Renato Canova - Arthur Lydiard Coaches Roundtable

Wetcoast wrote:

You followed programs from a book and failed and blame a man's method who has 3 Olympic gold medals to his credit.

And I am delusional for stating the above.

Actually I have succeeded 1000 times in proving that you're an idiot, which proves my further point, you being a clone of him, that L contributed very little of anything to athletics progression, and OTH did much to set athletics back 30-50 years, at least for those who listened to him.

The only person that L trained who got gold medals was Snell. Halberg was constantly in Cerutty's camp, long before Rome, stealing his secrets and taking them back to L. However the best training he did was with Elliott and Cerutty, not with L. Barry Mcgee, IMO was the best runner of the bunch, and the best L could get him was a 2:18 and 3rd place. IMO Mcgee had the ability to certainly run under 2:08 for a marathon.

To drive home your closed mind and lack of intelligence, though you keep promoting L (no coincidence in my view), are my successes with my own program, the the failure of L's programs to even match my previous performances, which I again bettered after discarding the failed Lydiard ways.

It is telling that you see L's failures as a failure of everyone else in the world - and you ignore their successes, the SAME that he did - rather than going directly to the shrine of real source of the failures.

I prefer the term "more advanced" to better. One can find flaws in Lydiard's specific programmes if trying to use them with today's professional athletes. But how can anyone not be impressed with his philosophy and all he has done for distance running. Almost all of us areto some extent his disciples

17 Olympic Gold Medals and many thousands of great performances.

So you succeeded a 1000 times in proving I am an idiot. Ok. After a handful of posts I don't think there are even 1000 words written yet.

So your personal performances are better than Arthur Lydiard's, eh?

So Halberg stole from Cerutty to give to Lydiard, yes? This is what you wrote?

Also, I am apparently a clone of Arthur Lydiard. This is the nicest compliment anyone has ever given me in my entire life.

There is going to come a point in time where even Einstein's theories are going to be faulty and wrong (it's already happening). It doesn't destroy his genius, but the same can be said for Lydiard. He was great, ahead of his time, and an experimentalist with fascinating results for his era.

But at the end of the day, Lydiard coached 13:20 5000m runners and 2:30 Marathoners, whereas Canova coaches 12:40 5000m runners and 2:05 Marathoners.

Athletes are the same, the training methodology is different. I would argue that Alberto Salazar has had more success than Arthur Lydiard.

Lydiard is a black and white TV, and Canova is HD.

[quote]Wetcoast wrote:

17 Olympic Gold Medals and many thousands of great performances.[quote]

Wrong again. Snell got 3 golds not 17 and they surely don't expand over time.

Yea my personal performances are better than L's, and you don't see me saying that I'm the best coach in the world or have 52 gold medals.

It's no secret that Halberg routinely trained in Cerutty's camp, until Cerutty found out what he was doing and kicked him out.

Ok "J.R."

Come out of hiding and show us your performances as a coach are better than Arthur Lydiard's. No sense hiding your greatness behind a psuedonym.

Why the hiding?

Wetcoast wrote:

In terms of the two programme's I don't see what all the fighting is about.

Well, certainly part of it is idiots like JR here. Another part, though, is that when Canova says "well, Lydiard was right about this, but with my runners, I find I have to do ____ instead. . ." you claim that as "Lydiard bashing" or "insulting the man."

The sport is much different today at the top level than it was in 1960. I don't mean "people have run faster," I mean structurally, it's very different. If a 3:54 miler runs 4:12 in his "off season" now, (as Snell might do in an exhibition race) his contract could very well be cut. Meb has spoken of "reductions" built into his Nike contract where if he finished lower than X in a race, or ran slower than Y, his base salary would be reduced.

Let me make it perfectly clear, I'm not "bashing" Snell. He could run 4:12 with a big last quarter in his off-season, and that doesn't reflect poorly on him as an athlete or his training program. It's only that NOW, if a 3:54 guy runs 4:12, he's in trouble. Whether that kind of attitude is right or wrong isn't important in this case, because said attitude is the norm, and modern racing is a professional sport, for better or worse.

Canova's training is in response to these structural changes to the sport. It doesn't "invalidate" Lydiard's principles at all, but it does update them. I know, I know, I know. They don't need updating because they're perfect. Well, the rest of the world would beg to differ.

