no slight to Jakob or Hoey but they simply could not equal this feat given similar equipment and conditions.
so how is it that Lydiard could have his 800m runners run 100 miles a week and still be this quick?!
I cannot wrap my mind around running like this given his training.
We probably all agree that Peter had tremendous talent. But he once told me "I don't believe that I had the best talent but that I had the best training." And when he said that he was not just a long retired runner dredging up memories. He had a Ph.D in exercise physiology and a lot of his research was about training for running.
this is such an excellent thread.
Lydiard methods were that greatest advance in middle distance running all time. as Snell points out, in educated hindsight.
Lydiard's calculated method of peaking is very sophisticated, Viren and the Finns got it.
Now Lydiard over did the mileage and running only thing, which leads to neglect of fast twitch, longevity, mobility.
That is where Peter Coe came in, to take it to a new level
From the book , Peter Snell - From Olympian to Scientist: "I am frequently asked: 'Now that you understand the science of running, what parts of the Lydiard training system would you change?' The fascinating aspect of finding out exactly what was happening to me during training and racing all those years ago is that, typically, my answer is that I would not change anything. Arthur knew exactly what he and his disciples were doing and why we were doing it so successfully." From page 250.
OK I overestimated your ability to search a name in a file (I should have known better).
Since Snell's losses are what figure so much in your estimation of him - or your reduced estimation - perhaps you could do the same for Coe and itemise all the losses in his career. There were so many weren't there - and unfortunately so many at championship level and to his major rivals. But you don't hold any of that against him. Somehow - in his case, but not Snell's - it doesn't matter.
Every statement of yours has to be corrected, almost every "fact" which you present is wrong.
After just in this thread it has been clarified that everything you stated regarding Snell's losses during his career were wrong, you still come with an unbelievable statement like: "He hasn't had 6 losses in 1960/61". After it even was clearly presented that there were at least 6 losses of him in those years. And after it was absolutely clear that I don't talk nonsense. What a liar you are - shame on you.
I have never said that his losses are very important for me in valuing his career. That's just what you - wrongly - interpret.
You give a completely wrong statement (just 1 loss against John Davies). I correct it. With a normal poster, within a few more posts this would have been clarified. Not with you - because you have abolutely no interest in correct facts (and you really don't now much about the era for which you think you are such an expert).
some of Snell's losses
1st February 1960 in Auckland 800m
23rd September 1960 in Dublin Mile
25th January 1961 in Napier 880y
28th January 1961 in Auckland Mile
4th February 1961 in Christchurch 880y
25th February 1961 in Auckland 880y
18th July 1961 Dublin Mile
1962 in Christchurch 880y
9th February 1963 Los Angeles Mile
18th December 1963 Masterton Mile
4th January 1964 Nelson Mile
22nd January 1964 Wellington Mile
27th January 1964 1000m
5th February 1964 Napier 880y
15th February 1964 Auckland Mile
Apart from 1979 and his unique 1981, Coe has had several losses in any season, also in big races.
I don't know how many times I have now explained to you, that FOR ME, the decisive factor why I rank Coe ahead of Snell are his fantastic records which I rank much higher as Snell's (which are also great, but clearly behind Coe's). His much longer career also adds something. Snell's better record at the champs reduces the gap. Feel free to differ completely - there can't be an ultimate answer.
I never in my life was confronted with a more ignorant person than you are.
You're not that clown from Europe by any chance who used to write all sorts of profuse nonsense about training and Lydiard on these boards a while back?
I don't write nonsense at all, so, no, I'm not that person.
And yet it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make after so many words and posts. You miss the big picture by losing yourself in the details.
Snell competed in the amateur era: there was no track Grand Prix circuit or Diamond League to earn money from and the only races which seriously counted were the major championships which for Snell were the OIympics and the Commonwealth Games. And Snell won all of those he entered beween 1960 and 1964. All this confirms what Lydiard aimed for in his training in terms of peaking at the right times: early in the season you may be last when others will be first but at the big races you will be first and they will be last. Maybe you have a problem with that.
Comparing runners from different eras and arguing who is better is pointless exercise though I am not sure anyone has ran faster than Snell on grass over 800m to this day.
