AS: How did you take his parting with Mishin and moving to Buyanova?
AD: Badly. Really badly. I think one doesn't betray his coach, especially such a coach as Mishin. But that's my personal opinion.
AS: Did you try to talk him out?
AD: Yes, I did, but, unfortunately, it was too late. It was decided by my ex-wife (Tatiana Druchinina) and him. I couldn't defer the decision.
I have always liked Artur (Sr.) and I appreciate everything he said about his skaters. Interesting stuff. I have to give Artur Jr. points for his choice not to comment publicly on the reasons for his coaching change - very diplomatic and in the end, perhaps very practical too. A good choice that his Dad might have mirrored but I think we're seeing some personal resentments from Senior toward his ex-wife played out here and that's sort of sad - being someone who has been divorced with kids involved, it's always good not to squish the kids in the middle.
Last edited by Willowway; 01-04-2011 at 12:54 AM.
Neither Katerina or Alexander have great skating skills to begin with so they are going to need time to develope them; they are not V/T by any stretch of the imagination and he knows that.
I assumed google misused "to like" with "be like." He said "in Russia we have many pairs that are different (are not similar, are not like) from each other."
As for Artur, he was giving an interview to the Russian media. In that culture Fatherhood counts first, politics and coach-hood second. He is first of all the father who is talking about his son. And the father CAN be direct to or about his son. Mentality is not universal.
"you are not a talented skater" = fact (potentially)
"you are an idiot" = rude (no point to the comment other than to be hurtful and contains no information deemed to be fact)
that kinda thing...
The first I find more common. We try to tell people/kids that they are awesome at something when they actually aren't. Sure they end up having strong self esteem but unfortunately an unrealistic picture of their talents and abilities.
This leads me to the second school of thought, which is mine. I believe everyone has some sort of talent and ability while similarly they lack talent and ability in other areas. My philosophy is to -- where it's my place -- help people realize where they have limitations. In short I feel it's ok to diplomatically tell someone they suck at something...but that's all ok because we all do. I'm not about convincing them they are great and special if they are not. This is what's missing right now as we overcompensate under the guise of building self esteem so we create unrealistic perceptions.
I see this in the work place a lot, so I'm left having to sit 25 year olds down and point out their development areas because no one ever does. I'm direct about it so they know what they're not great at (I share all the positives, too). I provide examples and then I work with them on a plan to improve. On occasion I have had to sit some of them down after a period and tell them they are not going to succeed in this line of work so they should look at exploring their talents in other areas. In all cases but one I got great feedback that I pointed out things that no one ever did and they felt their life and work would benefit from my generous, direct and insightful feedback. Throughout my career I have had consistently strong feedback (documented) from subordinates.
So, it's about being imperfect and being ok with it, not convincing people of something that's not true because you don't want to make them sad.
But IME, there is an entire philsopophy of teaching that has nothing to do with "truth," but rather with using abuse to drive students, which I believe is more what TAHbKA was talking about. The method actually works well with perfectionists, who will drive themselves to their limits to eliminate their flaws, if by well you mean pushing talent to the limit. But the system destroys many, including a lot of very talented people who would thrive under other systems, and often exacerbates the neuroses of the perfectionists with devastating personal results.
Most of the students I see--and again, this is just personal experience here and it would be a fallacy to consider my personal experiences some sort of measuring stick for the entire country--seem to me to be quite aware of the fact that they have flaws and have pretty balanced views of themselves, although they are young and so usually limited in experience.
They're, their, and there. Get it right your in college.
The point I intend on making is that most parents don't give their children a pair of rose-colored glasses and tell them that they excell in something that they really don't excell in. The child would be devastated when reality hit and feel like a complete failure. Most parents try and help their children to discover what they do excell in and go from there.Originally Posted by Rock2
I'm not saying that it isn't done, but where I come from (in my neck of the woods), children aren't given false hopes and dreams to depend upon.
You mess with the bull, you get the horns; words to live by, to my mind. - Robeye
It is also very different to tell a 25-year-old they are not good- or talented- at something, and to tell that to a 6, 12, 16-year-old. The margin of error and possible damage are much greater when evaluating children. Especially if doing something is a child's dream.
Last edited by dinakt; 01-04-2011 at 09:12 PM.
improving my ballad- like lines
I find this comment a little confusing - at least from an American point of view. I agree that fatherhood comes first. A smart dad would deal with his son and maybe with his ex-wife and most likely, keep it in the family.In that culture Fatherhood counts first, politics and coach-hood second. He is first of all the father who is talking about his son. And the father CAN be direct to or about his son. Mentality is not universal.
I don't know how criticizing his son in public shows that Artur is putting fatherhood first; actually, I think it shows something else altogether - that Artur is caught in a bad family situation where he is (for whatever reason) a great distance from his son and not in the position of having a father's influence. That's sad but as we might say here "airing his dirty laundry" (the problems of his family) doesn't really benefit any of them. Rather it gives Artur Sr. a little opportunity to vent or take a dig - that's all. Better to stay quiet in public and put one's efforts privately into making the situation better.
Last edited by Willowway; 01-04-2011 at 09:06 PM.
If Artur were a world class gymnast would we be having this discussion?
I'm sure Jr. had his reasons for changing coaches, I guess he didn't want to be second best.
It has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with commenting on what seems to many to be a personal issue. And yes, I DO think people would be coming down on her if she said the same thing and Artur Jr. were in gymnastics instead of skating.
They're, their, and there. Get it right your in college.
Well I found Artur's switching pretty shocking because his dad works for Moskvina's camp and Mishin/Moskvina are extremely tight. Perhaps Artur is trying to protect his own interests by publically saying it was his wife/son's decision. I'm on two minds about this, one is my feeling that a father should always protect his child. But the other is that young Artur isn't really that much of a child anymore.
I think that Artur Sr could have probably said he wasn't a fan of the break up in a better way, if he really felt the need to comment whatsover. I find comments like betraying coach etc to be a bit much. If the coaching relationship wasn't working for Artur it wasn't working, and I do seem to recall that there WERE some coaching switches back in the USSR.
As for what system is better, I'm kind of different minds about things. I actually am not so sure if its so horrible for a child to have to try out for things, and not make certain groups. I remember when I was little my brother and I tried out for a special choir, I made it, he didn't. In other cases we'd try out for speaking parts in plays, he made those, I didn't. We were pretty young than and neither of us ended up really emotionally damaged.
This being said of course if a child has already been part of a group and then is taken out of the group that can be damaging. And also there has to be opportunities for "normal" kids as well because not every child is going to have an amazing athletic, musical, artistic talent.
I think a lot depends on parents. If parents make the child being part of a particular group etc, into a big deal than the kid will really feel the rejection. I think a mixed system is probably the best system. A system where people can fund their way if they want, but the talented and who can't afford can also get funding.
How old is Jr. by the way?