As the topic says - in 62, snell experimented a little and didn't train pure lydiard style, yet ran WRs. anyone disagree?
what are the implications?
As the topic says - in 62, snell experimented a little and didn't train pure lydiard style, yet ran WRs. anyone disagree?
what are the implications?
years of base work behind him....you can't compare snell to snell.
none
0/10
Lydiard trained 3 olympic medalist (2 of which were gold medalists), regardless of whether snell changed his training, the coach still has 2 powerhouse runners worthy enough to emulate, and as a poster said, the mileage was already under him.
The question is how many olympic medalists did Lydiard coached in the 70's, 80's and 90's?
17 Olympic Gold medals, hundreds of other performances, 10s of thousands of performances. Yet he did not directly coach for long.
What is this so-called 'pure Lydiard' rubbish you speak of?
Firstly, this was not an attack on Lydiard.
It is an observation there are other ways to get to go about training.
I am not going to answer your rubbish questions. Chances are you already know what I mean by pure lydiard.
Snell was in the middle of his anaerobic training, did less hill work and maintained anaerobic work after he got back from a european tour (that's my understanding)
There are a few touchy people on here.
Well you can't read tone in a post.
So just to be clear, there have been a few people here that spoil a discussion for everyone else, by asking questions like you did, but with the intention of derailing a thread. I jumped a little, so neither of us can read tone in a post.
Anyway, when understanding of the holism of the method one doesn't have to run a so-called 'pure Lydiard' cycle, if one actually exists.
Within the framework of what makes an effective program the athlete and the coach have to understand what works for that particular individual. That takes time, by '62 they hade been together for some time.
So you asked, "what are the implication?"
There are none - it doesn't detract from the fact that Lydiard coach and advised many great performances and his method continues to provide many pbs, regional, national and international performances in endurance sports. However, it does indicate that every human is an experiment of one. Therefore not everyone gets the same exact weekly schedule.
jon boy wrote:
Firstly, this was not an attack on Lydiard.
It is an observation there are other ways to get to go about training.
I am not going to answer your rubbish questions. Chances are you already know what I mean by pure lydiard.
Snell was in the middle of his anaerobic training, did less hill work and maintained anaerobic work after he got back from a european tour (that's my understanding)
There are a few people that need to be touched.
fixed.
jon boy wrote:
Firstly, this was not an attack on Lydiard.
It is an observation there are other ways to get to go about training.
I am not going to answer your rubbish questions. Chances are you already know what I mean by pure lydiard.
Snell was in the middle of his anaerobic training, did less hill work and maintained anaerobic work after he got back from a european tour (that's my understanding)
There are a few touchy people on here.
Your understand is mistaken. Not necessarily about Snell, but that there is any such thing as "Pure Lydiard". This is a cartoon versions of his ideas and as such is continually brought brought up as if it were the real thing. If we all get lucky, it will be corrected (often by the likes of guys like Nobby Hashizume) but no matter, it will be brought up again 6 months later by someone else.
Most importantly, yours was not a post asking a question about implications. It was an agenda disguised as a question.
He trained with Don MacFahrquhar who was one of Arthur's less known athletes who is still doing Lydiard style coaching today. Don is a big believer in the value of the base phase and was less specific about the subsequent phases than Arthur was. But he was a "Lydiard" guy.
Let's go a bit further here. Peter started working with Arthur in 1958, I believe. And then there's this stretch of a few months with Don MacFahrquhar in 1962, a small stretch of time in his career that happened after he'd become a gold medallist after working with Arthur for years. What do you think happened to all the fitness he'd developed in those years and exactly how different do you think his training was while working with a guy who learned about the sport from Arthur?
Thanks for your posts.
HRE, thanks for the extra info. You often give good insights. But you can be defensive.
Yes, Snell developed an enormous base with Lydiard and Lydiard coached Snell to his Gold Medal performances. Agreed. But don't you find it interesting that Snell changed things a bit when he ran his 1.44.
It is worth exploring what he did a little different, don't you think? You seem to know more of the detail than I do.
Wetcoast wrote:
17 Olympic Gold medals, hundreds of other performances, 10s of thousands of performances. Yet he did not directly coach for long.
What is this so-called 'pure Lydiard' rubbish you speak of?
!7 olympic gold medals and mostly done 50-40-30 years ago.
Interval training. 347 gold medals, thousands of other performances, thousands of word records and thousands of other performances. It starts with Zatopec, and for the moment goes to Rudisha and all contemporary word records or olympic or continetal wins. Brother O Colm does Lydiard oves Rudisha ? No he doesnt.
What is named pure Lydiard training is rubish. Lydiard trainining does the intervals pattern with a diffrent season periodosation athn most other methods. Lydiard does intervals in the precompetitive and competitive block and it is what really matters. Lydiard runners take weeks, months of hibernation without interval training, but when it counts they do intervals indeed. Does Lydiard pattern includes mileage and hills also ? Yes. Lydiard does intervals, but the interval training method also does mileage and hills eventually.
Jon Boy - devil's advocate wrote:
As the topic says - in 62, snell experimented a little and didn't train pure lydiard style, yet ran WRs. anyone disagree?
what are the implications?
The Lydiard season periodisation it is an absurd. Every good and independent physiologist will say that the enhance of the physical condition it´s not as effective if you take a long period without train on the specific zone of stimulus of the event you train to compete. In the distance events its done with add to the mileage-aerobic stuff frequent race pace stimulus or faster stimulus and the best way, effective way, its to do interval training in every peridisation phase.
Its wrong physiology to go for months of straight aerobic training without include intervals. The runner is waisting time.
I dont know about Peter Snell 62 whatever. However i can´t deny the Lydiard training effectiveness. But when soemone goes out of the straight method and tries something different the new-hibrid stimulus does good to him and improves. It does good because the straight Lydiard training does improve the aerobic condition. No doubt of it. But fails in the connection of the aerobics with the anaerobics.
Intervals are a important part of lydiard's training
You're an ignorant fool if you think Lydiard training means "don't do intervals" or "intervals don't matter."
I'm wary, not defensive, because there's quite a history of people who have an incomplete knowledge of the Lydiard Syetem and how it was used getting on here and writing things that could be taken to mean, "Gee, there must be something better because So and So didn't do pure Lydiard and had all this success." Those same people have a very constricted idea of what "Lydiard Training" is, generally it's a schedule from one of the books, and never quite say what they think would work better or why. They just seem to want to argue and instead of saying what they think fill up threads asking what others who are willing to write things think and then critiquing the answers. It's what you're doing.
But the answer is, as I already wrote, that MacFahrquhar thought that the conditioning phase was really what mattered and that once you'd done that you needed to invest very little effort or thought on the subsequent phases. So he likely carried Arthur's line about interval training being "a lot of eyewash" to a degree that even Arthur disputed.
Years of Coaching wrote:
The question is how many olympic medalists did Lydiard coached in the 70's, 80's and 90's?
This. Did all of New Zealand's running talent just jump into the ocean after the '70s, at least until Ron Warhurst dug up Willis?
Progress=author author=ddt=antonio
Seriously you can't think of any better thing to do than coming up with guzzillion different code names to dis Lydiard? Get a life, Antonio.