[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Coach must be fast flow
DRomanelli@desire.wright.edu takes issue with my statement that a coach
needs to be a fast flow to be effective. However, a part of the post is
disturbing to me.
> Not being able to flow fast does not interfere with a coaches [sic]
> ability to motivate debaters. It does interfere with their understanding
> of arguments and how they work. It doesn't interfere with their ability
> to help their students research and develope [sic] arguments.
How can one possibly say that a coach is just as effective and will produce
just as formidable teams if he/she does not understand the arguments and
how they work? Certainly I will grant you that you can motivate debaters
without being able to flow well, but if you don't understand the arguments
and how they work as well as you need to, your capacity to provide
meaningful input to the squad, including research and developing
counter-arguments, is diminished.
Let me assume for a moment that this blatant inconsistency was a typo. Let
me assume you meant that there was no impediment to debaters with coaches
who cannot flow fast rounds.
I will reiterate some of my previous post: Speed happens, and if a debater
cannot cope with a fast round they will *NOT* be national contenders. Even
debaters who never gut spread but are strong nationally usually can (Welty
and Berretta, excuse the spelling, could clip along pretty well if they
needed to). They also have the capacity to flow 350 wpm without a hitch
because of that experience. If a debater cannot flow a fast round they are
toast. Milk toast. Soggy milk toast. I know. I've been that soggy milk
toast. Given that debaters have to be able to comprehend and flow at high
rates (and yes, usually they need to be able to speak it to do that)
someone has to help teach them those skills. That is the job of the coach.
If the coach cannot flow and comprehend at high rates they will not be able
to help debaters learn to go faster clearer. Korcok can tell a "butt" from
a "bud" or a "would" from a "could" at a good clip (at least he used to, I
haven't seen him much lately and he is getting older). That means Korcok
will be better able to correct me, train me and help me develop my skills
(not to mention drive me to drink). Likewise, he has the experience and
knowledge to show me how to flow at those speeds. (And he appreciates
poolside speed drills). I cannot think of a debater who can flow at high
rates well that has not had experience with being able to at least go for a
moderately fast pace every now and then. Likewise, the best flow people I
know are usually debaters with high school experience who tell me that CEDA
is slug's pace compared to high school policy.
The end of the post includes a witty analogy:
>So[me] of the best sports coaches never played the game
>they coach at its highest levels yet they still produce champions.
>The same is true of debate.
I am glad you feel debate analagous to sports. I see many correlations. You
are correct that some coaches never played well. Yet, all of them have fast
enough eyes to catch a foul, follow the ball, etc. Being able to flow fast
and gut spread is not enough to win, but at LEAST the flowing half is an
essential element of being nationally ranked. How many teams in quarters or
even octos of nationals would you call "slow" ? (Mike- Don't answer, you
think Mach3 is slow). How many of the A list for the SC RR are "slow" ?
Admittedly, Matt and I are by no means the fastest. We may be near the
slowest, but we are NOT "slow". The analogy is flawed. Sorry.
ps--> This is the last post where I will extol the virtues of Mike Korcok.
I just can't take it any more. My stomach has turned, I can't sleep at
night and my friends are shunning me. Mike-- I'll give you back the $50
since I can't say all the nice things you paid me to. ;-)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page