Lydiard Imitations

To me, comments like "Hill didn't know how to train properly" represents so much of where we've gone wrong in our thinking about the sport. Hill was definitely not a slogger, but he also was not a prodigy. It took him several years to find out what worked for him, his first marathon was in 1962 and took 2:24. His fastest was in 1969. He was arguably the best marathon runner in the world for a couple of years and among the best for over a decade and yet he "didn't... train properly."

Tommy D wrote:

Think about it Gypsy, as you drive your car home and get onto Lrts Run./com to communicate with people around the world. Most of what you do is based on science of the past 20 years.

Tommy i don't dispute that changes in technology are occurring very quickly. I also don't reject any changes that works, i'm just cautioning against 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' so to speak. These things discovered by these original thinkers Aristotle etc are still true today as they were then, they are not upgradable like technology. They are still as true as they were when discovered. Sure, n top of them things have been 'added' but what lies underneath is unchanging.

With regards to results over time. Snell running that 800m without precedent, on grass, without competition, without preparation races against competitive runners, is very hard to explain isn't it?

Take the same scenario today and what do we get?

*Tracks are faster, to compete on and to prepare on in training.

*Races are more frequent, so more races can be used to bring out a higher peak.

*Recovery methods are better understood, as are injury treatment and recovery methods.

*Races are against higher quality, so you can utilise them to raise performance levels.

*Standards are already higher today so aspiration to pass them ensures they will eventually be passed, and the next record and the next record after that. If two people with enough talent and the right coach decided to believe 1:40:00

was the world record and challenged each other over 10 years in the pursuit of it i imagine it would be done. This final reason is probably the biggest. If Snell had to beat Kipketer or Coe or any of them, would he do it simply because he was better prepared than anyone in the 800m that has come since his time?

Anyway that's besides the point really. The point is Lydiard identifed some things relevant to fitness. He was very clear on what these things are but the language to describe them is subjective language. It has to be as he is describing his 'feel' for it. The scientist wants the language to be objective, so it is difficult for the two camps to meet. One camp under Lydiard follow intuitive thinking, the thinking of feel, whereas the other camp under Science, follow rational thinking, the thinking of thoughts. These two types of thinkings are completely different languages, so it's really hard to communicate between them. I'm trying this very thing all the time, translating my feeling into rational language so other people can understand what i'm saying. It doesn't seem to be working all that well. Must keep practising :)

gypsy wrote:

I'm not sure why i'm sounding like a nob, all forceful with my opinions. Anyone got an idea?

Um, because the name of the thread is Lydiard Imitations? :) Right off the bat, in spite of what is written in the OP, we knew where this was going to go.

(Keep up the great work Antonio and Renato.)

Where was it going to go? What is my secret hidden agenda conspiracy man?

gypsy wrote:

Where was it going to go? What is my secret hidden agenda conspiracy man?

It's not secret. It's front and center and I will capitalize it for you:

LYDIARD IMITATIONS

Think about it. That is the name that you chose for this fvckin thread. Does that say anything at all about the modus operandi of this thread's star and conductor? (Hint: YES). You knew you made shit to attract flies, admit it.

Now you are making me wonder. Are you normally paranoid delusional?

Seriously i haven't been on letsrun since 2008 and back then i remember none of this Antonio problem. In the three years since i haven't looked in here.

This thread, believe it or not, was simply to look into Lydiard more deeply. Your paranoid conspiracy theory says what? What was my modus operandi? To cause a sh1tfight? To draw Antonio out so i could smack him down for the lies, deceptions and basic lack of having a clue.

Maybe that last one is what you are looking at. That was just incidental, i don't plan stuff like that. Do you?

HRE wrote:

To me, comments like "Hill didn't know how to train properly" represents so much of where we've gone wrong in our thinking about the sport. Hill was definitely not a slogger, but he also was not a prodigy. It took him several years to find out what worked for him, his first marathon was in 1962 and took 2:24. His fastest was in 1969. He was arguably the best marathon runner in the world for a couple of years and among the best for over a decade and yet he "didn't... train properly."

However when it´s said "the perfect combination of aerobics and anaerobics" we´ve gone right !

Then, someone that runs just 8 miles (what you consider not enough right ?) and misses the long run (that you think of interest) to your opinion think that he doesn´t train properly ?

Of course that my information about Ron Hill is what John Hadd taugh from his training principles and what he saw, not mine.

I got lots of respect for Ron Hill as amateur runner from the old school and as temperament. Howoever evry objective analysis of his sucess, goes onece again for the ratio/index of resistance. This is the only objective and factual calcul we can make, out of Ron wins and big perfromances.

For me the analysis of what Ron Hill did is to relate his 5k, 10k pbs with the marathon one, all the rest is speculation.

Antonio Cabral wrote:However when it´s said "the perfect combination of aerobics and anaerobics" we´ve gone right!

Then, someone that runs just 8 miles (what you consider not enough right ?) and misses the long run (that you think of interest) to your opinion think that he doesn´t train properly ?

Yes, you've got it right now.

