Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners

Absurd. This is the Mr. Nobby argument. That multi-periodisation exists actually because money is in the prossess, high professionalism is in the process. This is absurd absolutely.

What the training methodology says or denies as rich or poor training isn´t relate with money.What the rich science advanced in give us optional and alternative training got nothing to do with money in the runs.

Runners do compete more, because the competitive challenge his higher on lat decades. The WCross CC is create in 73. The world Champs were create recently. HM didn´t exist before the early 70s. The road runs were not 10% that were today. the marathons all over the world did grow more than 50%.

The golden league or something similar and big meeting events wren´t realized in the past. Actually we got the European Cross, indoor runs and indoor champs at nation al and international level that didn´t existed some decades ago. This is true for the world class runners as for the average national or just local runner. This means money but also more competiton challenge. It´s here that the multiple periodisation did start.

Famous past Lydiard runners, the genuine ones - like John Walker and Rod Dixon did double periodisation. Winter (for the north hemisfere) with camps in south hemisphere and summer track in europe or america. In the case of Rod Dixon he did peak for the WCC in late Mars, early April and later did participate in the olympics. John Walker did peak indoors in US and did peak fir the summer season. Dick Quax also did.

The british-walsh-canadian Jon Brown that considers himself from the Lydiard method at some point of his career did triple periodisation. Peaks for the european cross in November - that he did win once, peaks for the World cross country at the end of the winter season and a 3rd peak for the track summer champs.

All of them trusted in the aerobic first principle, and the do an introductory season in the start of each multiple season.

Therefore, according the Lydiard adept, the picture that´s the need of a aerobic first phase doesn´t change with multi-periodisation.

What exists it´s not a different relatioship/balance between aerobic or anaerobic dependent if is single or douible or multiple periodisation.

What exists is a difference of training percents of that variables on professional and/or world class runners and the average runner, or if it´s a school boy or a experienced senior or an old master.

But as far as the Lydiardism prophase 100miles is for everybody, marathon block is to be done for all kind of runner from different talent, and different training event specialism. Last but not least the aerobic first is for everybody.

Even the weekly Lydiard typical long run might be done by every Lydiard runner.

Would someone mind summarizing the argument the antonio is making (it could be you antonio). I've become confused with the 20 or so huge posts. could someone write a short paragraph or so?

Yams wrote:

Would someone mind summarizing the argument the antonio is making (it could be you antonio). I've become confused with the 20 or so huge posts. could someone write a short paragraph or so?

Summarize Antonio's argument in a paragraph? Sure.

"I don't like Lydiard. I'm jealous of him and I want you all to believe I'm a better coach than he was despite the fact that I never accomplished anywhere near as much as he did. So I'll call his method outdated, post as much pseudo-scientific criticism of what he did as I can think up, insult people who try to explain his method, misrepresent their posts, ignore direct questions that make what I'm saying look bad, and generally try to dominate any thread about Lydiard in such a way that it's very difficult for people who want to discuss and understand his approach to have a coherent conversation."

At last someone - Nobby by what you say - points the finger to the problem .

You refer training for high school, but the pamphlet is Lydiard classic/typical mainly and it was on that genuine Lydiard that i did comment, since it´s the only one real ands trustful public Lydiard, nor the weird/hybrid/revisionist Lydiard versions, neither personal or private Lydiard.

The first one kind - the genuine one - can be known by all documented and public sources that were produced, edit, published by Lydiard the man, or relate his ideas by seminars, conferences, interviews, etc. This is the Lydiard that will be investigate and is kept as be Lydiard methodology and training history. This is the genuine Lydiard that can´t accept intervals like 200s during the aerobic phase, it´s the Lydiard of 100miles, it´s the Lydiard of hills, it´s the Lydiard of long runs, it´s the Lydiard with the same kind of aerobic training approach for any distance event, it´s the Lydiard that

doesn´t define with accuracy what are the intervals might be done during his anaerobic phase.

Then you got the Wetcoast Lydiard, and from some others either, the demagogic one, that in the attempt to be IN, they accepts every kind of hybrid training that Lydiard didn´t accept or would never accept if he was alive. This is the Lydiard from the physiology, the Lydiard that accepts intrevals during the aerobic block, that might be done without the 100miles target, the Lydiard that introduces many Lydiard alternatives, some of them which the author is another coach or another training method, the Lydiard that isn´t Lydiard really indeed, that can be everything except genuine Lydiard, because denies what Lydiard stands for all his life as a coach. Since Lydiard is not among the livings, it´s possible to be "creative" and built thousand of Lydiard versions, but no one is Lydiard.

