Hold on...this guy really ran 150+ miles a week working full time?
This is motivating. I work 10 hours a day in finance... I need to start running 140+ again.
Hold on...this guy really ran 150+ miles a week working full time?
This is motivating. I work 10 hours a day in finance... I need to start running 140+ again.
Graeme McDowell wrote:
It is interesting that the guys in the 70's and 80's ran almost no mileage at marathon pace yet produced good results.
Also interesting that they were running about 5-10min slower than world-class times today. Maybe Drayton was an exception, but it seems like he could have run 2:06 or 2:07 training like top marathoners do today.
Not everyone from that era trained the way Drayton did. For instance, Derek Clayton almost never ran slow/easy miles. Ron Clarke, world record holder in the 10K at the time, said he would only run with Clayton once a week, because Clayton ran too hard for him. He said they might run together on a Thursday, and it would be a "15-17 mile race", in Clarke's words.
Of course Drayton didn't define what easy was for him. Maybe he ran 5.30's all the time, most of it was alone as well, which contravenes the notion that no one can train solo - isn't that LR mantra? Given that (a la Ventolin), he likely would have run 2h03 if he didn't work full-time, trained with others, trained at altitude, raced less, and followed a more advanced training program.
Of course our better coaches (like Canova) have learned from the mistakes and training of people such as Drayton to make marathon training more efficient. Just as mile training advanced beyond Roger Bannister and milers in his era, so to for the marathon into this era. That isn't a surprise, and doesn't devalue what people did in those eras for training. 35 years from now people may look back at the training people do currently and wonder how they could have been so stupid.
Of course Drayton didn't define what easy was for him. Maybe he ran 5.30's all the time, most of it was alone as well, which contravenes the notion that no one can train solo - isn't that LR mantra? Given that (a la Ventolin), he likely would have run 2h03 if he didn't work full-time, trained with others, trained at altitude, raced less, and followed a more advanced training program.
Of course our better coaches (like Canova) have learned from the mistakes and training of people such as Drayton to make marathon training more efficient. Just as mile training advanced beyond Roger Bannister and milers in his era, so to for the marathon into this era. That isn't a surprise, and doesn't devalue what people did in those eras for training. 35 years from now people may look back at the training people do currently and wonder how they could have been so stupid.
I really doubt he dreaded the nightly 18 miler and didn't get it over with as fast as he could.
Jim Jannard owes it all to Jerome Drayton.
Google was a Friend - can you give a link to his training?
I like reading about distance runners of the past and how they did things. There is a lot to learn and a lot to admire. I really like the no-nonsense approach to running, and think it would benefit the majority of non-elite runners today.
However, I also think some posters are crazy when they act like the elite runners of today couldn't hold a candle to those of the past. I feel that all eras have runners or more or less equal "greatness", so that Drayton's 2:10 is worth whatever is considered a world class time today, and Derek Clayton's 2:08 is in some sense worth something significantly faster than 2:08 nowadays. But this doesn't mean one should reject all modern advances that have led to elite runners routinely running several minutes faster than these times. Maybe Paavo Nurmi was just as amazing as Kenenisa Bekele, but nobody would suggest that Bekele should have looked up Nurmi's (or Zatopek's, or Kuts's, or Viren's, or Rono's, or whoever's) training logs and based all his training on them.
Coll wrote:
Yes, it sure does.
According to your theory, Alan Webb should be able be bang out a 3:46 mile because those "weeks haven't left him."
Dude, just stop. In your mind an elite runner would be just as slow as the rest of us if he only took a couple weeks off.
I apologize to the rest of you for feeding the troll.
Coll wrote:
No wonder he sucked. All that training was a waste. I am sure Canova would be laughing hysterically at reading this.
