LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

Nobby wrote:

The horse wins the races, damn it! Jocky only whips and steers...

Do you really think Snell would have won 3 gold medals all on his own? You might say he would have won them anyways regardless of who had coached him. Think about all those who threw a rock at his window to get him out and for a long run; or the time when he wasn't sure of himself... It's like saying a runner runs on physical attribute alone. Lorraine Moller says, "It's 100% physical, and 100% mental."

Do you really think Deena would have won the bronze medal without Vigil? Do you really think Carl Lewis would have won 9 gold medals without Tellez...of are you just saying that because it's Lydiard? Cut the crap.

Nobby, how much do you think that Snell inspired Lydiard? I think an athlete as good as Snell comes along very rarely, not the physicality of Snell, but the mentality. He got more out of himself, and this must have inspired Lydiard enormously.

There's no question that it's two way street. But having gotten to know Snell somewhat and Barry Magee fairly well I can tell you that neither of them think they would have done what they did were it not for Arthur and having worked with him myself I can tell you that for some of us he made a real difference. If nothing else he made me want to do more. He made me want to improve because I was so honored that a guy who had done what he'd done as a coach was really interested in someone as mediocre as I was and the fact that he'd been so successful meant that when things weren't going well and I was having doubts as to whether I was training properly I'd simply ask myself who know more than Arthur did about the whole business.

But of course the athlete does the running and there was a time when Snell in particular felt like Arthur was getting too much credit for what Snell had accomplished and I don't think Peter was particulary off base there. But if you carry Skuj's last post to its logical conclusion then this whole thread has been pointless as the answer is "neither" and there's no point looking at the effectiveness of a coach.

wellnow wrote:

Nobby, how much do you think that Snell inspired Lydiard? I think an athlete as good as Snell comes along very rarely, not the physicality of Snell, but the mentality. He got more out of himself, and this must have inspired Lydiard enormously.

I see what you mean. Seko inspired Nakamura. Takahashi inspired Koide--but perhaps not as much as Arimori...in fact, I think Suzuki is the one who inspired Koide more than other ladies.

But in the case of Lydiard-Snell; Lydiard inspired Lydiard. He said Snell was just one of the athletes he helped and I honestly think he meant it.

You know, the more I think about it; I never met Jack Daniels but I exchanged a few e-mails. Saw Greg McMillan's DVD. Very nice gentleman, very knowledgeable, no doubt about that. But when it comes to "coaching", I wouldn't even put him in the same class as people like Lydiarad, Nakamura, Bowerman, Squires and Koide. These guys are "legends". Don't get me wrong; I've read "Daniels Forumla". Great book. Same with Pfitz's "Advanced Training". But when it comes to coaching, we are talking about completely different class. You know, I was a professional corporate team coach in Japan. I know how they operate. I know how they think. "Coach" is a profession. When we started Hitachi team, we had two coaches and a care-taker (manager) and one athlete. That's how we started the team. Coach matters in Japan. That's why we continue to have decent runners after runners (in the marathon, at least). In this country, and Skuj's comment sums it up, nobody cares about coach. I think Frank Shorter even pointed that out; he said nobody remembers who coached Carl Lewis. Sure, we'll continue to have a good runner here and there. But with population of 250 milion, don't you think we should have a bit more good runners than, say, Japan? But we don't. It's because of thi attitude. Nobody understands wo actually teaches how to fish. They all rush to the sea and hope they can catch one big one.

Nobby wrote:

...of are you just saying that because it's Lydiard? Cut the crap.

O..O

XXXX

OUCH, Nobby. Just OUCH, Man! :)

I'm saying it because the coach, ANY coach, should take credit for about 10%.

Nobby wrote:

Or you just want to put down what Lydiard did and take all the credit away from him so desperately? You should not claim yourself a "coach" and have a website and gather people to run track workout every week. I feel sorry for YOUR runners...

OMFG Nobby. WTF?

I believe the coach should take credit for 10%. That is my opinion. You are turning this against me as an anti-Lydiard thing, and COMPLETELY INSULTING ME in the process.

Thank you Hodgie. And calm down, Nobbie! Sheeesh...

Skuj wrote: I'm saying it because the coach, ANY coach, should take credit for about 10%.

Well then, certain coaches must be given credit for just mind-bogglingly unbelievable extraordinary luck in stumbling across more than one or two athletes who go on to become world class. What are the odds?