It´s also in that sense that Wetcoast says that my training is Lydiard. Of course that he is not serious as a journalist and a reporter should be, and what he wants to say it´s that he feels intimidate when i comment on Lydiard training. But somehow he thinks that some my training ideas that Lydiard wouldn´t accept is Lydiard either, and by the fact that Lydiard says near the same that i do about the importance and interest of aerobics in the context of distance training approach, he thinks that my training is Lydiard training.

Finally about your pamphlet/booklet. You title "Lydiard training for high school runners" but all is similar to the training for top class runners.

this is one point about training that many make confusion, namely some Lydiardists. Most of he training principles of one methode are the same. However ther´s a different aplication from that same method to world class-professional runners, and diffrent from seniors, maters, high school runners.

You can´t apply the same training of one 2h10m marathon runner or one sub28min 10k runner with one 16min 5k runner, neither in quantity or quality. We need training good sense. Imagine that a young high school runner reads your booklet and tries to apply all literally. Might be devastate for him.

Northern Star. You say "I should also clarify that I am not a "strict Lydiardist," whatever that would mean." I disagree. I understand what you say, but you can´t take Lydiard as referential. Why the heel you say "am not a stricklt Lydiard" instead of say "i´m not strictly Renato Canova", or i´m not a strictly Jack Daniels, or i´m not a strickly Peter Coe, or i´m not a strickly Antonio´s training. My point is. Since your own training got poinst of approach and afinity and agreement, and it´s similar to many ones why your referential to resume your training refers to Lydiard. With that your sentence what you do is to place and classify and consider Lydiard above every other training method, when it´s not (my opinion) and i guess that you don´t.

I don´t say i´m not strictly american citizen despite i got american ancestors, I say i´m portuguese.

About the training options and choices you got your own ones. Be pound that your training be just yours and no one else, and no need to clarify from whom is training "isn´t strictly".

Yams wrote:

Would someone mind summarizing the argument the antonio is making (it could be you antonio). I've become confused with the 20 or so huge posts. could someone write a short paragraph or so?

You that did understood quite well all Lydiard books, and Lydiard training, would you mind to summarizing the argument that Lydiard did make

(he can´t no more). I´ve been confused with the 20 or huge books he wrote.

Could you write a short paragraph or so ?

Northern Star did write a booklet of many pages, but could him or you summarize in a short paragraph or so ?

My summarize of my 20 posts is: Discuss of the Basic Training Principles--New booklet on Lydiard training for high school runners from Northern Star.

Another one even shorter: Lydiard discuss.

Satisfied ? Well the 20 or so posts are for intelligent people, coach experts, but i see you don´t

