---

weIInow wrote:

In a nutshell, my opinion of Lydiard Philosophy is that most runners can, through proper training become awesomely competitive, and that there is no limit to how well trained we can be in endurance capacity.

This phiolosopy is what marks Lydiard out as a unique figure in athletic coaching because it is an unusual concept. Most coaches place immaginary limits on what they think the average runner can achieve. They have a lack of vision.

Discuss.

---

---

HRE wrote:

I think one of the things Arthur learned from his own running and then from athletes he coached was that you couldn't assume from an athlete's early career that he had little or no talent...

---

---

troll alert wrote:

Has somebody stolen wellnow´s name?
1. This goes against everything wellnow claims (aerobic capacity can be maximized in only 8 weeks).
2. Several words are misspelled. Wellnow rarely does that.
3. Wellnow never ends his post with "discuss".

---

---

weIInow wrote:

In a nutshell, my opinion of Lydiard Philosophy is that most runners can, through proper training become awesomely competitive, and that there is no limit to how well trained we can be in endurance capacity.

This phiolosopy is what marks Lydiard out as a unique figure in athletic coaching because it is an unusual concept. Most coaches place immaginary limits on what they think the average runner can achieve. They have a lack of vision.

Discuss.

---

---

weIInow wrote:


I used the term endurance capacity, not aerobic capacity. They are not the same thing. We have to consider the skills of running as being distinct from cardiovascular development.

---

---

UW wrote:

Wellnow,to some extent I agree with you on this. I dont think though that he is the only coach who has done this - its just that he has also proposed a training system that is relatively 'safe' in that if you do as he suggests (and dont just blindly copy the published schedules) then you are unlikely to hurt yourself. His ability to write and talk about his method with such confidence is likely also very effective in making some athletes believe that they truly can dramatically improve their own performance.

I'm actually much more interested in the writings of Percy Cerutty. I read two of his books (Middle Distance and How to Become a Champion) numerous times in the University library years ago trying to eaxtract his real message. Although I originally took the books to be the writings of a mad man (maybe he was), I am becoming more and more convinced that he was also a true genius. I think he really was trying to achieve what you propose, its just that most athletes lack the intuitive ability to truly read their own bodies to train in the manner he suggested (I seem to recall reading a thread about Cerutty on this site several years ago where one of the contributors actually trained under Cerutty at Portsea - people were asking for a typical week etc. They entirey missed the point, to follow any 'schedule' would be completely contrary to Cerutty's teachings).
Although I'm sure if I went back to his original writings there would be some glaring errors, I've come across nothing in the contemporary sport science literature that would suggest he was 'wrong' - to some extent he was ahead of his time.

---

---

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

wellnow,

You do like to live dangerously don't you?

As usual, let me start by avoiding your discussion, and challenging your assumptions. Do most coaches place imaginary limits on average runners?

I guess it's true, there is a bias in coaches to focus their attention on developing "talented" athletes, and not wasting their time with those perceived as untalented. I'm thinking of what's called the "Matthew Effect", where the gap between "talented" and "untalented" athletes tend to grow, because the "talented" ones get better training, because they were initially perceived as, well, "talented".

I understand that Lydiard applied a different filter (when he was training athletes). He would train any athlete, who did not waste his time, or theirs, as long as certain human principles such as respect, loyalty were observed. He demanded a certain amount of respect and loyalty, and in return, he gave the same attention to all levels of athletes.

Of course Lydiard is well-known for his training principles, combining periodicity with general base-training, hill training, and specific speed work, in his unique way, going against the grain at the time.

It seems to me that a lot of focus on why Lydiard succeeded on the Olympic and world stage surrounds his training principles, and sometimes mistakenly focuses on details of individual training plans.

Of course, the principles, radical as they were at that time, were an important part of his success, but in my opinion, are only part of the story.

I think other important reasons, not often discussed, are something intangible. For example, one was his ability to motivate athletes, and make them feel they were doing all the right things for all the right reasons.

Another important aspect was his keen sense of observation, seeing what works and doesn't with an athlete, and when things are going wrong in the training. This allowed him to make corrections to address specific training problems.

A lot of debate focuses on minor details such as the correctness of avoiding speed work during base-building, or how steep the hills need to be.

But I think that, armed with motivational skills, and a keen sense of observation, a good coach with any set of "mediocre" training philosophies will always produce superior athletes.

It's these "intangible" skills (and not training schedules) which separate great coaches, from good coaches.

Just my own speculation.

---

---

HRE wrote:

I think that one part of being coached by Lydiard that comes up infrequently in these discussions is the personal impact that came from working with him. Nothing about an athlete, in his way of presenting, was ever negative.
If you were "too big" he'd tell you that you were muscular and could hold up under more training than a smaller runner. Halberg's withered arm meant that he wasn't overly muscular. If you thought you were too old to run fast he'd tell you stories about Jack Foster and Tenho Salakka. (Let's see if our Finnish pal is following this thread.) You always heard the reasons why you could accomplish what you wanted to and never heard about why you couldn't. It was just a matter of doing what he told you. That was the feeling you had.
Even when he'd do workshops and was dealing with large and fairly impersonal groups there was always that feeling that here was the guy who'd figured it all out and now he was going to explain it to you so you could do what others who'd worked with him did. "Champions are everywhere. You just have to find them and prepare them properly." He proved that time after time.
On the other hand he certainly recognized that while champions were everywhere not everyone had the makings of one. He'd talk about young girls taking up running and showing tremendous potential but then getting too wide in the hips during adolescence to run fast ever again. He'd talk about how he sort of preferred working with people who were never going to be champions because you could improve them tremendously and they'd be grateful but not get big headed and forget how much he'd helped them.

---

---

weIInow wrote:

Very good post Ray-san, I agree with all of your points.

The one thing that puzzles me the most about coaching is how do I influnce someone to be more confident? If I tell someone to believe in themselves, does that often come across as me belittling their achievements so far? As though they are not really trying? When in fact what I am trying to say is that they have reached a false plateau, above which they will inevitably rise if they keep their focus?

Many runners don't seem to want to hear that kind of message, because they fear what they perceive as being put under extra pressure. What is the best way to allay that fear?

---