| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | |
| is this a joke? |
| ||
|
Thank you for agreeing with me about the times dropping = inferior coaches thing. Although a more accurate way to state this would be "faster athletes means better coach, given equal talent levels." I am sure now you can agree that it is an obvious point that we should try to imitate coaches who are successful and who are able to get their athletes to run fast rather than those who are characterized by consistent mediocrity or by performances of athletes that would not get them to the USA championships final in a given year. And no, I am not referring to Vigil, I am referring to Vigilante, although Vigilante has had far more success than Lydiard as well. Both (and the other coaches I mentioned, and a million other guys) are examples of coaches with better systems than Lydiard who are more worth studying (or imitating) than Lydiard. It doesn't matter at all if they happen to use some of the same methodologies of Lydiard because their methods are far superior in all of the ways in which they differ. Also, your Honda/Ferrari analogy makes no sense. I believe that you are more guilty if you steal a more valuable piece of property. As in, if I steal a million dollars I should be punished more than if I stole ten thousand dollars. Even ignoring this fact, your analogy is incomprehensible. Please think before you type. |
| is this a joke? |
| ||
|
whoops- that should be "Vigil has had far more success than Lydiard as well" |
| Wetcoast |
| ||
|
Why don't you send me an email. I have some questions for you. I am interested to know more about Vigilante. Thanks so much. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
Wetcoast, What's missing for me in this round-table discussion is Canova. It seems too one-sided, in a "world according to Lydiard" way: - What is Canova training? - How qualified are the Lydiard Knights of the Round Table to evaluate Canova's training. How well do they know it? These are probably the first guys I'd go to, to ask questions about Lydiard principles, but the last ones I would go to ask questions about Canova's principles. How often do we dismiss Lydiard critics because they simply don't "understand" Lydiard? I wonder if the Lydiard Knights are committing the same sin. I have to completely disagree with Nobby when he says "it's almost silly and useless to talk about the DIFFERENCE between Canova and Lydiard because they are pretty much identical". I think that's the most important and only useful thing to talk about. If we look at human genes, 96% of the genes of man are the same as the chimpanzee. The other 4% matters most, if you want a man, and not a monkey. (Using the same logic, men and women share 99.7% the same genes. Yet the differences between man and woman are far from "silly and useless to talk about".) To understand what Canova is saying, and why, you must focus on the differences, and understand them, before making any kind of comparison, and drawing any conclusions. When Canova says that the long run can be detrimental to many middle distance runners' performance, this is a genuine contradiction. Nothing Lydiard ever said would lead me to completely forego the weekly long runs for half of my middle distance runners. Canova talks about a focus on "Internal Load", then changing the focus to "External Load". Lydiard is never described that way, and I don't think it can be interpreted that way. At times, the training can match a focus on maintaining a constant "Internal Load", but the focus of training never shifts to a focus on a specific "External Load". At least not in a way where you can conclude "they are pretty much identical". Canova talks about something new, after you've matured "aerobically", when it's time to increase the volume AND the intensity of the aerobic running. This seems like an important departure from Lydiard, that Canova claims brings his athletes to the next level. There are more differences in discussions of important paces, but the main conclusion is that the two approaches will not always generate the same solutions to training problems. Just because Canova doesn't violate a certain idea of "balancing aerobic and anaerobic training", doesn't mean that his approach is the same as Lydiard's. And to whoever assumes Canova doesn't appreciate his Lydiard roots, where does that come from? Canova has often praised Lydiard's historical importance, in a Newtonian "standing on the shoulders of giants" kind of way. |
| rekrunner |
| ||
|
J.R. -- I think you don't know what "proof" means. |
| J.R. |
| ||
Well thank you for comparing me to Renato Canova. I have much respect for Renato, however we are not the same person. In fact I have used only this nickname on this thread and generally because I stand by my principles and don't need to hide from them. How about you - ahuh that's what I thought. |
| clueless about running |
| ||
Yes, I agree with this completely. Thank GOODNESS for those prior to L and since then who have helped modern athletics to continue to progress. |
| Coaching |
| ||
|
Wetcoast, if by principles you mean the following: Hill Repeats, Tempo Runs, fartleks, tempos, long runs, short reps & long reps on the track, high mileages etc..etc.. These principles all existed before Lydiard, are you aware of this? Lydiard did not invent them.... |
| Hilarious |
| ||
|
The post quoted below is hilarious in it's digs at Canova. They are weaves throughout. Kelsall, try hard, but you cannot hide your disdain for anything that is not classic lydiardisme. I would argue that the hill sprints are not just for top-level kenyans, and Canova has not knocked Lydiard the man.