I don't mind summarizing my viewpoint, but it's hard to keep it short. I understand with Antonio, I take great risk pretending to speak for him, so I only speak for myself, and my personal understanding from my perspective.I understand Antonio's main critques of Lydiard (from a history of many threads):- lack of leveraging the full power of interval training in all phases of training- linear versus non-linear periodization (should you develop attributes one at a time in succession, or develop many attributes together in progressive harmony?)- specificity (when planning training, is it defined generically, the same for all runners, or is linked to each individual's race goal, pace and distance, and strengths, preferences, etc.)- training individualization (should the 800m fast twitch runner do the same "aerobic" training as the 10000m slow twitch runner?)In this thread, the main subject concerns interval training. Ever since Gerschler/Randall, in Lydiard's time, it was well known how to perform interval training, controlling different parameters, to develop both aerobic systems and anaerobic systems.Lydiard never recommended using "aerobic" intervals (nor "anaerobic") during off-seasons base building phases, preferring instead long continuous efforts, high, but not too high, weekly mileage, and weekly 2 hour long runs. The closest thing to interval training is the easy fartlek, and maybe some strides. In this phase, Lydiard also encourages a variety of terrains and paces. This may be a good approach for many runners, but for many others, a well designed program that includes interval training can build a better aerobic base suited for their strengths and their race target.When Lydiard does use interval training, during the "anaerobic phase", he doesn't give us much guidance on the main training variables: number of iterations, pace of workbout, length of recovery, type of recovery (standing, walking, jogging), etc. Lydiard even dares to see all these things don't even matter! It's not the inputs that matter but achieving the desired effect/output of the whole training session.To a seasoned athletics veteran coach and student like Antonio, who in the early days of letsrun, published a lengthy thread (which I've often recommended, and still do) on the history of intermittent training, telling everyone that controlling these parameters don't matter can only be a recipe for failure. Interval training is a powerful tool that can be used for building, or if misused, can cause great destruction.Lydiard argues that the only real goal of anaerobic interval training is to build metabolic buffers to the negative effects of racing. The coach/athlete is left to choose the best way to achieve the combined produce of volume x intensity, with little more guidance than "run one, jog one" until you are sufficiently tired, and not more.I think Antonio is concerned that letting the athlete "do what he wants by feeling" isn't good enough, and doesn't properly leverage the real power of interval training, and such a loose recommendation suggests an improper understanding of interval training.So when Antonio reads Lydiard saying "Americans don't understand anaerobic training", I think there is a certain irony crossing Antonio's mind like the pot calling the kettle black. (As a side note, just to avoid any doubt, my only complaint with Antonio regarding the "New England Runner" article, is that I think he misunderstood what Lydiard said about short versus long, and which is anaerobic. I think the "looseness" of Lydiard's approach to intervals, and the lack of any interval training during base building is certainly a valid subject for debate.)A second criticism is that many world class athletes don't do a Lydiard like "aerobic only" base phase, that ignores other attributes for an extended time. After a short "Introductory" phase, "Modern training" includes a general phase, but this phase already takes a "complex" approach that includes several training aspects.I hope this improves understanding, and my apologies if I mischaracterized something.

Yams wrote:

Would someone mind summarizing the argument the antonio is making (it could be you antonio). I've become confused with the 20 or so huge posts. could someone write a short paragraph or so?

Summarize HRE's argument in a paragraph? Sure.

"I like Lydiard. I'm jealous of those who aren´t Lydiard and I want you all to believe that Lydiard is a better coach than he was despite the fact that I (HRE) never accomplished anywhere near as much as Cabral did. So I'll call his method the perfect one, i post as much Lydiard personal conversations, pseudo-scientific of what he Lydiard said to me, insult people (yes i also did it either - remember that canadian fellow that i taugh it was friom him all posts from Lydiard criticism) who try to critic Lydiard method, misrepresent their posts, ignore and misunderstood Renato´s direct posts, based his Lydiard approach by single cases of study and finnaly he doesn´t understand and accepts something so basic as "Lydaird aerobic first is stupidity, long runs aren´t necessary etc etc.

Thanks for such condensed post about my opinion. I mostly agree with everything what you say everything that you wrote here, and to be honest is a good summarize about what i think about training in general and Lydiard training specifically.

But as you might understand, and by instance HRE and some others don´t, each part of what i say, each idea about the same subject might be deeply scalped and related to the big umbrella that is the training knowledge repository.

There is the need of several long posts, and the need of several contributions for the debate. But let them be as they are, despite your effort to summarize what i write in detail, they will not understand, never.

Ps – HRE as some others do insist in compare my training with Lydiard and relate my past running performances with Lydiard. Well i could reply ask what the rich Lydiard training did for HRE, that he couldn´t do better performaces that i did with my poor training.

It´s nonsense an absurd the attempt to argue about my training and my performances being an athlete as the base of argumentation that does detroy my Lydiard critics.

You see. Despite that I might be an handicap in a wheel chair and can´t walk or run and never had been able train run and compete, but despite that my hypothetical handicap condition, I still could be a Lydiard expert and comment on Lydiard training. Despite I might haven´t one my personal training method I could disagree wit Lydiard as I do by the training methodology. Or every physiologist got to be coach and runner to got a his own opinion about training, Or every coach might had been runner or have his own training to make decisions and opinion about different training method ?

Besides by HRE logic it´s quite irrelevant that the runners I coach are poor performers than Peter Snell or whatever Lydiard runner , because he says that performances from different periods can´t be related !

