PDA

View Full Version : Coaching and pro-bono (sf should Aus Champs?)



DoroPhil
22-09-2005, 04:30 PM
Oh, come on now, Mr. Pykey. You cannot seriously believe in your ridiculous analogy that you made up about chess players and doctors. What are you ggraggray? Let me repeat: chess player at 23 is over the hill, while doctor is clearly not. Do you really disagree with that?

And I am all for chess coaching. However, let's be clear: coaching is when Rogers coaches Song, Johansen coaches Chow, etc. On the other hand when someone is talking to the group of kids who wouldn't know the difference between Johansen or, say, Pyke, or even Sweeney, than its not chess coaching. Do you really disagree with that?

And as for your sarcastic note about your shattered ego - you are the one who thinks that you are worth only $300-400-500 or whatever crap money you are getting; I, on the other hand, pointed out that you could try and get a real job as you have sufficient education/ skills to do so. Do you really disagree with that? And this is where Sandler quote comes in.

antichrist
22-09-2005, 07:36 PM
DoroPhil, I salute you, you upset Macavity so much in his post 123 that he forgot to bless you - I hope you don't feel neglected.

arosar
22-09-2005, 07:56 PM
I must admit, I'm leaning towards DP's view on these pretend. coaches.

Hey, A/C, aren't you a pretend coach yourself?

AR

antichrist
22-09-2005, 08:07 PM
I must admit, I'm leaning towards DP's view on these pretend. coaches.

Hey, A/C, aren't you a pretend coach yourself?

AR

I am not speaking to you until you say "thanks" for lyrics to "no third prize".

Aren't we just slightly off topic?

Spiny Norman
23-09-2005, 08:07 AM
I must admit, I'm leaning towards DP's view on these pretend. coaches.
Anyone who thinks there's only one (or two, or three) kinds of coaches seriously misunderstands coaching. Where young kids are involved, you feed them on a light diet and see which ones have talent, separate them out, feed them on a bit of real "food", repeat process. It takes just as much talent to do the first job as to coach one-on-one ... not necessarily "chess talent", but talent nonetheless. AR, your comment above about "pretend coaches" sucks. Go quote that in your blog. Feel free to put my real name to the quote. ;)

Libby
23-09-2005, 05:45 PM
Anyone who thinks there's only one (or two, or three) kinds of coaches seriously misunderstands coaching. Where young kids are involved, you feed them on a light diet and see which ones have talent, separate them out, feed them on a bit of real "food", repeat process. It takes just as much talent to do the first job as to coach one-on-one ... not necessarily "chess talent", but talent nonetheless. AR, your comment above about "pretend coaches" sucks. Go quote that in your blog. Feel free to put my real name to the quote. ;)

:clap: on behalf of the many "pretend" coaches in the ACT.

Honestly - not every kid who tries tennis ends up with Tony Roche. Different types of coaches nurture players at different points of their playing career in any sport.

Some (like me, the very, very pretend chess coach) are introducing the game to children at school and hoping to inspire the interest & excitement to see them take the next step. In Canberra, the next step is mostly to junior clubs where I believe we have excellent young coaches who may not have too many titles but actually show interest and relate well to the players in a way that makes them want to continue with chess. As well as building skill, they build confidence, interest and more.

In fact, their results are so good we can churn out over-rated kids by the dozen. Only problem is, every time these over-rated ACT kids travel they seem to make a ratings killing against fields from other states. :hand:

PHAT
24-09-2005, 03:03 PM
God forbid that we should ever have any *professional* chess going on in Australia now!

The word "professional" implies that the person be willing to donate a proportion, 10-20%, their professional time to those who could not ordinarily afford to buy it. A "professional" who cannot do this, is not professional enough at their profession during the paid 80-90%, to be able to afford to do so. A "professional" who will not is psychopathic and should be dunked like a witch.

To apply to this to Australian chess, I have heard that X, Y and Z are goodies and A, B and C are fully greed driven. How would you go about rewarding X, Y and Z while shunning A, B and C.

four four two
24-09-2005, 03:23 PM
Matt get real, virtually all professional coaches in europe NEVER donate time,they ALWAYS get paid in some form. Thats why its their profession,and not a hobby. ;) :owned:

Rincewind
24-09-2005, 04:04 PM
The word "professional" implies that the person be willing to donate a proportion, 10-20%, their professional time to those who could not ordinarily afford to buy it.

Some professions in some countries have a pro bono tradition. However I've never heard of it being as high as 20% and it certainly isn't implied by the term professional. Off the top of my head I can't think of a profession in Australia in which pro bono is common place, other than as a PR exercise but that really isn't the same thing, is it?

PHAT
24-09-2005, 06:13 PM
Matt get real, virtually all professional coaches in europe NEVER donate time,they ALWAYS get paid in some form. Thats why its their profession,and not a hobby. ;) :owned:

No, thats why they are tradesmen on casual negociable wages and not professionals with a social conscience and duty.

PHAT
24-09-2005, 06:25 PM
Some professions in some countries have a pro bono tradition. However I've never heard of it being as high as 20% and it certainly isn't implied by the term professional. Off the top of my head I can't think of a profession in Australia in which pro bono is common place, other than as a PR exercise but that really isn't the same thing, is it?

Members of the bar are expected to do 20% pro bono. Very few do I read somewhere that the average was less then 2% . Lets big it up for the legal eagles, not. :thumdown:

I know plenty of health professional who wave fees for pensioners of various types. I know accountants, builders, teachers, et cetera who donate their professional skills to charities and needy individuals. This is all pro bono. All these people are exhibiting a professional attitude even though they are not techically "professionals" - ie mebers of a guild that can revoke your license to practise.