I don't know where Arthur supposedly said that, but he could be contradictory. When he first saw Snell he said that with his speed and the right endurance training Peter could be a top middle distance runner. Did he say that about Mackey, who came to the sport before Peter, who was 19 before he began focussing on athletics?
Snell's raw talent was formidable. In early speed work sessions with Halberg and the others in the Lydiard camp Peter asked Arthur if it was ok to run the 220's faster. Halberg's eyes popped - he was flat out. He thought, who is this young big-head! Arthur said to Peter, go ahead and Peter then regularly finished a good 10 yards ahead. Snell later went on to win the national cross country, which were tough courses with plenty of hills.
love the old stories
Snell was 21 mid high 200 (without intense precise training), with 100 miles a week and cross country ability that spells world class, the Lydiard formula in an nut shell.
Snell had real middle distance talent, as his aerobic threshold development was superior to the average 21 200m person, by a wide margin
guys like Coe and Ovett were in the 21x club, and had the cross country base, same kind of basic formula, though Coe's training was more intelligent when it came to speed development. though Snell changed the Lydiard schedule more to speed, and i'm not sure what kind of speed hill work bounding Snell really did, and in what volume, that resistance training stands to allow next level performance.
in a race today, in one of those perfect setups, with the shoes, and bicarb, I have the same Snell of 143 at 141 low and Coe near 139.
Snell wasn't 21-mid/high over the 200. He has said himself he was at best 22-low.
Since Snell's losses are what figure so much in your estimation of him - or your reduced estimation - perhaps you could do the same for Coe and itemise all the losses in his career. There were so many weren't there - and unfortunately so many at championship level and to his major rivals. But you don't hold any of that against him. Somehow - in his case, but not Snell's - it doesn't matter.
Every statement of yours has to be corrected, almost every "fact" which you present is wrong.
After just in this thread it has been clarified that everything you stated regarding Snell's losses during his career were wrong, you still come with an unbelievable statement like: "He hasn't had 6 losses in 1960/61". After it even was clearly presented that there were at least 6 losses of him in those years. And after it was absolutely clear that I don't talk nonsense. What a liar you are - shame on you.
I have never said that his losses are very important for me in valuing his career. That's just what you - wrongly - interpret.
You give a completely wrong statement (just 1 loss against John Davies). I correct it. With a normal poster, within a few more posts this would have been clarified. Not with you - because you have abolutely no interest in correct facts (and you really don't now much about the era for which you think you are such an expert).
some of Snell's losses
1st February 1960 in Auckland 800m
23rd September 1960 in Dublin Mile
25th January 1961 in Napier 880y
28th January 1961 in Auckland Mile
4th February 1961 in Christchurch 880y
25th February 1961 in Auckland 880y
18th July 1961 Dublin Mile
1962 in Christchurch 880y
9th February 1963 Los Angeles Mile
18th December 1963 Masterton Mile
4th January 1964 Nelson Mile
22nd January 1964 Wellington Mile
27th January 1964 1000m
5th February 1964 Napier 880y
15th February 1964 Auckland Mile
Apart from 1979 and his unique 1981, Coe has had several losses in any season, also in big races.
I don't know how many times I have now explained to you, that FOR ME, the decisive factor why I rank Coe ahead of Snell are his fantastic records which I rank much higher as Snell's (which are also great, but clearly behind Coe's). His much longer career also adds something. Snell's better record at the champs reduces the gap. Feel free to differ completely - there can't be an ultimate answer.
I never in my life was confronted with a more ignorant person than you are.
You haven't looked closely enough in the mirror. You are completely bogged down in the minutiae of mainly local minor races early in his career and early in the local track season, and some when he was coming back from injury. You are unable to balance the races that matter with those that don't. At his peak he lost very few international races and none of the big ones. That certainly puts him well ahead of your favourite, Coe, who ran as a full-time professional and in totally different conditions - so of course Coe's times had to be faster. Yet Coe was consistently beaten at championship level. Snell, by comparison, ran in the same competitive conditions - tracks, shoes etc - as athletes in the '30's, like Lovelock, Cunningham and Wooderson. His times were far faster than theirs than Coe's times were in respect of Snell's - and this despite Coe being a pro running on synthetic tracks (and not grass or cinders) with modern shoes, and not the antiquated equipment that Snell ran in.
This post was edited 20 minutes after it was posted.
