Jagg wrote:
How is it cope when it’s his own dad that is putting out clearly conflicting numbers. Are we not allowed to question his training and whether he’s being 100% transparent about it?
-
137
-
Huhhh wrote:
Jagg wrote:
How is it cope when it’s his own dad that is putting out clearly conflicting numbers. Are we not allowed to question his training and whether he’s being 100% transparent about it?
Give me a timeline of "clearly conflicting numbers"?
With direct quotes & dates.
You want to make these statements then back them up.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.810 -
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Wetcoast wrote:
3,2,1,...0...
"Steve Ovett (UK): The 1980 Olympic 800m champion was famous for high-mileage training, sometimes hitting over 120 miles per week, which allowed him to have a devastating kick in his finishing speed despite the heavy workload."3,2,1....
" Despite people always saying Seb Coe was a quality over quantity speed based guy, he ACTUALLY regularly ran 100+ miles per week!"
He didn't
311 -
canwestoppretending wrote:
Can we stop pretending that the kid has the speed and aerobic engine better than anyone else in the world?
145 800m
348 mile
13:40 5k
That's not coming off 50 miles a week with a lot of jogging....
The father recently tried to say he was only running 50-60k a week. Then he must have realised nobody would believe that after the 348 and now says he runs 50-60 miles per week.
It's all bs.
Just he honest about your training.
The kid is doing all the same training and gym work as Sam Tanner who has been a pro for 5 years.
He's obviously extremely talented but let's not lie about it.
At least Jakob was honest and said he trained like a professional since 12-13 years old.
Just stop the lies.
You run fast. You train like a professional.
If not, put your runs back on strava. Add in all the swimming, bike and gym.
Rant end.
Tldr
He is too fast and strong to run those times off kid training.
He's training like a pro, just obfuscating.
Sim Tinnuh.
60 -
HRE wrote:
Paolo Mastaveccio wrote:
and what on the lords green earth, would you really know about any of this? You ball hair tweezer.
In 1991 both Coes visited Lydiard in Auckland and showed him the diaries. Arthur told me there were many weeks at 90 miles or so and what Seb was doing was not very different from what he had Snell doing. Years after his son's career was done Peter Coe sent a letter to Track and Field News saying that many people seem to have misunderstood what they had done because they put much more emphasis on aerobic development than was generally known( ignoring the Coes' own contributions to that misunderstanding.) Dave Martin co-authored that big training book with Peter Coe so would have known as well as anyone what Sebastian really did. I was talking with him once and mentioned Lydiard's comment about Coe's training looking similar to Snell's. Martin's reply was "That's because it was." And we had this thread here long ago: .Is that enough for you?
I don’t think this is credible. Coe obviously changed his training through the years of his career, but early on, Peter Coe made it very clear that Seb was NOT pounding out a bunch of miles. Otherwise, guys like you propound the idea that one of the fundamental training premises put forth in the “Born To Run” movie was a huge lie a purposely put forth to deceive the public and greatly lie.
49 -
canwestoppretending wrote:
The father recently tried to say he was only running 50-60k a week. Then he must have realised nobody would believe that after the 348 and now says he runs 50-60 miles per week.
Just stop the lies.
Where did his father RECENTLY says BOTH 50-60k a week, and then 50-60 miles a week?? There was an article from about a year ago, that was lower than the number his father gave RECENTLY. The point is, his training volume is obviously changing.
64 -
stop the idiocy wrote:
HRE wrote:
In 1991 both Coes visited Lydiard in Auckland and showed him the diaries. Arthur told me there were many weeks at 90 miles or so and what Seb was doing was not very different from what he had Snell doing. Years after his son's career was done Peter Coe sent a letter to Track and Field News saying that many people seem to have misunderstood what they had done because they put much more emphasis on aerobic development than was generally known( ignoring the Coes' own contributions to that misunderstanding.) Dave Martin co-authored that big training book with Peter Coe so would have known as well as anyone what Sebastian really did. I was talking with him once and mentioned Lydiard's comment about Coe's training looking similar to Snell's. Martin's reply was "That's because it was." And we had this thread here long ago: .Is that enough for you?