The point I am trying to make, is that we need very hard sessions that avoid acidosis. This is how all the best runners train. We do this by not doing session whilst fully carbo loaded. Training to 'improve buffering' is pointless, we don't need it. Once again I must impress upon you the point that Jack Daniels makes that some training which induces acidosis and thus vert heavy breathing gives the respiratory muscles a good workout. My own opinion is that there is no further benefit to such training and so this idea of lowering blood pH on a regular basis is not a good way to train, and I don't believe that the best Lydiard trained athletes did this.

Also Brooks et al make a very important point that all stored glycogen and glucose is converted to lactate.

systems wrote:

The point I am trying to make, is that we need very hard sessions that avoid acidosis. This is how all the best runners train.

Who on earth are you talking about? I have never heard such a thing.

Does anyone have a link to Antonio's original post about interval training that rekrunner mentioned? (sorry the quieting thing doesn't work

Here it is:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=825534

Thanks for this summary. Here are two more arguments that I think Antonio is making (both are implicit in your summary, but I would appreciate concurrence):

1. Lydiard does not prescribe intervals during the aerobic phase; anyone who prescribes these using a "modified-Lydiard" should understand that this modified Lydiard training is *not* Lydiard training.

2. Aerobic and anaerobic can and should be developed simultaneously; this is Modern Training.

1) Antonio does say (or did say) that unofficial exceptions that may have been approved by Lydiard himself, or by a Lydiard appointed successor, in private communications don't count. We have to judge a method by what is publicly documented.But, in my opinion, I think we don't have to resort to private communications to find many examples where Lydiard himself explained when it was appropriate to deviate from the original plan, or even violate a fundamental concept/principle. Adaptation to fit the athlete's specific situation (current day's fitness, "loose" definition of interval training, identifying/correcting a weakness, adapting/deleting phases to fit a racing schedule, ...) is a common theme throughout much of the publicly available information.And I also think that a Lydiard training modified to include "aerobic intervals" in the aerobic phase, can still be called Lydiard training. For me the rule is not to do "anaerobic training" (with a low arterial pH) in the aerobic phase. I think we are not really violating an immutable Lydiard principle in this case.2) This answer is even more complicated, because the vocabulary has become richer and more nuanced than can be captured by the words "aerobic" and "anaerobic". For example, in the "big thread" Canova talks about no less than 8 interesting levels of training in a much narrower pace range: General resistance; Aerobic resistance; Aerobic power (2 levels); lactic endurance; lactic speed endurance; lactic capacity; and lactic power. (These levels exclude regeneration/recovery). We speak of things like intensity, extension, and define paces with terms like regenerative, general, special, and specific, and phases with terms like introductory, fundamental, general, special, and specific. The interest in these levels are linked to the event. For example "aerobic power" would be considered "specific" training for the half-marathon, but only "general" training for the 1500mSo having said that, you could say Antonio supports a "non-linear" periodization which develops "aerobic" and "anaerobic" attributes simultaneously, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Adam Smith wrote:

Thanks for this summary. Here are two more arguments that I think Antonio is making (both are implicit in your summary, but I would appreciate concurrence):

1. Lydiard does not prescribe intervals during the aerobic phase; anyone who prescribes these using a "modified-Lydiard" should understand that this modified Lydiard training is *not* Lydiard training.

2. Aerobic and anaerobic can and should be developed simultaneously; this is Modern Training.

coachW wrote:

Here it is:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=825534

Cabral copyright

2 kinds of runners. Which are you?

Cabral post

When it comes to middle and long-distance training, my guide is traditional training methodology rather than training physiology. My knowledge of the history of past and present methods, as well as my many years of personal experience have taught me that these are the key to formulating a training plan. I break the training down into the most basic of training parameters; time and space.

Space (distance): the exterior objective materialistic reality

Time (duration): the inner/abstract/subjective reality

The combination of time and space, i.e. the time it takes you to cover a certain distance (or vice-versa - the space you cover in a certain time), that's the pace (intensity).

Adhering to simplicity, I divide all middle and long distance training into three main categories:

1. Aerobic runs: covering everything from recovery runs to more dynamic paces.

2. Moderate/medium/submaximal runs. The effort that has become known as modern LT training. Whatever the terminology used, these are all intense, but submaximal paces. There has been great debate (perhaps too much) on these paces in recent years.

