Originally Posted by
furiousferret
Its always been that way. Someone goes up the ranks, get a quasi impressive palmares and starts coaching. I don't think being a winner is necessarily a prerequisite to being a good coach, if pro sports teach us anything the bad ones that keep trying end up being the best.
pretty much this. alternatively, someone who's talented and actually contemplative enough to learn can also make a good coach.
a lot of people shot through the ranks because of talent, not that their specific training got them there. They then have the notion that whatever they did was effective in helping them achieve, without pausing to think that their talent allowed them to achieve, despite of non-optimal training.
it also doesn't help that it's ridiculously easy for someone to become a USAC certified coach (though levels 2 and 1 do require more)