If you're an amateur and don't need to be running at a really high level against Ethiopians and Kenyans 9 months a year, you can probably run damn well off Lydiard's "original" program. On the other hand, if Canova's highly tailored, specific approach is the difference between 2:04:30 and making the Kenyan Olympic team and running 2:05 something and being left off, well, I think it makes sense to give yourself that shot.

Of course the fundamental principles under which Canova bases his training are the same ones Lydiard described. Principles don't really change- but structure does. Lydiard's athletes (and most of us) competed for personal satisfaction, pride, joy, because it was fun, and (at the top level) national glory/patriotism. I'm not saying today's professional athletes don't- but in addition to those things, they're also making a living, and that isn't an inconsequential addendum.

I fail to see how Canova operating under Lydiard principles, but changing details to meet his athletes' individual needs should earn the dismissive attitude toward his training. Deek's coach operated under Lydiard principles but not the strict periodization and doesn't get dismissed (nor should he!). Harry Wilson doesn't get labeled a charlatan, despite the similarities between his program and Lydiard's.

I get that Lydiard catches and unfair amount of flack (mostly from JR and Cabral) but at the same time, I disagree with the idea of looking through a "Lydiard perspective" for everything. Great coaches came before Lydiard, Lydiard was a colossus himself, and great coaches have come after Lydiard. Let's not get carried away and act like once Lydiard stopped coaching, no one ever need change anything again.

Sorry for the double post, but I want to firmly distance myself from JR's rantings. The guy is clearly delusional.

This is a well balanced response.

I would argue that I would call: "well, Lydiard was right about this, but with my runners, I find I have to do ____ instead..." Lydiard bashing.

I don't think that line would prompt that response from me. Maybe someone else.

All good information.

craig mcmahon wrote:

I want to firmly distance myself from JR's rantings. The guy is clearly delusional.

Wetcoast wrote:

This is a well balanced response.

hahahaha!!!!

I believe Special comes before Specific in Canova's system.

Again, in the Fundamental period Canova says 1500 guys don't need a longer long run than 80 minutes. In the Fundamental period (for a 3:50 1500 runner)he has 5 x 1600 in 4:45 with 3 minute recovery done weekly. He has 15 x 400 in 62 with 2:30 recovery (developing into 3 x 1000

in 2:38 + 5 x 500 in 1:16 + 5 x 400 in 61) for the same 3:50 1500 guy every 10 days in the Fundamental period.

Lydiard experts, is there a version of Lydiard that has workouts that fast and that hard that early and that caps the long run at 80 minutes for the 1500 and 60 minutes for the 800? If there is not such a version of Lydiard, then that is exactly what all the fighting is about.

Wetcoast wrote:

Ok "J.R."

Come out of hiding and show us your performances are better than Arthur Lydiard's. No sense hiding your greatness behind a psuedonym.

Why the hiding?

I have no interest in fame, bragging, or self promotion.

Plus I never said I am great (though I am).

I'm saying that Lydiard set back athletics 30-50 years, for those who listened to him.

All advances since then have been by coaches and runners who have NOT listened to Lydiard, and who have NOT done what he said. Good for them, and good for athletics.

unobfhw wrote:

I was very disappointed with this roundtable. It felt to me that they were bashing someone whose done a lot for this sport in Canova. For as much crap Nobby talks about Canova's system, Ive never seen him actualy coach an olympic gold medalist himself. Why doesnt he have pro athletes flocking to him if Nobby is the man with all the answers? I think Nobby needs to either go out to Kenya and actually coach some kenyans himself or he needs to shut the hell up. I respect the Livingstones, very excellent book that they wrote, but I have no respect for a man like Nobby. Hes a Lydiard wantabe. I dont claim to know everything Canova says, but theres a lack of understanding on Nobby's part on Canova's system.

A nice typical personal attack toward Nobby from you, Antinio.

Careful JR. When you get excited, you sound just like someone else. Calm youself down first....

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I believe Special comes before Specific in Canova's system.

Again, in the Fundamental period Canova says 1500 guys don't need a longer long run than 80 minutes. In the Fundamental period (for a 3:50 1500 runner)he has 5 x 1600 in 4:45 with 3 minute recovery done weekly. He has 15 x 400 in 62 with 2:30 recovery (developing into 3 x 1000

in 2:38 + 5 x 500 in 1:16 + 5 x 400 in 61) for the same 3:50 1500 guy every 10 days in the Fundamental period.

