledge should be reprimanded.

If he is getting paid for it he should be accused of obtaining money under false pretences.

It is so easy to become a self-styled instructor, even "expert", that clubs, local authorities, professional gyms and ruling bodies should always be on the lookout for people who do not have the credentials and who may do a vast amount of harm.

Even experienced people tend to err. This can be through too great an enthusiasm, being misled by an acceptance of unproven facts, a too dogmatic belief in one's own theories and, sometimes, a desire to be too clever.

I have just read a book by a well-known dietician and beauty expert. He says he has come across a new method of muscular contraction wherein the muscles are held at maximum contraction, once only, once a day, for a few seconds, and the muscle grows in strength as fast as it can.

This one contraction makes the muscle six per cent stronger in one week, 66 per cent stronger in 11 weeks!

Obviously he has not tried isometric contractions, for these are what he refers to, therefore he is writing about something he knows nothing about. Much as I have, in the past, read his books with pleasure and followed some of his instructions in regard to diet, I am afraid I shall view future writings with a little doubt.

I read also where one of our best known coaches said he could improve a champion's lifting by an alteration of style.

This lifters' style did not comply with the text book (what style really does) but who is to say it was not the best for certain individuals?

My main difference with the writer though was his insistence on figures in connection with body positions.

He quoted that at the commencement of a snatch or clean the angle of the legs should be so many degrees.

How can any set figure be laid down?

It is obvious that various individuals, with varying lengths of limbs, will all use slightly different positions, and will be forced to modify the accepted textbook method, in some way, to meet personal requirements. I feel that correct tuition is essential, but it must apply basically, and should not be carried to extremes with dogmatic insistence on one rule for all.

I will conclude with another grievance.

I do not believe that instructors can be made in three or four week-end courses as is accepted by one body.

Neither do I believe that a course of instruction on the Olympics, plus the Strength Set, plus a little anatomy tuition applying to these lifts only, is sufficient to make an instructor..

This week I have not been very constructive. I will try to give some positive opinions in the next article.