What ever happen to Frank and Merv?
What ever happen to Frank and Merv?
Don "No Soul" Simmons wrote:
SearchingForFrankSoder wrote:Give him credit; he lifted that line word for word from Marty Liquori's book.
Who? Molvar?
He wants to debate Lydiard but he leaves out one of the more important parts. Did Liquori leave that out of his book...of which I'm not sure you reference?
I wasn't defending Molvar, merely pointing out that he lifted the line "It is this phase of Lydiard’s system which is probably the most controversial and also the most easily dispensed with" comes straight from Marty Liquori’s Guide for the Elite Distance Runner. It may be stupid, but it's not a Molvar original.
Gotcha
JWM wrote:
Liquori included the hill phase in his book but added "it is the most easily dispensed phase of Lydiard's program". I dispensed it. My reasoning is that since 1980, close to 0% of the top 10 ranked runners in the world every year from 800 on up used his hill phase. To me that is strong evidence but not proof so we can certainly debate the value of it. However, more than 90% of those same ranked runners used the core of Lydiard's principles sans the hill phase to get where they did, whether they knew it or not.
I think dispensing with it is about as shortsighted as one can get. Using my experiment of one I can tell you that I could run decently off of a pretty much pure mileage base, improved greatly with a 6 week hill phase, had some improvement adding 3-7 min repeats and a little more with some sharpening. The hill phase always featured the most improvement.
http://groups.google.com/group/Mervs-RunningMerv wrote:
What ever happen to Frank and Merv?
JWM,
Last year I read Lydiard's books and stumbled upon your build up online. I felt that it summarized what Lydiard was trying to convey and have read it numerous times since. So I gave it a try how you said. It changed the way I train completely and I think it is still not embraced! Mileage is essential to the distance runner.
However... Each individual is different. What I learned is that it the final week that represents 100 miles these miles need to be run in a certain time. exceeding this time hinders recovery. So this year I modified the model and said that I would run the shorter days capped at 1 hour or 10 miles which ever comes first, the 1.5 hour runs or 15 miles which ever comes first... and so on. as my aerobic ability improves I will be covering more distance. And also adding a 30 -45 minute run in the morning. Do you agree with this?
BTW: John I enjoyed your thesis, you id a good job. I have made a copy of it.
I did'nt have to dust off the Snell book. Always have it at arms length !!!!.
You are right about Snell taking 2 weeks to get to 100mpw. But the first time (as on page 24) he also struggles to maintain that and although he is consistent with the training he runs anything from 50 miles a week to that 100 over the next 2 months. I can recall Bill Baillie telling a group of us about that period of time in Snell's career.
That 10 weeks in 1964 is the only time he threw together 100mpw on a consistent basis.
What I was trying to say is that Peter had quite a bit of running under his belt before he tackled that 100 per week.
he had run many Waiatarua's so he had a "base".
What I did not want people to think is that Peter went to Arthur and Arthur had him run 100 pw 2 weeks after he started. Unfortunately I have seen some interpret it that way.
You are also right with the quote from "Run to the Top"
The key is 100mpw. BUT not everyone did that. Funnily enough, what I took as a key in all that is the Sunday long run and always felt if you could nail that the rest of the week would come together.
What I learned from Arthur was consistency of days/months /years.
Is it true that the Gordon runners do less than 50 mpw? That can't be right!
carliage flammer wrote:
Who's Molvar? What's he done? Who's he coached?
Both he and Hadd have coached no one. Both think highly of themselves in spite of the lack of a resume.
if you think the molvar's kids are doing 100mp youre crazy. 16 min 5k's, 920 3k's dont require 100, nor half that
So he doesn't practice what he preaches? WTF?
EZ10Miler wrote:
I can't seem to get past 65mpw w/o getting injured, so it's not about desire, or aerobic fitness, it's about keeping the tendons, cartliage, etc... from flamming up and keeping me on the side lines.
I experienced the same things until I took a different approach about a year and a half ago. It might work for you. When I had run for about 2 weeks with no pain, I'd inject a large dose of mileage into 4 or 5 days to get to a new weekly high. After that I'd reduce mileage back to what was comfortable and run really easy until I felt good again. Then I'd "max out" again for 4 or 5 days, recovering once more with all easy runs for as many days as it took to feel some snap in my legs again.