|
| gyspy |
| ||
|
So it is on again, Chris you troublemaker ;) That was an excellent quote from Livingstone you posted on the first page. In a world where Netwonian Absolutism was the order of the day Einsteins' Relavitism was completely out of the blue. In a world of Judaism, Jesus Chris presented a totally new version, as did Buddha with Hinduism. Whilst probably not of the same category as these people there is a great similarity. In a world where intervals had become the obsession of all, Lydiard, and his contemporary across the Tasman sea, proposed a totally new approach which produced results so far out of the comtemporary standard of their time, showed something fantastic was occurring. In all these examples a revolution was staged. With relativism, which is always going to be correct, qantum has now extended this line of thinking. Personally i prefer to look at Lydiard in the same light; he is already correct, let us just see if we can extend it. |
| coach d |
| ||
Haven't you heard, Lydiard invented everything. What he probably did invent was the block periodization schedule (distance, hills, intervals). In the late 1990's (1997 I think in Russian), the late professor Yuri Verkhoshanksy wrote an important paper called "The End of Periodization." He did not shoot down all forms of periodization, but the Matveyev block structure also used by other coaches of the time. And Lydiard's periodization schedule, perhaps his only contribution to track and field, is exactly the type of thing Verkhoshansky shot down. As a coach, why would you want to learn from Lydiard, when you could learn from Kostre and others who would wipe the track with Lydiard's athletes? I see the whole concept as null and void, shot down by more modern science, and no modern coach worth a damn follows that ancient religion any more. An anachronism from another time when coaches and science knew less. Null and void. Surpassed by more modern methods. In particular, concurrent periodization schemes. |
| Wetcoast |
| ||
Nope that is not what is meant by principles. Fail. |
| Wetcoast |
| ||
|
Anytime you want to learn the finer points of Lydiard, so you can speak with authority. Feel free to send me an email, I will be glad to help. |
| longjack |
| ||
|
canova is a of state of the art coach while lydiard was a great pioneer. no need to analyze it further for me... also if you care to note, we involved in track and field are not the brightest of the brightest. we're just not that smart. in light of the fact that most posters are not qualified through acumen, experience or/nor training. canova is being very good to contribute on this site and adds a lot to the sport. have fun with the sport, after all we are just running around in circles right? don't be so serious. |
| Wetcoast |
| ||
|
I agree. Hopefully you are talking to everyone with that statement. |
| gyspy |
| ||
Verkoshansky was a jealous and bitter man who achieved nothing so attempted to tear down Matveyev and failed at this, yet he is your authority. Perhaps you should travel around and check out what current Soviet coaches are doing - all Matveyev baby. |
| Huckleberry Finn |
| ||
Yes he did create the periodization and when to use these different training types above. Of course there was people who could do these things before Lydiard "invented" them, but after breakthrough of Snell, Halberg, Davies etc. all the world wanted to know what was behind the success. And the answer wasnīt "short reps & long reps on the track" that was very popular before Lydiard, it was mainly these frequent long runs at strong aerobic intensity that made the difference, with the periodization. Thereīs no question who really invented the base work including not only long but quite challenging long runs at or close to marathon pace, it was Arthur Lydiard. These long strong runs are underrated nowadays in my opinion and should be a PART of the training of distance runners from 800m to longer, if you want to really boost your basic endurance. This has nothing to do with jogging 100MPW, and Iīm not saying that even 800m runner should jog or run 100MPW or even close to it, but would definitely benefit from a frequent long run done at strong aerobic intensity. The overall mileage, and the distance of this long run can vary a lot depending from the runnerīs type and main event. I just came from my weekly 30k long run done close to my marathon pace, by the way. |
| uhh |
| ||
No, he didnīt. That was how marathoners trained even before Lydiard, while track runners were doing intervals, intervals, intervals. That was why Lydiard called base training "marathon conditioning. Track runners should train like marathoners during their base phase. |
| J.R. |
| ||
Itaj?: This is very well said, thank you. Also thank you to WC, gypsy (who can't even spell own name), rekr, nobb and others who keep bringing to the fore the idiocy about L so everyone can see how deficient it is, and especially the false thinking throughout the L method that continues to this day, set up only to elevate a false guru, and to discredit the better coaches (even new ones) he continues to copy from the grave. In any case, I have decided to get rid of my L books, and at some point to sell them on Ebay, along with other outdated running books, especially Hewson that I never read. I'm looking forward to getting Renato Canova's new book when it's out. |
| Huckleberry Finn |
| ||
No, he didnīt. That was how marathoners trained even before Lydiard, while track runners were doing intervals, intervals, intervals. That was why Lydiard called base training "marathon conditioning. Track runners should train like marathoners during their base phase.[/quote] Yes he did invent the base work consisting SYSTEMATIC USE OF LONG FAIRLY HARD RUNS as a base training for training to ALL DISTANCES before more intense phases. See, YOU "uhh" agreed with me that it was Lydiard who invented that "track runners should train like marathoners during their base phase". Before Lydiard they thought that youīre crazy if you run a lot because track races are so short. It was mostly intervals, intervals and intervals like Roger Bannister did. After Lydiardīs success people didnīt anymore afraid kilometres/miles and the real training begun WORLD WIDE. It was Lydiard, who told exactly how a distance runnerīs base phase and other phases should be executed, that revolutionized the complete training system of distance running. |