Tom Schwartz vs. Renato Canova

jamin wrote:

I've listened to Renato Canova talk about this philosophy before and phrases it in terms more of athlete mentality.

For example, say you have a runner who wants to improve from 2:30 marathon to 2:20 marathon. Say he can run at 2:20 marathon pace for 1:50 max. If the runners is a Kenyan, he thinks in terms of "I need to increase the time I can sustain my goal marathon pace for 30 minutes longer," whereas if he is American he thinks in terms of "I need to increase my marathon pace by 13 seconds per mile to reach my goal."

So which idea is best and why?

I` ve heard good things about DANCAN system, did anyone try it?

UmbrellaMan wrote:

roller coaster wrote:

Exactly. If I do a workout at 3k pace, I am basically doing a workout at 5k goal pace. You should be training at all paces. This "debate" is just stupid.

Only if your goal 5k pace is the same as your 3k pace.

It's just an example. If my goal 5K pace was the same as my 4K pace and I did a workout at 4K pace, I would be training at 5K goal pace.

Well....."nr 3" there is not a foolish one . You never have to run 10 k race pace in training and still will run it in a 10 k race .

jamin wrote:

I've listened to Renato Canova talk about this philosophy before and phrases it in terms more of athlete mentality.

For example, say you have a runner who wants to improve from 2:30 marathon to 2:20 marathon. Say he can run at 2:20 marathon pace for 1:50 max. If the runners is a Kenyan, he thinks in terms of "I need to increase the time I can sustain my goal marathon pace for 30 minutes longer," whereas if he is American he thinks in terms of "I need to increase my marathon pace by 13 seconds per mile to reach my goal."

So, if a Kenyan goes to the market he thinks, I need to buy a dozen eggs, while the American thinks, I need to buy twelve eggs.

Which one is more correct?

Brazilian Guy wrote:

jamin wrote:

I've listened to Renato Canova talk about this philosophy before and phrases it in terms more of athlete mentality.

For example, say you have a runner who wants to improve from 2:30 marathon to 2:20 marathon. Say he can run at 2:20 marathon pace for 1:50 max. If the runners is a Kenyan, he thinks in terms of "I need to increase the time I can sustain my goal marathon pace for 30 minutes longer," whereas if he is American he thinks in terms of "I need to increase my marathon pace by 13 seconds per mile to reach my goal."

So, if a Kenyan goes to the market he thinks, I need to buy a dozen eggs, while the American thinks, I need to buy twelve eggs.

Which one is more correct?

HAHA! A VERY SMART COMMENT!! Muito OBRIGADO! :)

UmbrellaMan wrote:

I have been reading about Canova recently and I have noticed that he seems to focus on goal pace training. In theory, it seems like a good idea to try to extend the length of time that you can run at your goal pace for a certain race distance, but then I was listening to a podcast with Tom Schwartz and I was reminded about how much he dislikes goal pace training. I think Tom definitely presents a better argument, he is able to explain the physiology of training at goal pace vs. current fitness level.

What does everyone else think? Goal pace training or current fitness training?

Just....don't. Please stop. Who cares about "Tom is better at explaining". LOOK AT THE RESULTS. Canova has had soooo many runners in the Olympics/WC's, winning marathon majors, running world bests, etc. It's not even close.

I'm off to bang my head against the wall. I just....can't believe this is even a thread.

I have nothing against Tinman. You're just comparing, perhaps, the GOAT coach (Canova) to more of a "developing a few runners to be nationally competitive" coach (Tinman). I think even Tinman is laughing right now.

Not only is it not close, but I would say that the fact that this question was even asked is a disgrace to the entire sport.

CANOVA HAS THE ITALIAN DOCTORS AND COMPOUNDERS WHO GET THE BEST DOPE

Brazilian Guy wrote:

jamin wrote:

I've listened to Renato Canova talk about this philosophy before and phrases it in terms more of athlete mentality.

For example, say you have a runner who wants to improve from 2:30 marathon to 2:20 marathon. Say he can run at 2:20 marathon pace for 1:50 max. If the runners is a Kenyan, he thinks in terms of "I need to increase the time I can sustain my goal marathon pace for 30 minutes longer," whereas if he is American he thinks in terms of "I need to increase my marathon pace by 13 seconds per mile to reach my goal."

So, if a Kenyan goes to the market he thinks, I need to buy a dozen eggs, while the American thinks, I need to buy twelve eggs.

Which one is more correct?

Jamin was saying that Canova focuses more on extension.

SouthernFriedRealist wrote:

Brazilian Guy wrote:

So, if a Kenyan goes to the market he thinks, I need to buy a dozen eggs, while the American thinks, I need to buy twelve eggs.

Which one is more correct?

Jamin was saying that Canova focuses more on extension.

Brazilian guys arent smart

Why are people so results-focused? Is everyone seriously believing that Tinman has the same access to talent as Canova?

Only very, very few people in the world have the potential to make it to the Olympics or even worse, become a medalist. Obviously a coach who has access to the most talented runners in the whole world will produce better results than someone who works mostly with good American HS/college runners.

That's like blaming the coach of Celta Vigo (17th best soccer team in Spanish Primera Division) for not having the same results as Real Madrid (1st) or Barcelona (2nd). One coach is working with good, talented soccer players whereas the other two are working with only world-class players and lots of money to throw around.

To be able to directly compare the coaches, Tinman would need to be given some of the most talented African runners, and see what he could do with them. But unless he has access to the same level of talent as BTC, Canova, Gjert, etc. he should not be framed as bad coach simply because he has no success yet on Olympics/world stage!!

+1

very well said

Tinman is way better than Canova

Agreed. The abilities of a coach can't always be determined by looking at the successes of their athletes. If you have an amazing pool of talent and know a great deal about running, your team will likely be successful.

Of course, it certainly doesn't hurt to work with the best, like how Mike Smith spent years working with Jack Daniels.

Goal pace training or current fitness training? That's all I wanted to hear.

Current until you really need to to throw in some race specific work mate

UmbrellaMan wrote:

Real Lyfe Nobodee wrote:

Just....don't. Please stop. Who cares about "Tom is better at explaining". LOOK AT THE RESULTS. Canova has had soooo many runners in the Olympics/WC's, winning marathon majors, running world bests, etc. It's not even close.

I'm off to bang my head against the wall. I just....can't believe this is even a thread.

I have nothing against Tinman. You're just comparing, perhaps, the GOAT coach (Canova) to more of a "developing a few runners to be nationally competitive" coach (Tinman). I think even Tinman is laughing right now.

Goal pace training or current fitness training? That's all I wanted to hear.

The thing is that you can`t really distinguish the two methods by saying "goal pace training" or "current fitness training"........... both have elements of goal pace and current fitness training. So I suggest your question at issue should be " linear or phase system training ? " I vote for the linear system training but with another coach with more knowledge how to perform a linear system perfect.

Great coaching is maybe 60% about training methodology.

tinmanelite. wrote:

Tinman is a better coach

You spelled Daniels wrong