3. Fast/Maximal Training Runs: Includes all paces from close to maximal all the way up to supra-maximal but always respective to the target event distance. Intermittent training is commonly used at these running intensities.

coachW wrote:

Here it is:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=825534

Cabral copyright

2 kinds of runners. Which are you?

Cabral post

Before continuing, let me explain what intermittent training means to me; it is my own interpretation, and explains what I see as the difference in methodology behind each form of intermittent training.

It has become apparent to me from what I have read over the years that I differ from many “experts” when discussing intermittent training. I feel therefore I need to explain some basic definitions so that when I go on to discuss any particular form of intermittent training it will be obvious what I am referring to.

Definition of intermittent training

Intermittent training is a generic “umbrella” concept that covers any type of training that does not have a steady or continuous pace as its main design. It is used in describing fast/intense periods of time/distance interspersed with other periods of time/distance made up of inactivity/complete rest or runs of a slower intensity/active rest.

Such training is sometimes referred to as, “In-Out”. At this point it does not really matter the type of running surface, the training format, the total distance, the number of sets and so on.

Let me make one initial distinction between types of intermittent training.

On the one hand we have predetermined intermittent training in which one, some or all of the elements are fixed: could be the pace, or the number of sets, the total distance, and so on.

Interval training (and please read later what I mean by that term, because it is not what many others mean when they use the term) is a perfect example of a predetermined workout.

On the other hand there is “spontaneous”, not-predetermined intermittent training. This might be considered more “chaotic” (in the sense of Chaos Theory, rather than simply meaning disorganised).

Fartlek in the “natural style” might be a perfect example. But a natural fartlek, where no set pace is determined, no number of sets, nor distances run, nor set duration of distance/time run before changing from one pace to the other. Basically you run “by feeling”, rather than to any calculated design template.

Fractional/Repetition training

Actually the word fractional and the word repetitions or fractional/repetition workout it means different things to different coaches and runners. For me fractional it simply means the notion of “division” or of “fraction” and repetition it simply means “to repeat”.

Fractional training it comes from one primary concept of intermittent training is that it is a workout formed by cutting or dividing a race distance into a number of smaller parts (e.g.: 5-10 x 1,000m for a target 10k event). Each set distance is then run while you try to maintain a running velocity close to the race pace. The aim is to “repeat” the same distance over and over again at near race pace with a suitable recovery interval in between.

Organising the workout this way has proven to be an effective method of allowing running at race pace.

Early on, before the introduction of the interval training concept, the recovery was simply a pause long enough to allow a number of repetitions to be run at the same (near race) pace.

Therefore, when we discuss repetition workouts, the prime focus should be on the running pace, the recovery interval is of secondary importance. The recovery interval is solely to allow the runner to have a near-complete recovery between repetitions. To allow the runner to manage to run (a number of times) at close to race pace, the number of reps is always determined by dividing the target event.

Naturally, longer distance reps are utilised when the target is a long distance event; (e.g.: 6-10 x 1000m or 3-5 x 2000m for a target 10k race). While in middle distance events the repetitions tend to be shorter (e.g.: 7-10 x 500m or 4-5 x 1000m for 5k run and 4 x 400m or 2 x 800m for the Mile).

With the development of the repetition method, and the development of intermittent concepts in various formats and for different purposes such as those based on physiological concepts, or experience, or trial-and-error, the original concept behind repetition training has been changed.

Actually the repetition workout concept is more flexible. There is no longer a need to cover the total event distance in reps; longer reps can be done by time rather than distance, and repetition training has become merged into a generic “interval” training commonly used by long distance runners. But in my opinion the major change in the repetition workouts is that is used a pace that is different or faster than the race pace, it is more a “best” pace for the total repetition units. E.g.: a 3:45 1500m runner instead of do 5 x 500m 1:15 race pace does 5X500m quite all flat out faster than 1:15 race pace and delay the rest periods to allow a complete recovery.

