Comments on: Top Coach, Arch Jelley http://www.swimwatch.net/2010/04/top-coach-arch-jelley.html Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:24:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stan Jelley http://www.swimwatch.net/2010/04/top-coach-arch-jelley.html#comment-83 Stan Jelley Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:10:20 +0000 http://www.swimwatch.net/?p=407#comment-83 Great article, summing up well my brother's methods and personality, as well as putting into perspective the rather pointless comparisons often made between coaches. I sometimes claim to be Arch's first runner, as he certainly advised and guided me when I entered athletics as a runner in 1946, after a season or two as race walker. Arch and I came across the writings of Arthur Newton, who defied the authorities in South Africa when refused financial support for a farming venture, by determining to become a world champion distance runner. He eventually set a world time for 100 miles, although he almost collapsed on his first training run of 3 miles. One of Newton's favourite theories was that lions and tigers did their daily training mainly by sauntering around at "below racing pace", yet broke all records occasionally when they raced for their life, or for their quarry. Our speed work was basically Fartlek, and only when we felt like it, and the great field coach and pole-vaulter Merv Richards (of our own club) warned me that this kind of training might well create a ceiling of performance not high enough for international competition. He was to be proved correct. Runners whom I had beaten in 1951, like Jim Daly and Ernie Haskell, included far more speed conditioning work than I did, and surpassed me markedly by 1954, both representing NZ at Vancouver, and bettering my 3-mile times by about 40 seconds or more. This kind of thing set Arch thinking, and the rest is history. Arch's schedules came to be based on scientific knowledge of the human body in action, as well as the results of different kinds of regime in practice. And he was never surprised when people like Bill Baillie would come up with a sensational 2-mile time before they had done any speed work. Back to the lions and tigers perhaps! Hope this is of some interest. Stan Jelley (now 83, and not running.) Great article, summing up well my brother’s methods and personality, as well as putting into perspective the rather pointless comparisons often made between coaches. I sometimes claim to be Arch’s first runner, as he certainly advised and guided me when I entered athletics as a runner in 1946, after a season or two as race walker. Arch and I came across the writings of Arthur Newton, who defied the authorities in South Africa when refused financial support for a farming venture, by determining to become a world champion distance runner. He eventually set a world time for 100 miles, although he almost collapsed on his first training run of 3 miles. One of Newton’s favourite theories was that lions and tigers did their daily training mainly by sauntering around at “below racing pace”, yet broke all records occasionally when they raced for their life, or for their quarry. Our speed work was basically Fartlek, and only when we felt like it, and the great field coach and pole-vaulter Merv Richards (of our own club) warned me that this kind of training might well create a ceiling of performance not high enough for international competition. He was to be proved correct. Runners whom I had beaten in 1951, like Jim Daly and Ernie Haskell, included far more speed conditioning work than I did, and surpassed me markedly by 1954, both representing NZ at Vancouver, and bettering my 3-mile times by about 40 seconds or more. This kind of thing set Arch thinking, and the rest is history. Arch’s schedules came to be based on scientific knowledge of the human body in action, as well as the results of different kinds of regime in practice. And he was never surprised when people like Bill Baillie would come up with a sensational 2-mile time before they had done any speed work. Back to the lions and tigers perhaps!

Hope this is of some interest.
Stan Jelley (now 83, and not running.)

]]> By: David http://www.swimwatch.net/2010/04/top-coach-arch-jelley.html#comment-40 David Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:41:53 +0000 http://www.swimwatch.net/?p=407#comment-40 While it may be unusual to comment on ones own posting I thought I'd pass on some addition information I received last night. I asked Arch if my list of the athletes he had coached was accurate. It seems the answer to that is, "No, not accurate at all." Here is his reply. "There's an article on the web comparing various coaches including Arthur and myself and other coaches too I think. While Arthur would always have top ranking of course, they said that as I only coached one good athlete, (John Walker) they couldn't rank me that high. .. or words that meant that. I was going to reply that I had coached a number of pretty good athletes but I wasn't sure how to hand on the necessary information. You refer to some of the very good athletes that I coached and there are a few others who could be included. For example, double Olympians Neville Scott and Robbie Johnson and the following athletes who were either NZ champions or represented NZ overseas.: Ian Babe, Ian Studd bronze medalist at British Commonwealth & Empire Games in 1966, Sonia Barry, Ray Batten, Maree Bunce, Andrew Campbell, Sharon Higgins, Michael Hindmarsh, Glenys Kroon, Jared Letica, Geraldine MacDonald, Gary Palmer, John & Val Robinson, Hazel Stewart, Mark Tonks and Lloyd Walker. I have omitted all other female athletes who were in Owairaka's Road Relay teams which won the NZ title 8 years in succession." Thank you for that information. As far as the debate about who is the better coach is concerned. I am, or in Arthur's case was, fortunate to know both coaches well. In my view the comparison is pointless. They both use (or in Arthur's case, used) similar methods but teach those methods differently. Many of the athletes coached by Arch enjoy his style of coaching and would have rebelled at the way Arthur did things. Both men were masters at understanding human nature but their basic personalities and backgrounds were different. New Zealand athletics is fortunate to have had access to two master coaches that I would say are different but equal. While it may be unusual to comment on ones own posting I thought I’d pass on some addition information I received last night. I asked Arch if my list of the athletes he had coached was accurate. It seems the answer to that is, “No, not accurate at all.” Here is his reply.

“There’s an article on the web comparing various coaches including Arthur and myself and other coaches too I think. While Arthur would always have top ranking of course, they said that as I only coached one good athlete, (John Walker) they couldn’t rank me that high. .. or words that meant that. I was going to reply that I had coached a number of pretty good athletes but I wasn’t sure how to hand on the necessary information. You refer to some of the very good athletes that I coached and there are a few others who could be included. For example, double Olympians Neville Scott and Robbie Johnson and the following athletes who were either NZ champions or represented NZ overseas.: Ian Babe, Ian Studd bronze medalist at British Commonwealth & Empire Games in 1966, Sonia Barry, Ray Batten, Maree Bunce, Andrew Campbell, Sharon Higgins, Michael Hindmarsh, Glenys Kroon, Jared Letica, Geraldine MacDonald, Gary Palmer, John & Val Robinson, Hazel Stewart, Mark Tonks and Lloyd Walker. I have omitted all other female athletes who were in Owairaka’s Road Relay teams which won the NZ title 8 years in succession.”

Thank you for that information.

As far as the debate about who is the better coach is concerned. I am, or in Arthur’s case was, fortunate to know both coaches well. In my view the comparison is pointless. They both use (or in Arthur’s case, used) similar methods but teach those methods differently. Many of the athletes coached by Arch enjoy his style of coaching and would have rebelled at the way Arthur did things. Both men were masters at understanding human nature but their basic personalities and backgrounds were different. New Zealand athletics is fortunate to have had access to two master coaches that I would say are different but equal.

]]>