No. No, he wouldn't, because Canova respects people who work hard and make a commitment to being the best they can be. You, on the other hand are a piece of crap who thinks you can criticize someone, who at the time was one of the top-5 marathoners of his time. Anybody, past or present, who works full time and trains to run 2:10 gets my respect.
socrates wrote:
Of course Drayton didn't define what easy was for him. Maybe he ran 5.30's all the time, most of it was alone as well, which contravenes the notion that no one can train solo - isn't that LR mantra? Given that (a la Ventolin), he likely would have run 2h03 if he didn't work full-time, trained with others, trained at altitude, raced less, and followed a more advanced training program.
Of course our better coaches (like Canova) have learned from the mistakes and training of people such as Drayton to make marathon training more efficient. Just as mile training advanced beyond Roger Bannister and milers in his era, so to for the marathon into this era. That isn't a surprise, and doesn't devalue what people did in those eras for training. 35 years from now people may look back at the training people do currently and wonder how they could have been so stupid.
Toward the end of the piece that I linked to earlier in this thread Drayton predicts that the WR will go down to 2hr's. Clayton predicts 2:06 in 8 years. The piece was published in 1971. They also believed very much in the methods that they followed would get them there. Clayton, Drayton and Hill were very independent fellows who did not follow others lead. They were setting the bar very high.
Other than increasing the intensity of training nothing has changed in the methods. The one thing these athletes would have benefited from is modern day physical therapy for reducing and recovering from injury.
I remember going to the Toronto Spring Road Races in High Park in '78. Senior Men's race past winners were listedPeter BuniakPeter BuniakPeter BuniakJerome DraytonJerome DraytonJerome DraytonIt's curious that he was so well established when he changed his name.
Cold Bear Moor wrote:
Not sure, but I do know that Peter Buniak and Jerome Drayton have never been seen in two places at once.
Er... wrote:
I remember going to the Toronto Spring Road Races in High Park in '78. Senior Men's race past winners were listed
Peter Buniak
Peter Buniak
Peter Buniak
Jerome Drayton
Jerome Drayton
Jerome Drayton
It's curious that he was so well established when he changed his name.
Cold Bear Moor wrote:Not sure, but I do know that Peter Buniak and Jerome Drayton have never been seen in two places at once.
I ran the high school race that year. It was a big deal seeing Drayton at the races around T.O. I saw him running many times on mt pleasant, I think he worked for the government near yonge and bloor. I bumped into him in a bar years later and chatted with him. Very interesting guy.
You make a good point. I have noticed that over the years what's defined as "easy" running has slowed quite a bit.
Another thing that I've noticed here at LR is that athletes' performances are attributed to doing "correct" training and really not much else when in fact, training is only part of the equation. It's like trying to win a major car race and thinking only about building the car and ignoring the driver. I suspect that's because training is tangible, observable and can be quantified while things like determination and ability to push through pain are very difficult to measure. You simply cannot discount the determination of a guy who is running 150 mile weeks on top of a full time job when analyzing his success.
Hodgie-san wrote:[/.]
Other than increasing the intensity of training nothing has changed in the methods. .
Statements like this are always odd coming from the old school guys.
Increased intensity is a different method and guys today are certainly doing things differently apart from doing the same stuff faster.
Clayton, Drayton and Hill all trained with completely different methods, and each of them different than the world class Kenyan training of today.
Hodgie-san wrote:
Some good details on Drayton and the competition back in the day...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzkaYrZ2pCQ5OUZrNjduWTZuUUk/edit?usp=sharing
That link doesn't work, just says to sign up for google.
SMJO wrote:
Hodgie-san wrote:[/.]Other than increasing the intensity of training nothing has changed in the methods. .
Statements like this are always odd coming from the old school guys.
Increased intensity is a different method and guys today are certainly doing things differently apart from doing the same stuff faster.
Disagree.
not paying attention wrote:
Hodgie-san wrote:Some good details on Drayton and the competition back in the day...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzkaYrZ2pCQ5OUZrNjduWTZuUUk/edit?usp=sharingThat link doesn't work, just says to sign up for google.
You need a Google account to view it.