ABCC vs British Cycling Coaching

Noel PT

Hiya All,

I am looking to adding a coaching qualification to my CV and was wondering if anyone had opinions on ABCC vs British Cycling.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/coaching

http://www.abcc.co.uk/become-a-coach/

I like the idea of ABCC being one lump of info that I can get through and get qualified asap. Because I suspect it will cover much of the same info I have studied in the past. But is the ABCC qualification as good as British Cycling? Considerable price difference!

Any info from those who have done one or the other would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

ride_whenever

I'd Imagine the ABCC one is a better qualification (assuming the BCCC is as useless as all the other similar qualifications for other sports) however you're much more likely to need the BCCC than the ABCC.

That said, generally qualifications speak for far less than results.

Pross

It depends on what you want to do. I've recently gained my Level 2 (generic) with BC and it is all about coaching skills to groups of riders. Before I can start doing what most people think of as coaching (i.e. setting training plans and working on riders' fitness) I will need to first complete a specific Level 2 in my chosen discipline and then do a Level 3 in that area. Even then the qualification is limited to coaching in that specific area. It follows the same coaching structure as pretty much any other sport, particulalry Olympic sports. It is a long and (if you have to pay for it all yourself) expensive route to go down but you should have a good balance of skills and physiological coaching at the end of it. The ABCC route will enable you to get out there coaching individuals more quickly and more cheaply.

I'm in the same position myself as I want to do 'proper' coaching - probably on the road side but living near to a velodrome track would also be quite useful to have - but I also want to ensure I can continue coaching within the club set up. I also suspect that if you were looking for employment coaching within BC or at a publically owned cycling facility the BC qualification would be required. I can see why BC have gone down the route they have as they previously had a club coach qualification where people could coach something like BMX on a full-on BMX circuit having never had any experience of it themselves.

I'm thinking about doing the ABCC route myself and then gaining some Level 2 specific qualifications via my club using the various funding grants that are available which will hopefully give me the best of both worlds.

Pross

Having just revisited the ABCC site it would appear that you can become a full member of the ABCC with a BC Level 2 qualification so I suspect the BC route would be better as you cannot become BC qualified from the ABCC route. I'm waiting on full details but from what I've read it would appear that with the Level 2 BC qualification you can pay your £52 membership fee a be a full member of the ABCC.

That said, the syllabus for the ABCC course looks far more interesting than the BC Level 2 and more likely to be of use in actually producing training plans.

Noel PT

Thanks for the reply's gents.

"Pross" I am run a personal training company and help cyclist, mountain bikers....well any athlete really with the strength training/ rehab and off the bike training. So I am looking at one of these courses to enhance the fitness and conditioning information I already offer my clients.

I think you right about the ABCC being a more direct route. The BC course seems long winded and I am put off by the fact that level one and possibly elements of level two are redundant considering my intentions to focus on fitness and conditioning with my clients and less on skills.

I must admit I am more interested in the content and information than the qualification itself. Although in the same breathe I am conflicted, as shiny new qualification is always nice!

What sort of coaching are you planning on doing?

Pross

You don't have to do the Level 1 with BC, you can go straight to level 2 but there is really not much covered on the physical side. Eventually I'd like to do a bit of one to one coaching, making training plans for people etc. but the information I have learnt so far wouldn't help with that side of things. Even if I can join ABCC as a full member I might pay up to do their course to pick up more on that side of things. You will have a better starting knowledge than me anyway as you are already working in that sort of field. I currently help with coaching the kids at my club and the BC qualification is ideal for that but reminding kids to change gear before they hit a hill or to keep their inside pedal up on a corner isn't too inspiring!

ugo.santalucia

Resurrecting this thread, as Pross is still around and might be able to offer further advice following 2013...

I am interested in becoming qualified, but I have a very marginal interest in teaching skills and even more marginal in teaching to underage kids, therefore the ABCC route appeals... but is it as thorough as the BC route?

imposter2.0

If you don't want to teach kids and you don't want to teach skills - what is it that you do want to do?

Performance coaching via BC's pathway requires BC L3, which means that you need to have gone through L1 and L2 first - which generally means coaching at club/youth level in order to get the coaching hours signed off before you qualify. I think the rules have now changed preventing trainee coaches from going straight in at L2. L3 takes a fair bit of time, a fair bit of money and a lot of commitment.

But if you don't like the idea of coaching skills and/or kids, then I'd look elsewhere.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

If you don't want to teach kids and you don't want to teach skills - what is it that you do want to do?

Performance coaching via BC's pathway requires BC L3, which means that you need to have gone through L1 and L2 first - which generally means coaching at club/youth level in order to get the coaching hours signed off before you qualify. I think the rules have now changed preventing trainee coaches from going straight in at L2. L3 takes a fair bit of time, a fair bit of money and a lot of commitment.

But if you don't like the idea of coaching skills and/or kids, then I'd look elsewhere.

I just don't want to teach skills, so L1 and L2 seems a bit of a waste of time (and money). I am interested in the performance element, whether it is for racing, for endurance or simply for self improvement.
Being able to run training camps as well as being able to offer personalised training plans is appealing and would allow me to scale down my commitment in my current job.
The APCC seems a more feasible route, my only doubt is whether for a lot less money and time you get a sub standard qualification and sub standard learning material (or not).

ugo.santalucia

I did a bit more reading on various forums and it looks like the ABCC qualification predates the BC ones and there appears to be a lot of acrimony and politics going on, which looks very much like the BC Vs CTT saga.
The BC is, as expected, more widely recognised and as such gives more opportunities should one want to look for employment in the field. It's also a lot more time consuming and expensive to achieve in full
Personally, I have already had an underpaid 9-5 job for the past 15 years and I am in no rush to look for a different one, so I guess the ABCC qualification will do me just fine

imposter2.0

So you've chosen the option which will give you less opportunities?

