rekrunner wrote:
So Canova says that Lydiard forms part of our base of current knowledge.
It's the absolute fact wheather anyone said it or not. The more I hear the top coaches at clinics, the more I realize what a genius Lydiard was.
rekrunner wrote:
So Canova says that Lydiard forms part of our base of current knowledge.
It's the absolute fact wheather anyone said it or not. The more I hear the top coaches at clinics, the more I realize what a genius Lydiard was.
Well said lane8,
I see exactly the same thing and exactly the same thing with top athletes, the closer you look the more you see what is under much of the fancy talk is Lydiard-like training. It is truly amazing how little difference there is from top athlete's program to top athletes program. Which sort of explains why a few times I have interviewed top athletes and their eyes glaze over when it comes to training talk, because it all sounds the same/similar.
Of course what made Lydiard a genius was not just the method, although that WAS part of it, but also his ability to coach and motivate. The stories are legendary. And on top of that he was very open too. You don't see that everyday now. Many coaches think they hold the holy grail of training knowledge. But they don't, much of it is in understanding the athlete day-to-day and knowing what yo prescribe and what motivates them.
Hard work is part of the holy grail, not complex anaerobic or even aerobic workouts that require spreadsheets to explain.
lane 8 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:So Canova says that Lydiard forms part of our base of current knowledge.
It's the absolute fact wheather anyone said it or not. The more I hear the top coaches at clinics, the more I realize what a genius Lydiard was.
I see how the fanatism is able to make demagogy. The main idea of Renato canova is that we can´t look at the past coach knowledge because the training methodology does some steps further in progress to new best modern methodology.
Consequently and in that context Lydiard method is outdate.
You take out the main part of Renato´s big picture and what you do is kind of demagogy while play with the Renato´s sentence and you try to pass the idea that what really matters in the Renato´s comment about Lydiard is that the Lydiard method is good, a genial one eventually.
Very tricky but don´t buy that one. You have to be more clever than what you did. This time the transcendental gestalt training knowledge doesn´t work.
Another aspect is that if Lydiard was a genius but not as a coach but as genius of motivation, then you shall review all your training theory, because Lydiard is no more alive among us and the motivation is an individual phychic characteristic and that doesn´t pass or transmits to one individual to other individuals without the source.
Meanwhile I advise you to review your icon sentence to define Lydiard i may read on LF board. Instead of Lydiard the perfect training, you shall change for Lydiard the perfect motivator.
The more i see top coaches with modern training methodology, the more i understand how Lydiard is outdate and modern training is basically diferent athn Lydiard approach. NO surprise that in this matter you take the wrong conclusion always.
The "Swim to the Top" was written in 2002 by Dave Wright, Australian National Swimming coach, after consultation with Lydiard.In 2004, Chris Pilone, himself coached by Barry Magee, coached Hamish Carter and Bevan Docherty, to win Olympic Gold and Silver.
for every body wrote:
soon Ly for triathlon Ly for swimm and Ly diet book for diabetes
soon on the charts Ly for dogs Ly for chickens and the new Ly shampoo
Why do people hate on Lydiard so much? The guy was a great coach and you can still learn a lot from him.
If Galloway can make a buck off getting runners to a 5 hour marathon, then I'm not going to bedrudge Lydiard followers getting athletes to sub-2:30.
Most people do not hate Lydiard. They hold him in pretty high esteem. There are a few people who are bothered by that esteem and one or two of them turn up here whenever there's a thread about Lydiard.
I tend to agree with Renato. Lydiard, along with several others, form a historically important part of the base of our current knowledge, and that training methodologies keep evolving.
Maybe Renato is doing a few things differently, but when he also describes training with FUNDAMENTAL, SPECIAL, and SPECIFIC PERIODS, incorporating circuits and technique drills for strength, and building "aerobic houses" before "adding furniture", it sounds like there are still some fundamental similarities.
But this talk of "training evolution" is still a bit too vague for me. Here's a simple challenge: name 10 specific "non-Lydiard" important training evolutions since 1965, that can be found in today's training methodologies, that clearly contradict Lydiard's training methodologies or principles. If possible, include the year it was introduced, who introduced it, the athlete(s) who first used it, and the Lydiard methodology or principle that is contradicted.
Then we can all see who the real geniuses are.
I don't know. I think he made a lot of sense. Why sub-2:30? Rod Dixon ran New York in 2:08.59 in 1983. That's not too shabby for any non-African today.
Shoebacca wrote:
Why do people hate on Lydiard so much? The guy was a great coach and you can still learn a lot from him.
If Galloway can make a buck off getting runners to a 5 hour marathon, then I'm not going to bedrudge Lydiard followers getting athletes to sub-2:30.
Every time I'd read a description of what he does written by Canova I've noticed that he writes something like, "We're not doing Lydiard here." And then I think it's good that he wrote that because if he hadn't I easily could have confused what he wrote for something Arthur had written.
