That's what Arthur was saying when he said what Coe did wasn't that different from what he had Snell doing. Peter had times when he was in that same 40-50-60 range that we heard was what Coe did. What Arthur saw was that like Snell, there were times when Coe did more than that. We just never heard about it officially until after Coe was retired.
Both of you, I ask that you please humbly, if possible, consider the issue, and what is at stake here. On this forum regarding this issue, both of you have been the significant protagonists, questioning the integrity of what has been said from the Coe camp.
What both of you, I think, quite possibly are failing to grasp, are the dates of the information being put forth. These indicate the point-in-time of Coe’s development.
When you understand that what is presented in the BMC publication is with regard to Coe’s teen years of development, to the point when Coe breaks 4min for the mile in 1976, at the age of 19 a month before he turned 20, then you can possibly appreciate the possibility that his volume maybe did increase in later years, corresponding to your (Lydiard’s) interpretation, and there is thus, no discrepancy, and duplicity, on Coe’s part.
That's what Arthur was saying when he said what Coe did wasn't that different from what he had Snell doing. Peter had times when he was in that same 40-50-60 range that we heard was what Coe did. What Arthur saw was that like Snell, there were times when Coe did more than that. We just never heard about it officially until after Coe was retired.
Both of you, I ask that you please humbly, if possible, consider the issue, and what is at stake here. On this forum regarding this issue, both of you have been the significant protagonists, questioning the integrity of what has been said from the Coe camp.
I don't know how closely you're following this but THE COE CAMP has acknowledged that it ran a lot more than most people believed it did during its career.
Both of you, I ask that you please humbly, if possible, consider the issue, and what is at stake here. On this forum regarding this issue, both of you have been the significant protagonists, questioning the integrity of what has been said from the Coe camp.
I don't know how closely you're following this but THE COE CAMP has acknowledged that it ran a lot more than most people believed it did during its career.
This thread was initially started on the teenager, Sam Ruthe. Sen Coe gives his training, as a teenager, in that BMC publication cited earlier in this thread. Are you saying that specific training was not correct? Are you saying Coe came out later and said he ran more than what he told the British Milers Club in their Spring 1977 publication?
I don't know how closely you're following this but THE COE CAMP has acknowledged that it ran a lot more than most people believed it did during its career.
This thread was initially started on the teenager, Sam Ruthe. Sen Coe gives his training, as a teenager, in that BMC publication cited earlier in this thread. Are you saying that specific training was not correct? Are you saying Coe came out later and said he ran more than what he told the British Milers Club in their Spring 1977 publication?
If you are, then give specific examples to that, citing the source(s), because what is happening here, is to similarly try to implicate Ruthe in giving out supposedly false training information, as well.
I don't know how closely you're following this but THE COE CAMP has acknowledged that it ran a lot more than most people believed it did during its career.
This thread was initially started on the teenager, Sam Ruthe. Sen Coe gives his training, as a teenager, in that BMC publication cited earlier in this thread. Are you saying that specific training was not correct? Are you saying Coe came out later and said he ran more than what he told the British Milers Club in their Spring 1977 publication?
I'm saying that for years we were told that Seb Coe did almost all "quality" running at quite low volumes compared to what most other high level mid distance people did. If he did that training in 1977 and the increased volume came later it seems that information was not revealed until his career was done. It was common here for people claiming that big mileage was not necessary to run well and to cite Coe's low volume to support that idea.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
fix typo
This thread was initially started on the teenager, Sam Ruthe. Sen Coe gives his training, as a teenager, in that BMC publication cited earlier in this thread. Are you saying that specific training was not correct? Are you saying Coe came out later and said he ran more than what he told the British Milers Club in their Spring 1977 publication?
If you are, then give specific examples to that, citing the source(s), because what is happening here, is to similarly try to implicate Ruthe in giving out supposedly false training information, as well.