Gradually it took me less time to recover from this new high mileage until I was putting in back to back weeks of 75 miles. At that point it was either time for me to hold the mileage and start incorporating some quality stuff, OR if I still had time in my season to build mileage, I'd repeat the "mileage injection & recovery" pattern with a new weekly goal (maybe 80-85 miles this time).
Of most importance: run the extra miles very relaxed and very slow if need be, toss in some strides a couple of times to vary your footstrike, and be ready to sacrifice some other activities (maybe a weight lifting session) so you have extra energy to dedicate to building miles.
Just my $0.02
Jerry Seinfelds girlfriend!
Kim Stevenson wrote:
BTW: John I enjoyed your thesis, you id a good job. I have made a copy of it.
I did'nt have to dust off the Snell book. Always have it at arms length !!!!.
You are right about Snell taking 2 weeks to get to 100mpw. But the first time (as on page 24) he also struggles to maintain that and although he is consistent with the training he runs anything from 50 miles a week to that 100 over the next 2 months. I can recall Bill Baillie telling a group of us about that period of time in Snell's career.
That 10 weeks in 1964 is the only time he threw together 100mpw on a consistent basis.
What I was trying to say is that Peter had quite a bit of running under his belt before he tackled that 100 per week.
he had run many Waiatarua's so he had a "base".
What I did not want people to think is that Peter went to Arthur and Arthur had him run 100 pw 2 weeks after he started. Unfortunately I have seen some interpret it that way.
You are also right with the quote from "Run to the Top"
The key is 100mpw. BUT not everyone did that. Funnily enough, what I took as a key in all that is the Sunday long run and always felt if you could nail that the rest of the week would come together.
What I learned from Arthur was consistency of days/months /years.
Wasn't Snell running up to 60 mpw before he started training with Lydiard? If so, 60 to 100 is not a huge stretch, especially for a superior athlete like Snell.
will wrote:
60 to 100 is not a huge stretch,...
Are you cereal?
No, Snell was mixing tennis and running at School.
I taught and was in Charge of Track and Field at Snell and Lydiard's old School (Mt Albert Grammar) for 7 years in the 80's. There were still a few "old timers" around who remembered Snell well, including the one and only Herb Towers.
Snell was an excellent Sportsman and enjoyed a variety of sports of which running was one. He was actually a better Tennis player than a runner at 17.
At the end of his final year he was awarded the "Victor Ludorum" trophy in the annual Prizegiving (Top all round Sportsman)
The best runner at Mt Albert at the time was Mike Macky. Mike eventually introduced Snell to lydiard.
BTW: 51 years later Macky still holds the Mt Albert 800m record. Snell missed it on his attempt.(Did not get within 2 seconds of it)
I once asked Lydiard "How good was Macky ?".
Arthur replied "If he had stuck to the sport he would have given Herb Elliot a run or his money in the 1960 Oly 1500"
Now that statement should put the cat anmongst the pigeons !!!
Molvar?
Nobby?
What the heck are we talking about here? Harry Potter?
Kind of interesting that with all the discussion of mileage buildups and 100 MPW training, there's this quote from John Molvar regarding the conference XC championships:"The story of the day was the huge breakthrough by Senior Mat Schetne. On one of the most difficult courses in New England in pouring rain and rivers of mud, Mat ran a 90 second personal best and missed All-Conference by one place. His two years at a previous college and his first year at Gordon were ruined by injury so we took a cautious approach to his training this year and it paid off today."So not running 100 mile weeks, and he had a huge improvement? By the way, if Gordon College's athletics nickname is the Fighting Scotsmen, why does the mascot shown on the web site look more like a lion? Shouldn't it be a photo of Groundskeeper Willy?http://www.gordon.edu/athletics/article.cfm?iArticleID=800
wondering wrote:
Is it true that the Gordon runners do less than 50 mpw? That can't be right!
Great video!
EZ10Miler wrote:
I can't seem to get past 65mpw w/o getting injured, so it's not about desire, or aerobic fitness, it's about keeping the tendons, cartliage, etc... from flamming up and keeping me on the side lines.
Try slowing down, first.