While we're waiting for answers to the top 10 improvements since Lydiard, here's something else I've been thinking about lately.Most of the distance records set today are by East Africans. Given the sheer dominance and depth of Ethiopians and Kenyans, I'm wondering how much of today's success can be attributed to general factors such as improvements in training methodology and how much can be attributed factors specific to East Africans?With all due respect to today's top coaches, if I look at Italy's top marathon performance, Stefano Baldini is a 2:07:22 in 2006, in London. Expanding in Europe, we can find Antonio Pinto ran 2:06:36 in 2000, also in London. Going further to the United States (ignoring Khalid Khannouchi) we have Ryan Hall's 2:06:17. When I compare these times, for example to Rob de Castella's (developed by Lydiard influenced Pat Clohessey) 2:07:51 in 1986 in Boston, or Rod Dixon's 2:08:59 in New York (Boston and New York are not fast courses like London), things haven't improved all that much in those 20 years. Portugal and Italy have some recent history of leading training methodologies, but is Ryan Hall a product of top training methods, or a product of living at altitude?One statistical analysis shows that Kenyans outperform the rest of the world by a factor of about 1700. I'll say the same thing for training that I said recently for doping. This is not due to any single general influence, such as a concealed doping program, or an application of modern "European" training methodologies. This has to be a combination of several factors (genetic and/or environmental) unique to East Africans. If it were only general factors like training and doping, other countries would be way more effective than they are.
HRE wrote:
Every time I'd read a description of what he does written by Canova I've noticed that he writes something like, "We're not doing Lydiard here." And then I think it's good that he wrote that because if he hadn't I easily could have confused what he wrote for something Arthur had written.
Lydiard was predicting the African ascendance in the late 70s saying that the generally high level of aerobic activity that they had in their typical developmental years was doing the same things for them as his base phase had done for the guys he coached.
Hall's dad was a "Lydiard" guy and Hall was doing the sort of mileage that US high schoolers of the 70s had done. When he wasn't setting the world on fire at Stanford people were saying he'd done too many miles in high school. He's sort of quieted that talk.
HRE wrote:
Most people do not hate Lydiard. They hold him in pretty high esteem. There are a few people who are bothered by that esteem and one or two of them turn up here whenever there's a thread about Lydiard.
Let me guess who are the one or two. One is you, the other is wetcoast, the third one is rekrunner and the fourth one is the anonymous one. Hoops i forget Skuja or Sjuka. The possessor of the Lydaird golden pot turns up only in minor questions.
HRE wrote:
Every time I'd read a description of what he does written by Canova I've noticed that he writes something like, "We're not doing Lydiard here." And then I think it's good that he wrote that because if he hadn't I easily could have confused what he wrote for something Arthur had written.
Another piece of demagogy and turn away from the truth.
HRE wrote:
Most people do not hate Lydiard. They hold him in pretty high esteem. There are a few people who are bothered by that esteem and one or two of them turn up here whenever there's a thread about Lydiard.
Does the winner of one run is a single one or are the other 3000 hypothetic participants ? Most people are wrong and the one or two are right. This is your misunderstand about this subject. the reaosn isnt a case of democracy or vote. Reason is about knowledge and understand and most people doesnt understand about top coach.
Lydiard's methods are well known for being translatable to other sports, particuarly with regard to building a pre-season aerobic base. Examples in NZ are Ian Ferguson (winner of 3 Olympic gold medals at LA 84 in canoeing), the conditioning regime for the Auckland rugby team (unbeaten in NZ for about 5 years in the late 80's/early 90's), and even horse racing - yes, in Lydiard's books he talks about helping top trainers with training programmes for their horses, with considerable success.
If Arthur were around today he would (in his own special way) tell us that the only reason people using his specific programmes aren't still winning everything is because they aren't doing it right. Self belief & work ethic were two things he had in spades - and that's not a bad starting point for anyone.
How are you coming on your answer to rekrunner's questions?
And for the benefit of those who read this thread and are interested in Lydiard:
!/group.php?gid=5276414716
There is sanity out there.
Once again I repeat teh same post idea in the attempt that after a second one answer you might be able to understand, somthing that seems you miss something about to undertand the obvious about training.
The fact lots of people defined as the masses might post with esteem about the Lydiard training and only a few don´t consider Lydiard training as good as that it doesn´t mean that the individuals are wrong.
I hope that this time your training knowledge is enough to understand the undeniable truth that i do post. If youre training knowledge it´s not enough to understand or your redemption to Lydiard avoid you to undertand, may be your IQ will help. If your QI can´t help you either i think that you are one lost case to the training understand.
Don´t try to use the other method of knowledge of knowledge to undertand my main idea. The one of training gestalt perception. This one did some of you on Lydiard training dementia.
How many miles was Hall doing at school, HRE? Do you know what a typical base week was for him?
HRE wrote:
Lydiard was predicting the African ascendance in the late 70s saying that the generally high level of aerobic activity that they had in their typical developmental years was doing the same things for them as his base phase had done for the guys he coached.
Hall's dad was a "Lydiard" guy and Hall was doing the sort of mileage that US high schoolers of the 70s had done. When he wasn't setting the world on fire at Stanford people were saying he'd done too many miles in high school. He's sort of quieted that talk.
rekrunner,
clohessy was certainly influenced by lydiard and learnt from him - no denying, but you can't claim decastella's training as Lydiard training - no hill phase, there was anaerboic work throughout the year, no lydiard anaerobic phase.
Another thing, decastella was running 45-50 miles a week at school with Friday's off.