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

So you've chosen the option which will give you less opportunities?

Fewer...

Yes, the extra opportunities offered by BC are in the form of employment, which I am not interested in.
Things like being a coach at a velodrome, or working for a team. Not what I would like to do.

orraloon

Was going to raise the same point. Put yourself in place of potential client; would you trust/choose a BC qualified trainer over a lesser?

ugo.santalucia

orraloon said:

Was going to raise the same point. Put yourself in place of potential client; would you trust/choose a BC qualified trainer over a lesser?

I am aware of successful coaches who claim to have an ABCC qualification (and I assume they don't have the BC one, or they would boast about it).
Like everything, it is down to what you offer and what kind of results you can show for yourself.
Ultimately, the need for a qualification is down to achieving a professional standard that allows you to be insured.

The problem is that the L3 BC qualification is just not a realistic target at this stage in my life... too costly (all in, we are talking a few thousands) and too much time involved. L1 and L2, which are the stepping stones, are of no use at all to me... so it would really be a long game and would probably lose interest in the process.

EDIT: It's a bit like becoming an "Engineer"... you can enrol for a 3 year BEng program at Uni, but if you want to install boilers, rather than design boilers, then you don't need any of that and you can simply get Gas Safe certified...

imposter2.0

L1 and L2 can hardly be described as 'no use' if they are the stepping stones to L3? Sounds like you just want to run, without learning to walk first.

BTW - you don't need L3 to coach at the velodrome. You just need L2 track. Which is an extension of the generic L2 qualification.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

L1 and L2 can hardly be described as 'no use' if they are the stepping stones to L3? Sounds like you just want to run, without learning to walk first.

BTW - you don't need L3 to coach at the velodrome. You just need L2 track. Which is an extension of the generic L2 qualification.

I probably haven't been clear... I am not interested in coaching skills, which include track skills. I am not the one who will discover the next Kenny and I am not the one who will work with schools to teach kids how to ride a bike... so level 1 and 2, which focus on skills, are of zero use to me. They would be painfully expensive and time consuming stepping stones

I am interested in performance, more specifically in performance in the "ageing" cyclist. So, what I would like to do is to work with individuals who have some targets to improve themselves (they want to do a 25 in under an hour, they want to ride the Transcontinental race, they want to be able to climb their local hill without having to walk... ) and to work with groups, maybe in the form of training camps in the sun...

I appreciate it might sound un-ambitious to some...but it suits me fine, just like when I was building wheels five years ago I didn't do it to build the lightest, fastest and most expensive wheels out there to win the worlds, I just wanted to build reliable wheels for people who needed them

imposter2.0

I probably haven't been clear either. It's perfectly possible to deliver performance sessions to groups as an L2 coach - I've done plenty of that - it's not just about riding around cones. What you can't do as an L2 is prescribe performance training programs for individuals.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

What you can't do as an L2 is prescribe performance training programs for individuals.

Exactly... which is what I would like to do!

It's horses for courses... I'm happier crunching someone's power outputs on a laptop than I am spending a Saturday driving to Newport velodrome to deliver some sessions.

cruff

I'm doing similar to Ugo. Been reasonably successful in giving training plans to riders in the past year or so, and looking to get a credential so that I can formalise my learning and eventually start a sideline in coaching. It will never be a 'job' for me - I fear I'd end up hating cycling if I did anything to do with it for a 'living'. It's more a way for me to reinforce current knowledge, learn more and earn a few extra quid helping local riders.

I've done my due diligence - and asked around, plenty of other local coaches are ABCC qualified rather than BC - including coaches who have elite riders on their books.

DeVlaeminck

Unless it's changed since I did it the level 2 isn't that onerous - certainly nothing like he comitment of an FA football level 2 - so whilst it may be time wasted it wouldn't be that much time wasted. It might also be worth having done some helping out at regional youth type sessions - coaching race skills on circuits etc - some of it is quite impressive and you will pick up tips you can pass on if you intend doing training camps and being hands on with riders. OK that's more time but it's reasonably enjoyable and puts you in contact with other coaches and riders who you could coach.

Maybe a level 2 plus the ABCC qual is an option? The problem with the level 3 is dont you also need 2 level 2 discipline specific quals to enrol - eg track and road etc.

ugo.santalucia

Or you could do the other way round... get the ABCC, which is very reasonably priced and if that proves to be not enough, then go the BC route L1 and L2.

L1 + L2 is (all in) well in excess of a grand and roughly a couple of years... I would hate to spend that time and money to find out it's not helping

DeVlaeminck

Ok if it's over a grand then that's ridiculous to learn to teach kids to weave round cones ! I could pay for a UEFA B for less than that.

I was thinking straight in level 2 for maybe £300 done over a couple of weekends and 8 coaching sessions or similar.

ugo.santalucia

You can't go straight in to L2... the combined fee for L1+L2 is around 900 pounds... then you need to add costs to go to the assessments, practice days, the costs involved in doing unpaid sessions... overall it's probably not far off a couple of grand to be honest... if you have a wealthy club covering those costs in return for sessions it makes total sense, but otherwise....

imposter2.0

Most L1/2s get qualified via a combination of club funding and/or local/regional sports grant assistance.

"Teaching kids to weave around cones" is a bit of an over-simplification, tbh.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

Most L1/2s get qualified via a combination of club funding and/or local/regional sports grant assistance.

"Teaching kids to weave around cones" is a bit of an over-simplification, tbh.

There might be money for BC L1 and L2 training, possibly cones-only route

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51413070