Lydiard experts, is there a version of Lydiard that has workouts that fast and that hard that early and that caps the long run at 80 minutes for the 1500 and 60 minutes for the 800? If there is not such a version of Lydiard, then that is exactly what all the fighting is about.

This was exactly my point. Canova's is _not_ the same as Lydiard's training. For Lydiard, "base" training was continuous aerobic running (and fartleks once in a while IIRC) for at least three months. Canova prescribes two months of fundamental training, which for LONG distance runners is not too unlike Lydiard's program, but for MIDDLE distance runners is quite different, as SlowFatMaster has highlighted. Lydiard would scoff at 800m runners doing intervals on the track four months before the target competition.

As for the people saying "well his writings may say X, but if you knew lydiard in person"...the fact is I DIDN'T meet Lydiard in person, and now that he's passed away, all that we HAVE is his writings. And I'd wager that most of Lydiard's influence was not from his direct coaching of athletes, but from the broader influence of his books. So where are we to go if the books that Lydiard himself wrote are all wrong?

Lydiard's legacy is that of the importance of aerobic base and high mileage. I've read Percy Cerutty's books, and in them, he considers 50 miles a week to be "high mileage." Lydiard's success forced a lot of people to fundamentally re-examine what they thought was true about training. This doesn't mean he was Running Jesus or anything. He got a lot of stuff wrong. But he got enough of it right to force us to change the way we thought about the sport.

In a way, Renato Canova's legacy might force us to do the same with respect to intensity and duration. Perhaps in 50 years, posters on Letsrun will be saying "Before Renato Canova's success, people used to think that 60 minutes was a 'long' tempo run." But what Renato's legacy is remains to be seen.

The reason I am bashing Lydiard is because his method is outdated, and because of the idiocy of dismissing a far superior coach such as Canova while elevating Lydiard. As for his method, yes I understand it, but it would not even be necessary that I understand it to bash him because my point was that his results have been far inferior to Canova's. And Salazar's, and Lananna's, and Warhurst's, and Vigilante's, and Cabral's... pretty much any successful coach nowadays has had far better results than Lydiard. In fact, this is virtually required for them to be considered successful.

Furthermore, there is no real benefit to learning the Lydiard program if one's goal is to train runners to run fast. He simply does too many things wrong. There are better role models to follow. If your goal is to learn about the history of the sport, then fine, learn about Lydiard. Otherwise, why bother learning from an inferior coach, especially one who espoused so many obviously poor ideas?

As far as people saying in the future that Canova is a poor coach if others have dropped more impressive times, yes I somewhat agree with you but with a few addendums. First, I don't think records are dropping as rapidly now as they used to- if 20 (or 40) years from now athletes are only, say, 10 seconds faster in the 10k on average in a sample such as the WC final, then Canova's methods will not be anywhere near as outdated as Lydiard's are now. Second, if athletes end up far faster then than they are now then I would say of course listen to those coaches coaching the faster athletes (in which case, Canova too will be outdated)! The point is, I am not irrationally wedded to Canova in the same way you are to Lydiard. I am interested primarily in learning what it takes for athletes to run fast, not in upholding ancient dogma.

Where to go? Legit question.

Healthy Intelligent Training - a great book.

Lydiard Foundation, currently just focusing on the Wizard or (Master Run Coach) online programs, for the time being.

You still have many people around who knew him.

Greg McMillan, Lorraine Moller, Nobby Hashizume, Rich Englehart, Kim stevenson, The Livingstone brothers, Rod Dixon, Barry Magee and many others...but for media...Healthy Intelligent Training, the book.

So the principle stands - of times dropping = past inferior coaches, but by degrees.

That's like saying one guy stole a Ferrari and the other stole a Honda so the Ferrari thief is more guilty. (I am not actually insinuating theft of programs - talking about degree of right and wrong as an example).

Who is Vigilante? You mean Vigil? All those coaches you name, stand on the shoulders of who came before them.

There is a difference between saying, "we are moving forward and on" like Craig, in not so many words and you talking trash.

Are you getting the attention you seek?

Jason Vigilante, former middle distance coach at UVA. Alan Webb and Robby Andrews have been his most prominent charges in recent memory. Just because Lydiard was the giant upon whose shoulders coaches like Vigil or Canova stood does not mean you should go with Lydiard's training only. Stand on CANOVA'S shoulder for crying out loud! Don't reinvent the wheel.