did snell run doubles or singles

Precisely.

Dedication is not what is being questioned. I am sure that Snell would say that his own "dedication' would waver on many occasions.

However, Regardless of what he did or did not do, he had a very strong will to win. He did not like to lose. He knew how to focus on the task at hand. Once he was in a Race .. That was it. Yes ! he had talent but he made the most of it. But don't forget he did not do that until he left High School. He was regularly beaten at School.

Singles or doubles are only part of the big picture !!

ohia wrote:

Precisely.

Care to elaborate? Or does your logic not allow it?

Mr. Ridiculous Pants wrote:

ohia wrote:

Precisely.

Care to elaborate? Or does your logic not allow it?

I'll elaborate for him.

Doubles are what all the best runners do. ALL of them. Every single one from the modern era.

If you would rather wake up later and tack that extra 4-5 miles on your main run instead of manning up and doing them when you're supposed to (in the morning), then go for it. But you won't reach your potential, and that shows lack of dedication. Don't go down the road of Josh McDougal and try and run 130 mpw in singles...it just isn't good for the body in the long term. I would venture so far as to say 100mpw in doubles is easier than 70-80 in singles.

[quote I would venture so far as to say 100mpw in doubles is easier than 70-80 in singles.[/quote]

Following this logic, then 100 miles in singles is harder than 100 in doubles, therefore it takes MORE dedication.

For the record, I get up at 5:00 a.m. (less sleep) to get my mileage in so that I can spend time with my kids at the end of the day. Dedicated runner at 5:00 a.m. and dedicated father at 5:00 p.m. Can you elaborate any further?

I read somewhere that Lydiard would claim his runners did lots of milage that they didn't count. When someone asked Snell about this, he joked that he counted the milage of walking to the end of his driveway to get the newspaper in the morning.

shockwave wrote:

NobbyH wrote:

He often did 30-minutes in the morning and an hour in the evening to lead up to 100-miles-a-week which, I've found out myself, is one of the best ways to get in shape.

30am and 60pm 100miles a week and what is your 800m Pb ? Other pbs are what ?

I guess my 800m PB is more important than actually talking to Peter himself. My bad; I forgot, it's letsrun.

Oh my. I guess everybody is important or 100miles is for top runners only ?

Snell. I know what 100miles did on him. OLYs and WRs. Since i am a average runner i can not follow Snell.

But you said you found out yourself that 30m am - 60m pm is one best way to get in shape. I wanted to know what 100miles does to the average category. I want to know by your singular case if 100miles is effective. What results 100miles leads on you ?

NobbyH wrote:

I guess my 800m PB is more important than actually talking to Peter himself. My bad; I forgot, it's letsrun.

So we are in letsrun.com. Let’s discuss Peter Snell.

At the level of intensity of Snell PB pace he doesn’t possess no special ability to speed up the pace in the last lap what the 100miles Lydiard aerobic stuff supposedly will able. He is weaker as everyone else. Only when he did run slower than his best pace he was able to quick. From the split laps presented the excellent aerobic condition of the Lydiard trainig it´s a myth.

Mr. Nobby what you have to say about this ?

Lap Times In 800 WRs Since The First Sub-1:50

Since Tom Hampson of Britain ran history's first sub-1:50 in the 800 at the '32 Olympics, only twice in the progression of the fastest time ever (not necessarily the official World Record) has the mark been made with a second lap faster than the first. Those were by Jim Ryun and Dave Wottle.

Going backwards, the best-time progression, with lap splits and differential (+ = converted from 880-yard time):

1:41.09 David Rudisha 49.1/52.0 +2.9

1:41.11 Wilson Kipketer 49.3/51.8 +2.5

1:41.24 Kipketer 48.3/52.9 +4.6

1:41.73 Kipketer 49.6/52.1 +2.5

1:41.73 Seb Coe 49.7/52.0 +2.3

1:42.33 Coe 50.6/51.7 +1.1

1:43.44 Alberto Juantorena 51.4/52.0 +0.6

1:43.50 Juantorena 50.9/52.6 +1.7

1:43.5+ Rick Wohlhuter 50.7/52.8 +2.1

1:43.7 Marcello Fiasconaro 51.2/52.5 +1.3

1:44.0+ Wohlhuter 51.7/52.3 +0.6

1:44.3 Dave Wottle 52.9/51.4 -1.5

1:44.40 Ralph Doubell 51.2/53.2 +2.0

1:44.3+ Jim Ryun 53.0/51.3 -1.7

1:44.3 Peter Snell 50.6/53.7 +2.9

1:45.7 Roger Moens 52.6/53.3 +0.7

1:46.6 Rudolf Harbig 52.8/53.8 +1.0

1:48.4 Sydney Wooderson 52.3/56.1 +3.8

1:49.0+ Elroy Robinson 53.2/55.8 +2.6

1:49.1 Ben Eastman 53.7/55.4 +1.7

1:49.8 Tom Hampson 54.8/54.9 +0.1

I am the OP - thanks for the responses.

shockwave - his first lap was so fast and he still hung on - look at the first lap times of the WR above and below his.

shockwave. In case you don't know, Nobby learned at the feet of Lydiard and knows as much about Lydiard training as anyone.

