Talk:Strength and conditioning coach

Removed section

I removed the following section on criticism. While there may be criticism of strength and conditioning coaches, this is not a valid one. The recruitment of increasingly larger players has nothing to do with Strength and Conditioning Coaches. Further, a strength and conditioning coach would focus on training athletes to prevent injuries (often including concussions) and would not increase the size and mass of players unless it was necessary for performance. The articles cited also do not support the concept that CSCSs have anything to do with size.

"Criticism has followed the increased use of strength and conditioning coaches in a variety of sports due to the shift in importance to the size and speed of the players. In rugby union, a game with heavy physical contact and minimal protection, players are being described as being "too big", creating collisions that are increasing the risk of short and long term injuries. Further, it has been proposed that the increased weight and speed of players and subsequent rise of collision force leads to more frequent and severe concussion injuries.

However, there is as yet no research to suggest an increased use of strength and conditioning leading to an increased risk of injury."

Winspiff (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Evaluation

Hello, I came across this article to evaluate since it is of interest to me, and although I am impressed that someone finally covered this profession, I have a view question with the information posted on this article. For starters, "Strength and conditioning coaches typically work with sports teams, but may also work with individuals. Strength and conditioning coaches are also often employed by higher education institutions and professional athletic teams", where was this information found? Also, the statement right after this, you used a lot of words like "many", "some", etc. Is there any way you can possibly better this section - "Employment Characteristics", so that it has a more accurate amount. For example, instead of using the terms "some" or "many", maybe you can find a reliable source that can give you a number of how many S&C coaches work in collegiate levels, etc. to back your claim. Overall this article was helpful, however I feel like it could use more and maybe a few more sections like the competitiveness in the field, and perhaps a section where you differentiate S&C coaches and Personal trainers since they're similar yet different professions. To help add information, you may find it useful to look at the "Personal trainer" article on wikipedia, there's extra sections on there that isn't on your article, that may make the article more efficient. Jlope487 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC) @Alfgarciamora:

@Jlope487: Great work, Janette. Alfgarciamora (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Change to 'Strength and conditioning'

Wondering what the thoughts are on changing this article to just 'Strength and conditioning', the role of the coach can be included as a sub-heading. Having an article dedicated to just a job role is quite limiting. TGB13 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

we already have strength training and aerobic conditioning... what are you proposing that is different from those? this was always meant to focus on the profession... Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

using that logic, what's the difference between a strength and conditioning coach, and a personal trainer? There is a difference, otherwise there wouldn't be an article dedicated to the role of the professional. A strength and conditioning article for me would be very similar to as it is now by focusing on the delicate combination and implementation of strength training and aerobic conditioning for the purpose of sports performance. Strength training is recreational and aimed at everyone, as is aerobic conditioning. Strength and conditioning has become an independent term in itself to refer to all of the physical training undertaken by athletes. I hope that goes some way in selling the idea to you! TGB13 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose merging this to personal trainer. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The roles are completely different. By that logic, we may as well combine all forms of exercise under one article named 'Fitness'. Every sport is covered under a general 'sport' article, yet each sport has their own individual page. I feel the case is the same with each type of fitness. Can we remain on topic and look at renaming this article so that it covers strength and conditioning and not just the professional occupation? Do you have a constructive reply or opinion on the points made previous? TGB13 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not being unconstructive. Welcome to work in a community. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, completely ignoring all of the points made in a discussion is unconstructive. I'll leave this until someone comes with something worthwhile to add. TGB13 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You pointed out that this should perhaps be merged to personal trainer, and I agreed with that. But you are still appear to be interpreting "constructive" as "agreement with you". Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that in the slightest, it was an example of why strength and conditioning should remain separate from strength training and aerobic conditioning. I am happy for disagreement, but the points I made to support the renaming were ignored. Do you have a response to the original question, taking into account my supporting points that were in response to your first question? Before this becomes even more petty than it already is. TGB13 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)