And it’s the same characters, the “Lydiardites”, like yourself and Wetcoast, questioning the veracity of a young prodigy’s training that is typically of a lower running volume which, in effect, counters the Lydiard training mold.
It was common here for people claiming that big mileage was not necessary to run well and to cite Coe's low volume to support that idea.
What is extremely common here is for successful athletes having training that runs counter to ‘big mileage’ (e.g., using cross-training in lieu of some running mileage) end up getting attacked with doping innuendo, due to the implied contention that only ‘big mileage’ is what is necessary for everyone.
It was common here for people claiming that big mileage was not necessary to run well and to cite Coe's low volume to support that idea.
What is extremely common here is for successful athletes having training that runs counter to ‘big mileage’ (e.g., using cross-training in lieu of some running mileage) end up getting attacked with doping innuendo, due to the implied contention that only ‘big mileage’ is what is necessary for everyone.
Kenyans run big miles. Kenyans get accused of doping. Big mileage may or may not be necessary for everyone. The point here is simply that Coe was mostly believed not to have done big mileage during his career and now it turns out he did do much bigger mileage that was known. Why does this bother you?
No. I interviewed Sam and chatted with Ben and interviewed Keely and talked to her coaches and I did not find fault in their story that their training is of low volume. It’s also not new. But the fact is Coe, Snell and Ovett ran 90-120 miles per week during the base phase.
Gary Reed who formerly held the Canadian record and nearly medalled at the Olympics was about 70 mph. 70 is a lot more than Sam and Keely.
I am not saying that Keely and Sam should triple or double their volume and never have. So, I am not sure what you are getting at.
. But the fact is Coe, Snell and Ovett ran 90-120 miles per week during the base phase.
Absolutely not true, if you read this thread, for Coe’s developmental teenage years, unless you are actually saying the specific numbers Coe gave the British Milers Club are not true, which is what you seem to be doing.
Coe himself has said that he run a higher volume and that he trained in Kenya.
Where did Coe, the teenage running prodigy like Sam Ruthe, say either of those things with regard to his teenage developmental years?
Chris and I are talking about Coe's entire career, not just his teen years where it turned out he ran more than most people believed. He may well have run only as much as you believe he did as a teen. On the other hand, if what we heard of his adult training was incorrect it's possible the same is true for his teen running, none of which has much relevance to what Sam Ruthe is doing.
It was common here for people claiming that big mileage was not necessary to run well and to cite Coe's low volume to support that idea.
What is extremely common here is for successful athletes having training that runs counter to ‘big mileage’ (e.g., using cross-training in lieu of some running mileage) end up getting attacked with doping innuendo, due to the implied contention that only ‘big mileage’ is what is necessary for everyone.
Not "big mileage" but simply mileage. But when a runner is able to achieve 3:48 off a low mileage - 10 miles max is nothing at that level - it goes against everything we have seen in the sport since the '60s, that there is no real endurance without a conditioning phase in training. That was Arthur's discovery.
What is extremely common here is for successful athletes having training that runs counter to ‘big mileage’ (e.g., using cross-training in lieu of some running mileage) end up getting attacked with doping innuendo, due to the implied contention that only ‘big mileage’ is what is necessary for everyone.
Not "big mileage" but simply mileage. But when a runner is able to achieve 3:48 off a low mileage - 10 miles max is nothing at that level - it goes against everything we have seen in the sport since the '60s, that there is no real endurance without a conditioning phase in training. That was Arthur's discovery.
I don't like watching nearly every single thread on this site devolving into a pissing match, so, if we can keep this debate, a debate, that would be great. Saying that, here is my counter argument.
That was "one of" Arthur's discoveries and yes, a big one that he was at first mocked for.
He also made the sequential process of base, hills/strength, anaerobic, consolidation and taper, in that order a thing.
And his hill phase was particularly different, as was his entire approach about feeling based training, only the athletes knows when they are done etc etc....there were a number of discoveries he made.