One of the current problems facing the strength and conditioning profession (if we can term it that), is competency. One definition that Webster uses to define competent is "having the ability to be legally qualified." Right here, we should stop and ponder this. Are strength and conditioning coaches qualified (we'll omit legally as that does not presently pertain) to facilitate strength and conditioning across a spectrum of situations? I don't think I could answer that with a yes.
Now, you may say, sure, heck yeah I'm qualified and I have a piece of paper to prove it. But, what about the increasing demonstration of lack of professional competency that we read, hear, and see demonstrated on a frequent basis? How are we accounting for that?
Competency is more than having a piece of paper, it's demonstration of being qualified to facilitate a practice, a skill, an art that could endanger or harm others if not facilitated with competence. Herein lies part of the problem as not being regulated by a state entity, strength and conditioning practice is really in the category of "participate at your own risk." Probably that statement would be more factual than suggesting competency. The real truth is that the public at large has no idea how loosely competent strength and conditioning professionals are. Now, that question is certainly being raised considering current events in strength and conditioning.
What does it mean to demonstrate competency as a strength and conditioning professional?