I don’t think this is credible. Coe obviously changed his training through the years of his career, but early on, Peter Coe made it very clear that Seb was NOT pounding out a bunch of miles. Otherwise, guys like you propound the idea that one of the fundamental training premises put forth in the “Born To Run” movie was a huge lie a purposely put forth to deceive the public and greatly lie.
Here it is. And yet, some ‘revisionists’ want to try and now propound all of the time, effort and money, from many parties that went into producing and distributing that TV documentary was a huge lie to deceive and coverup that he was instead running big mileage back then.
60 -
here it is wrote:
stop the idiocy wrote:
I don’t think this is credible. Coe obviously changed his training through the years of his career, but early on, Peter Coe made it very clear that Seb was NOT pounding out a bunch of miles. Otherwise, guys like you propound the idea that one of the fundamental training premises put forth in the “Born To Run” movie was a huge lie a purposely put forth to deceive the public and greatly lie.
Here it is. And yet, some ‘revisionists’ want to try and now propound all of the time, effort and money, from many parties that went into producing and distributing that TV documentary was a huge lie to deceive and coverup that he was instead running big mileage back then.
Now if there is something else going on, that is behind the “toxoplasma”, that is not conveyed in that documentary. I mean, one can run wild on that speculation, but where are firm answers, that instead get obscured with questions on training volume?
20 -
10.5 is awesome no doubt but not even a medium long run for us Marathoners/Ultra runners.
26 -
It is almost as if he runs 50 MPW now and ran 50k per week a year or two ago and ran 40k per week 3 years ago.
91 -
stop the idiocy wrote:
HRE wrote:
In 1991 both Coes visited Lydiard in Auckland and showed him the diaries. Arthur told me there were many weeks at 90 miles or so and what Seb was doing was not very different from what he had Snell doing. Years after his son's career was done Peter Coe sent a letter to Track and Field News saying that many people seem to have misunderstood what they had done because they put much more emphasis on aerobic development than was generally known( ignoring the Coes' own contributions to that misunderstanding.) Dave Martin co-authored that big training book with Peter Coe so would have known as well as anyone what Sebastian really did. I was talking with him once and mentioned Lydiard's comment about Coe's training looking similar to Snell's. Martin's reply was "That's because it was." And we had this thread here long ago: .Is that enough for you?
I don’t think this is credible. Coe obviously changed his training through the years of his career, but early on, Peter Coe made it very clear that Seb was NOT pounding out a bunch of miles. Otherwise, guys like you propound the idea that one of the fundamental training premises put forth in the “Born To Run” movie was a huge lie a purposely put forth to deceive the public and greatly lie.
It seems that in this case Lydiard, David Martin, and both Coes are also guys like me. I'd say they are more credible than you are.
53 -
WhyDuDuuuDat wrote:
"But Lydiard had Snell run 22 miles in the mountains"... in 3, 2, 1...
Snell started running much later than Ruthe. Both have good results to show for the work they put in.
52 -
HRE wrote:
stop the idiocy wrote:
I don’t think this is credible. Coe obviously changed his training through the years of his career, but early on, Peter Coe made it very clear that Seb was NOT pounding out a bunch of miles. Otherwise, guys like you propound the idea that one of the fundamental training premises put forth in the “Born To Run” movie was a huge lie a purposely put forth to deceive the public and greatly lie.
It seems that in this case Lydiard, David Martin, and both Coes are also guys like me. I'd say they are more credible than you are.
Credible? You think Seb Coe makes stuff up, or has problem with recollection, or what?
The British Milers Club put out one of the informative publications back then; here is the cover of the Spring 1977 issue:
In that issue were details on Seb Coe’s training, which he gave in an interview with the publication; the title of the article was “Olympic Prospect, Profile of Sebastian Coe”.