Dammit, this thread has been hijacked by the Lydiard Troll.

Whenever people try to talk about Lydiard, this jerk with (fake) broken English shows up, trying to ask "reasonable questions" about how Lydiard clearly was a terrible coach.

Just a matter of time before he says "I don't understand, if Lydiard method best way to train, why not I do 100 miles per week and run 1:44? I thought Lydiard best method yet not everyone elite?"

However from the top of the list – the recent David Rudisha to many others most of them did the first lap faster than Snell but they were able to resist to a second lap faster than Snell. Also from Snell to Rudisha and except Kepketer Snell does the poor ratio from the first to the second lap (+2.9) and the 2rd poor one (together with Rudisha) among the 21 performances. Only one Sydney Wooderson 4:10secs slower than Snell and the late Kepketer WR (3:06 faster than Snell) did poor ratio score than Snell. As you might know and Lydiard specialists do think the second lap of a 800m runner defines second lap the anaerobic condition.Runners like Rick Wohlhuter – interval train oriented and low mileage, Alberto Juantorena – 400-800m specialist – were able to be faster and resistant than Snell in that second lap. Faster in the second lap against the first one what it means a low ratio. The so claimed benefit from the Lydiard marathon training type that supposedly will bring good aerobic condition to resist to the tremendous anaerobic that is the second lap, is dismissed by the Snell result.

jon boy wrote:

I am the OP - thanks for the responses.

shockwave - his first lap was so fast and he still hung on - look at the first lap times of the WR above and below his.

NobbyH wrote:

shockwave wrote:

30am and 60pm 100miles a week and what is your 800m Pb ? Other pbs are what ?

I guess my 800m PB is more important than actually talking to Peter himself. My bad; I forgot, it's letsrun.

Your post about doubles is what use to be the letsrun.com main post. Comments with no prove or rationale or scientific justification. Kind of it’s like I say because its me that says it.

My first genuine analysis to your sentence is that if he says so he might do an huge improve while doing that 30-60min doubles. It’s the original reason of my post about your Pbs.

No Pbs whatsoever.

The same question otherwise. With what kind of authority do you know that 30 and 60min is a good way to get in shape. Your observation from Peter Snell and as Snell did it´s the best universal solution ? Other runner ? Your personal experience ? Both. Science based ? What else ?

Why do you know that 45-45min doubles is not as good as 30-60min doubles ? Did you test your 30-60min face to face with another different option ? It´s simple your bet ?

Or do you just say what you say as you might say something else. I forget that since you are on letsrun.com it’s normal to say something without prove. Without consistency. Without evidence.

it was 50 years ago on grass

HRE Interview with Snell:

http://fitnessintuition.com/2009/05/26/an-interview-with-three-times-olympic-gold-medalist-peter-snell/

GENERALLY speaking, the business of getting changed and out the door requires a measure of dedication in itself. Doing that twice a day GENERALLY requires more dedication than doing it once and tacking on a few extra miles to that one run.

When I was talking about this with Peter I mentioned a study I'd read in which the best predictor of success for the group of female British distance runners on whom the study was conducted was NUMBER OF SESSIONS run prior to their race. More sessions lead to faster racing.

Peter was actually surprised to hear this. We discussed it for a few minutes and I suggested that what was actually being measured in the study was dedication and motivation because more of those attributes generally translated into more sessions. He answered, somewhat excitedly, I thought, "Yes! Exactly!"

However, each situation is unique and someone with a full time job and family who gets in triple digit mileage in one session may very well be more motivated and dedicated than someone with a shoe contract that allows them to train twice a day and nap in between.

[quote]shockwave wrote:

So we are in letsrun.com. Let’s discuss Peter Snell.

At the level of intensity of Snell PB pace he doesn’t possess no special ability to speed up the pace in the last lap what the 100miles Lydiard aerobic stuff supposedly will able. He is weaker as everyone else. Only when he did run slower than his best pace he was able to quick. From the split laps presented the excellent aerobic condition of the Lydiard trainig it´s a myth.

1

[quote]

I am also English able to write running how Snell training

not enabled him last lap speed to aerobic without high mileage.

jon boy wrote:

it was 50 years ago on grass

No rational argument at all.

The first lap was done in what ? Tartan ?

By that fact it´s not a good reason to easy down the pace on the second lap relate to the first one. What is hard for the first lap it´s hard for the second one either. On the 800m wrs ranking that i post we may see older performnaces than Snell, done on cinder and by that fact they do a godd ratio in beteen the firt lap and the second.