HRE wrote:

But if you carry Skuj's last post to its logical conclusion then this whole thread has been pointless as the answer is "neither" and there's no point looking at the effectiveness of a coach.

Um....NO!

I've been away with some things more important than coaching, but when this thread pops up I tend to see what I have done wrong (or maybe, right) this time. First off I believe that 100% is the max that can be given --none of this 110% stuff you hear various people talk about when things get tough. That said, I put the majority of success on the athlete -- ability, motivation and opportunity. The coach is the other 1/4 so I guess 25% if my math serves me correctly. When the athlete and coach jive, then you have the best possible deal. On the other hand, the coach is the only factor of the 4 that I list that can be negative. The athlete either has no ability, no motivation, no opportunity or some degree of these things. With coaching it can be zero, various degrees of positive or various degrees of negative, and there is no doubt coaching can be the bit extra that makes an athlete a champion athlete; just as it can ruin an athlete's career. I see my coaching philosophy as one that provides an atmosphere in which each athlete's maximum potential can be reached, which, of course means each must be treated individually. On the other hand it is always nice to hear from coaches who said they followed what I have had to say and had great success doing so. It troubles me to see people try to compare coaches or even training systems, even though it is inevitable, because I don't know what the criteria are for making such comparisons. In US colleges it usually means who has the strongest recuiting class of runners, even if there has been no improvement among them. And it is hard to measure improvement among runners since a 30-second improvement for a 4:30 miler is quite different from a 30 second improvment for a 5:00 miler, etc. Fortunately I have been lucky enough to spend some time with Arthur Lydiard, with Bill Bowerman, Bob Sevene, Frank Gagliano, Vin Lananna, Joe Vigil, Bob Timmons, and others who may be as good or better than these mentioned, but who never had the talent to work with, so went unnoticed. I can say I learned something from each of these coaches, and so it goes -- use what you like and have success with and don't be afraid to try something new when the situation so dictates.

jtupper,

My earlier comment about Arthur's results vs. yours was not intended as a comparison, though it ended up as one. It was in response to another post which talked about the improvements you'd gotten with mediocre runners and concluded that the poster would rather have you as a coach, which of course is his prerogative.

It just seemed a rather silly point to make and I was trying to point out that silliness.

Skuj ; You know how to open a 'can of worms ' !!

The others have jumped quickly here and I endorse HRE's thoughts.

Thanks Dr Daniels for your comments. Coaches always cop it. Success or failure. I value your input here immensely.

Just something on Arthur that I have already posted here.

I mentioned that the first time I 'officially' met Arthur was when he agreed to do a seminar for my graduate Physical Education Teachers Class,

The class was 21 students, Arthur was to speak for 25 to 30 mins.

I don't recall the actual time he spoke but it was waaay over time. But to me the interesting thing was at the end the classroom had close to 70 people in it hanging on every word he said.

I was so engrossed in his message that I did not even see them enter the room.

This was not a public forum but the word spread quickly that Arthur was "In the building".

The message he gave that day was nothing to do with elite athletes but inspiration for Joe average citizen to get out and run.

The lecturer in charge that day intimated that exact feeling to me. She was no runner but she said the whole deal fired her up.

I knew enough of Arthur's boys to know that they credit him with whatever they did. I was no elite athlete but I would not be one this thread or still enjoy the feeling of running after 40 years if it was not for Arthur Lydiard.

Lets keep it on-track team.

Just to clarify....

I should have said coaches take far too much of the blame when things go off track and far too much credit when the athlete achieves.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

Skuj ; You know how to open a 'can of worms ' !!

You're welcome! :)

But, to summarize / clarify: I gave my opinion on something related to coaching in general. I stand by that opinion. For that I was COMPLETELY INSULTED by Nobby. It is there for everybody to read. I'm surprised and very disappointed. I'm floored in fact!

Skuj wrote:

HRE wrote:

But if you carry Skuj's last post to its logical conclusion then this whole thread has been pointless as the answer is "neither" and there's no point looking at the effectiveness of a coach.

Um....NO!

Well, what then? That's how it reads.