30 -
here it is wrote:
here it is wrote:
Here it is. And yet, some ‘revisionists’ want to try and now propound all of the time, effort and money, from many parties that went into producing and distributing that TV documentary was a huge lie to deceive and coverup that he was instead running big mileage back then.
Now if there is something else going on, that is behind the “toxoplasma”, that is not conveyed in that documentary. I mean, one can run wild on that speculation, but where are firm answers, that instead get obscured with questions on training volume?
It’s toxoplasmosis. Don’t keep cats as pets.
41 -
canwestoppretending wrote:
Can we stop pretending that the kid has the speed and aerobic engine better than anyone else in the world?
145 800m
348 mile
13:40 5k
That's not coming off 50 miles a week with a lot of jogging....
The father recently tried to say he was only running 50-60k a week. Then he must have realised nobody would believe that after the 348 and now says he runs 50-60 miles per week.
It's all bs.
Just he honest about your training.
The kid is doing all the same training and gym work as Sam Tanner who has been a pro for 5 years.
He's obviously extremely talented but let's not lie about it.
At least Jakob was honest and said he trained like a professional since 12-13 years old.
Just stop the lies.
You run fast. You train like a professional.
If not, put your runs back on strava. Add in all the swimming, bike and gym.
Rant end.
Tldr
He is too fast and strong to run those times off kid training.
He's training like a pro, just obfuscating.
I totally agree, obviously a huge talent but it seems like him and his dad are just milking the hell out of all this. Even after Sam's 3 48 he called it a "rust buster" when its been summer in New Zealand and hes been targeting age group world records for months now. Maybe he'll make me eat my words but hes peaked for the year right now....
79 -
Dmoneymann wrote:
Even after Sam's 3 48 he called it a "rust buster" when its been summer in New Zealand and hes been targeting age group world records for months now.
Tell me you've never travelled to the other side of the planet for an athletic performance without telling me you've never travelled to the other side of the planet for an athletic performance
63 -
do we have all of your attention wrote:
HRE wrote:
It seems that in this case Lydiard, David Martin, and both Coes are also guys like me. I'd say they are more credible than you are.
Credible? You think Seb Coe makes stuff up, or has problem with recollection, or what?
The British Milers Club put out one of the informative publications back then; here is the cover of the Spring 1977 issue:
In that issue were details on Seb Coe’s training, which he gave in an interview with the publication; the title of the article was “Olympic Prospect, Profile of Sebastian Coe”.
I always suspected Coe ran significantly more than he said he did. Maybe it was because he, as was more common in the past than today, didn't count warm up and cool down runs, jogs between reps, or morning runs in his totals. But no, I never ruled out the possibility of outright duplicity. Not everyone is open about what he's doing. I don't doubt he was doing what he said he did but I always thought he was doing more and it didn't take long to find out he was.
73 -
I think he was asked during racing season and at that time it was likely 60 miles.
Snell could have said 60 miles too.
31 -
Wetcoast wrote:
I think he was asked during racing season and at that time it was likely 60 miles.
Snell could have said 60 miles too.
That's what Arthur was saying when he said what Coe did wasn't that different from what he had Snell doing. Peter had times when he was in that same 40-50-60 range that we heard was what Coe did. What Arthur saw was that like Snell, there were times when Coe did more than that. We just never heard about it officially until after Coe was retired.
21 -
HRE wrote:
Wetcoast wrote:
I think he was asked during racing season and at that time it was likely 60 miles.
Snell could have said 60 miles too.
That's what Arthur was saying when he said what Coe did wasn't that different from what he had Snell doing. Peter had times when he was in that same 40-50-60 range that we heard was what Coe did. What Arthur saw was that like Snell, there were times when Coe did more than that. We just never heard about it officially until after Coe was retired.
Both of you, I ask that you please humbly, if possible, consider the issue, and what is at stake here. On this forum regarding this issue, both of you have been the significant protagonists, questioning the integrity of what has been said from the Coe camp.
31
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.