Yes. One Lydiard successor might be still Lydiard only when the lines of Lydaird training principles and training application aren´t sensible violated. Take some Lydiard main fundaments out, or add something that we know that Lydiard refused or stand up to contest, it´s Lydiard revisionism. Each training method is a whole package when every part is connect withe the whole, and Lydiard training it´s not exception. Lydiard without the 100miles as ultimate mileage, or the aerobic first it´s as Lydiard as i am. it´s not Lydiard. Lydiard with intervals during the aerobic block it´s not Lydiard training, But i admit that Lydiard the man, might for his reason and skill and experience advised diferent somehow, or break his own training perinciples. But Lydiard the man, not i don´t accept that anyone out of Lydiard the man might change the principle by his own self decision. Everyone might make changes, but as Nobby once said about the use of intervals during the aerobic block. He said "might be right but it´s not Lydiard"

I disagree and let me say why. The meaning of intervals it´s not because it´s aerobic or anaerobic. INTERVAL TRAINING MIGHT BE AEROBIC OR ANAEROBIC, intervals is basically the kind intermittent run that the fast part is followed by passive or active recovery that is repeated on and on, AND WHEN THE INTERVAL SESSION IS PLANED AND CONTROLLED IN THEIR VARIABLES - pace, didtance, number of sets, rest etc. When someone says that dismiss or interdict intervals, basically he says that he doesn´t want the intermittent kind run. Lydiard, in the case of the aerobic first phase prefers continuous runs (from easy to fast runs) because he thinks that on that phase the aerobic system and the generic resistance (endurance and stamina) progresses better with continuous effort runs that with non-continuous runs (the intervals).

Therefore Lydiard doesn´t open the door to accept any kind of intervals - be aerobic or anaerobic during what he names aerobic phase or marathon block.

Therefore aerobic intervals is permitted but aerobic don ´t it´s not Lydiard. Lydiard said don´t do intervals in that phase, point.

Also THE CHARACTERIZATION of one effort AS BE INTERVAL STIMULUS DOESN´T DEPEND OF THE TYPE OF SURFACE THAT IS DONE. It might be done intervals on the track, on the field, on road pavement, on hills, on flat surface, on muddy cross terrain, every kind of terrain is possible to run intervals. again what characterizes the interval is because is a non-continuous run.

To interdict intervals because might be anaerobic with too much ph and allow fartlek it´s another absurd. Why ? Basically the fartlek is one kind of intervals.

Also the fartlek, that by definition is a free uncontrolled run, done by feeling - as Lydiard prescribes, might be easily turn on in a anaerobic effort. How do you know that "by feeling" that you do an fast/hard effort but that effort is just/mainly anaerobic if you don´t control de pace, don´t control de distance, all is done by feeling without accuracy. Lydiard fartlek done by feeling might turn in anaerobic effort.

Replace "simultaneously" by "during the same phase in different average percents in each phase considered". Different percents in the number of daily frequency, different volume percent, different quantity, diffrent pace, etc. Of course nothing is total simultaneously, One effort at each time, at each training unity. everything "piece" of training goes in progressive crescendo along the season. This is what is multiple-season periodization. Might be that one kind of effort, or one or another zone of percent might be missed during one short or long period, but this is not by principle, but by reason of efficient application.

Finally, both the easy and the fast training goes the way that might be approach specific race pace, that is the specific resistance. the faster training progresses to be slower, down to the race pace specifics, and the slow pace progresses to fast pace up to the race pace specifics. All as extensive process - the more the better.

How might be this Lydiard training ? ! Never.

I just don't understand what relevance you or anything you say has to a discussion on Lydiard. I would like to hear people saying things about Lydiard, their understanding, their experiences and so on. You do nothing of that and it appears generally people wished you would disappear.

As for myself, you aren't bringing anything to the discussion, you are derailing it with your constant and excessively long posts which contain very little real information. Besides that you are very selective about what you respond to and this is simply intellectual dishonesty.

I wonder how long you will hang around for if everyone ignores you and keeps on with their own conversations.

'Run to the Top' by Arthur Lydiard and Garth Gilmour

page 17, chapter 1

TITLE: The First Step - Enjoyment. (where else to start?)

SENTENCE 2: 'Dozens of factors, physical, mental, and psychological ...'

(indicates the need for specificity)

SENTENCE 3: 'an outside influence from someone who loved sport and was devoted to it, someones whose attitude to sport inspired the young to follow.'

(the most important factor outside of the athletes potential)

PARAGRAPH 2: respect and homage to the one who first inspired Arthur.

(nice respect shown by Arthur, right at the beginning.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

I like this very much as a beginning. It shows the man is a good man and is looking at all the important things. So i naturally wish to read on. Perhaps a letsrun thread on Lydiard can be more like this, looking at some quotes and discussing them.