A chess coach who does not donate some of their skills to non-commercial activities is not, in my opinion, a professional. They are mear guns for hire and not worthy of the disciption, Professional.

Rincewind
24-09-2005, 06:54 PM
Members of the bar are expected to do 20% pro bono. Very few do I read somewhere that the average was less then 2% . Lets big it up for the legal eagles, not. :thumdown:

I know plenty of health professional who wave fees for pensioners of various types. I know accountants, builders, teachers, et cetera who donate their professional skills to charities and needy individuals. This is all pro bono. All these people are exhibiting a professional attitude even though they are not techically "professionals" - ie mebers of a guild that can revoke your license to practise.

A chess coach who does not donate some of their skills to non-commercial activities is not, in my opinion, a professional. They are mear guns for hire and not worthy of the disciption, Professional.

I didn't say there weren't some individuals doing volunteer work. What I said was "Off the top of my head I can't think of a profession in Australia in which pro bono is common place". You haven't changed that opinion. (BTW IMHO a GP only collecting the medicare payment and waiving their higher fee is not doing pro bono.) As you point out the law profession is the only case where it really is expected and even then doesn't seem to be all that common place.

Regardless, pro bono is not a necessary condition for professionalism.

Alan Shore
24-09-2005, 06:58 PM
Members of the bar are expected to do 20% pro bono. Very few do I read somewhere that the average was less then 2% . Lets big it up for the legal eagles, not. :thumdown:

I know plenty of health professional who wave fees for pensioners of various types. I know accountants, builders, teachers, et cetera who donate their professional skills to charities and needy individuals. This is all pro bono. All these people are exhibiting a professional attitude even though they are not techically "professionals" - ie mebers of a guild that can revoke your license to practise.

A chess coach who does not donate some of their skills to non-commercial activities is not, in my opinion, a professional. They are mear guns for hire and not worthy of the disciption, Professional.

Yeah, I teach at a school weekly who asked me to make myself available for a few hours to run a school tournament and that's fine - I'd do that for nothing - but would my employer like it? I dunno.. what do you reckon, should I inform my employer about the extra work or just do it myself? I want to do the right thing, but not sure...

PHAT
24-09-2005, 07:23 PM
Regardless, pro bono is not a necessary condition for professionalism.

In MY mind it is. It is my FEELING that those who have plenty due to some combination of good fortune and good genes, ought to be generous to their fellow man. This is especially so when it has been education/training at public expense that has lead to a person becoming a professional.

Not to spread your luck around is ignoble and mean.

BTW, before anyone says it isn't luck, it can be plain hard work, think about this. The propensity for working hard is a personality trait that is mostly in your genes (luck) and somewhat in your upbringing (luck). Therefore, everything you have, or don't have is a matter of luck.

PHAT
24-09-2005, 07:30 PM
Yeah, I teach at a school weekly who asked me to make myself available for a few hours to run a school tournament and that's fine - I'd do that for nothing - but would my employer like it? I dunno.. what do you reckon, should I inform my employer about the extra work or just do it myself? I want to do the right thing, but not sure...

If you are doing it on your employer's time, maybe you should tell him what you want to continue doing, and adjust your wages accordingly. However, if it is in your own time, f... him.

There is one other concideration. If part of your job is to drum up business, you need to make some effort to get some payment out of your school and if they cannot, then stay with them anyway.

pax
24-09-2005, 08:20 PM
The whole discussion of pro-bono and chess is somewhat ludicrous given that virtually nobody makes a full-time living out of chess in Australia. Note that pro-bono work is mostly prevalent in professions which earn squillions to begin with - hardly the case in chess.

And how did we (sorry, *Matt*) get onto coaches anyway? The comment about professional players was in the context of an IM having the temerity to enter an event where he might win some money. What - should he give it back to show himself to be a jolly good chap in the pro-bono tradition??

Alan Shore
24-09-2005, 11:14 PM
The whole discussion of pro-bono and chess is somewhat ludicrous given that virtually nobody makes a full-time living out of chess in Australia. Note that pro-bono work is mostly prevalent in professions which earn squillions to begin with - hardly the case in chess.

And how did we (sorry, *Matt*) get onto coaches anyway? The comment about professional players was in the context of an IM having the temerity to enter an event where he might win some money. What - should he give it back to show himself to be a jolly good chap in the pro-bono tradition??

Sorry, but wtf does full-time coaching have to do with anything?

DoroPhil
24-09-2005, 11:21 PM
... actually makes a good point, but his reluctance to enter into any genuine debate (just one line digs) ...

One line digs? I quote:

"Oh, come on now, Mr. Pykey. You cannot seriously believe in your ridiculous analogy that you made up about chess players and doctors. What are you ggraggray? Let me repeat: chess player at 23 is over the hill, while doctor is clearly not. Do you really disagree with that?

And I am all for chess coaching. However, let's be clear: coaching is when Rogers coaches Song, Johansen coaches Chow, etc. On the other hand when someone is talking to the group of kids who wouldn't know the difference between Johansen or, say, Pyke, or even Sweeney, than its not chess coaching. Do you really disagree with that?

And as for your sarcastic note about your shattered ego - you are the one who thinks that you are worth only $300-400-500 or whatever crap money you are getting; I, on the other hand, pointed out that you could try and get a real job as you have sufficient education/ skills to do so. Do you really disagree with that? And this is where Sandler quote comes in."

To this day we do not know, which one of 3 magnificent points, Mr. Pykey chose to disagree with. The ball is in his court but instead of returning it, he seems to be in the process of either blessing it or using it in some other peculiar ritual.