Skuj:

Obviously you don’t see that YOU have insulted the profession of “coaching”, for any coach, by stating what you have stated. I have pride, and take responsibility, in what I do as a coach and I take it very seriously; and that certainly ain’t “only” 10%. In fact, I'll be ready to take a full blame (100%) if my runner didn't perform up to "our" expectation--because it's my "job" as a coach to get them up to that level.

But by labeling the value of coaching the way you did, you have effectively lowered your own standard as a coach. With that, I have given my opinion as well and I will alo stand by that opinion as well. And I am equally disappointed in you for what you’ve said (though not surprised). I get mad and defend my own proud "profession" when it’s insulted like that; but I won’t cry about it for actually opening up a can of worms perhaps knowingly.

I promise this is the last comment on this (at least from me) and I’ll keep it on track, Kim! Nobody wants to read someone else’s cat-fight (maybe to watch it?). ;o)

Nobby (or anyone else), I'm sure this question has come up many times. In regards to building up to 100mpw, how long needs the buildup to be in the best interest of the athlete? I know a key aspect is the person and how he responds to mileage, but in your experience how many years did it take for one to reach 100? One year? Two? Three? How many years of moderate mileage makes sense? And if one isn't there yet, should they start doubling trying to make the progress of reaching 100mpw easier?

Well, I'm afraid that I won't ignore that!

I said that the ATHLETES get the results and the coach can take 10% of the credit. To that, you insulted me as a coach, and now, you are saying that I have insulted the coaching profession (and you aren't surprised!!! Another insult), therefore it was ok for you to insult me for that. Am I reading you right, Nobby?

Sure, our job as coaches is to prepare athletes as best as we can, given all the factors of age, running history, traits, desires, goals, beliefs etc etc etc, and I take that job very seriously, have done for 20+ years, and will continue to do so, in my role as coach to many individuals.

But the athletes do the running, the training, the racing, the lifestyle which may or may not be helpful, ...all of it is carried out by the athlete. We are there to guide, help, inform, instruct, motivate, listen, etc etc etc, and, IMHO, this is 10%. A VERY IMPORTANT 10%. If Mottram or Lwis or Snell ever stalled at 90%, we'd never be talking about them.

I say it again: Your response quoted here, and your previous responses to me regarding this are TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND INEXCUSABLE. AN APOLOGY IS WARRANTED.

I once made a thread about you called "poster of the year". I was wrong.

I think the issue contended here is something that cannot be measured.

I have read Arthur's books, enjoyed jtupper's book and DVD, and read with great interest Nobby's and HRE's articles and posts.

A terrific coach, like Arthur or jtupper or Squires or Nakamura (sp?), can only control so much. I suspect more than a few coaches, like other teachers, may even find themselves surprised, years later, by which of their points an athlete thought was their key contribution.

For example, I took from Daniels's book the key points that when it came time to get anaerobic, that 3-5 minutes hard was the right amount -- not one minute but not 40 either -- and also the idea of what a good pace for tempo runs should be given my PRs; very helpful points. I took so much from Arthur, but especially the idea that 60-90 minutes for most runs would do it, and the idea of hills; but eccentrically enough I always loved his thoughts on shoes, which are just counter-intuitive to most common running magazine advice. I even have favorite bits from some non-coaches. I always loved Shorter's comment that (paraphrasing): consistency is worth more than any single theory of training; I still think of that one every week. I even took something from the Chi Running book, which was to pull my pelvis back a bit and run more with the hips and thighs. And from Ron Daws (and several ultra marathoning friends), I took the idea that a 30 mile run is a better idea than a 20 mile run.

Running is just my hobby. I am nobody's idea of an elite. But I suspect that some of these coaches would be surprised a bit by which of their points stuck with me. Do their points account for 10% or 1% or 100% of my enjoyment of this hobby? I have no idea how to measure it, every point in a way means tons.

It is a good point that the athlete inspires the coach as well as vice versa. I think we subconsciously hold special honors for coaches who have helped scores of people, and not just that one athlete from Mt Olympus, across many years and more than a few levels of talent; even if the coach never had a Herb Elliot or Jim Ryun walk through the door. Lydiard and Daniels are both first rate on this count.

If we subtract just 5% from Doctor Daniel's estimate, and add just 5% to Skuj's, they are at 15% and 20%, pretty close. So, Nobby, did you also insult Doctor Daniels today? And if not, why not? As I recall, Messers Canova and/or Cabral said exactly the same thing that Skuj has said. What gives?