Howoever evry objective analysis of his sucess, goes onece again for the ratio/index of resistance.

What exactly do you mean by this? And specifically how do you measure resistance in your methodology?

You are right SFM it is not quantified. For Bill any run had the potential to be a fartlek run or what today's runner call "tempo" run.

Even some of his indoor track workouts were fartlek. On a number of occasions on a cold winter night, BR would simply run around the track jumping into different groups interval sessions until he had run for an hour or so with lots of change of pace.

The point is, other than the altitude factor all the other important ingredients are there. To me the differences are not significant. So how is the "modern" Renato speaks about any better or in what it accomplishes any better?

gypsy wrote:

What exactly do you mean by this? And specifically how do you measure resistance in your methodology?

Antonio Cabral went on to write: "For me the analysis of what Ron Hill did is to relate his 5k, 10k pbs with the marathon one"?

Was it really that difficult to figure out, if it wasn't immediately obvious to you? And even if it was, I cannot believe that you couldn't have found out it in two minutes if you had wanted to - and IMHO you should have wanted to.

(After all, you had ample time to correct him on his silly little lapsus about the name of de Castella's coach even after his error had already been pointed out.)

Anyway: as the distance increases, the pace decreases and the less it decreases, the better the ratio of resistance. (This may or may not be a mathematically correct way to put it, but have patience with it, if it isn't.)

I´m not sure what you mean about “veyr “.

When you say “Like several people have said to you already, why don't you start your own thread. derailing all Lydiard threads the way you do is veyr childish.”, do you follow the “discuss of Lydiardism through the eyes of coaches and athletes who follow his methodology? I don´t think so.

Excuse me if I don´t act as your will, but do I write something inadequate, illegal or offensive or I openly insulting everyone ? I don´t think so.

Like i say, why don´t you start your own thread. Promoting Lydiard in all Lydiard therads and in some other threads which the issue it´s not Lydiard the way you do is childish.

i still dont get that part - i can read into a lot of what he says but not that sentence - anyway what relevance is there really

Interesting resistance explanation you give there. I didn't think of it like that. Is this what is meant by resistance in Renato's methodology?

ps thanks for replying for Antonio, i suppose someone better since he isn't capable of doing so himself. Strange what happens when he comes up against a real coach who has a real grounding and understanding of his profession.

Hodgie-san wrote:

[quote]Renato Canova wrote:

So, if it's true that without talent nobody can become a Champion, it's also true talent is not enough withou a good training plan, and all the results of the "self made men" of the past (like my friend Hodgie-san) could be very much better, if they could channel their right mentality in a modern type of training.

quote]

"Champions are everywhere, all you need is to train them properly".

"It´s not the best athlete that wins but the best prepared".

Both sentences are from Arthur Lydiard.

Finnaly i agree with something from the Lydiardism. What able one athlete maximize his potential (be very talented or don´t) it´s the it´s training and preparation.

ps- Mr. Wetcoast. Once again, you don´t need to thanks me because i did inform Hodgie of this 2 Lydiard sentences.

No and it still isn't but thanks for the ... was that an insult?

Antonio's mistake regarding De Castella and Clohessy is far greater than not knowing who the coach was. Similar to forgetting who Harbig was. This is a serious question. What do you get out of Antonio's ramblings? Can you point out something concrete to me?

Anyway: this is good, actually something clear for once. Thanks. So resistance according to Renato, is a relative term for the stress an athletes system is undergoing at any point in time. The closer he gets to his threshold over any given distance the higher the resistance. It's good and bad. I can see now why people who think this way are always over-emphasising the top end of any fitness quality. The very word leads you to want to maximise it.

And thanks for replying for Antonio. I understand he avoids replying himself to any of my questions. Sometimes he attempts to critique what i've said but never answers my questions, nor anyone elses for that matter. I'm sure this is apparent to you as well.

Not sure what his is supposed to mean. But I thought Hill's best 5k was 14.00 and 10k 28.39. Marathon best 2.09.28.

Deek's (F.R.DeCastella) best times,800m 1.57, 1500m 3.49.8, 5000m 13.35, 10000m 28.02, marathon 2.07.51.

rekrunner wrote:

I understand why and accept that you cannot answer for Hadd or about Joe, for the reasons you give.

Yup, rekrunner, you certainly are the generous one. Or simply you can't even remember your own question. But unfortunately that won't cut it for me. Rekrunner, I thought your original question was NOT what Antonio thought Hadd would have done but what Antonio would have done with someone like Joe. So let me rephrase it for you.

If Joe had come to you (=Antonio), what would your (=Antonio's) approach be?

1) Would it look like Hadd's, with a six month mileage buildup and aerobic development, before starting the real training?

2) Would it look like Canova described elsewhere, with a brief 2-3 week introductory period, and then a general phase which already includes race pace related and interval workouts and some circuit training (followed by special and specific phases including progressive, extensive, and intensive concepts)?

3) Would it be something in between (e.g. a longer introductory period to build up mileage but less than 6 months)

4) Would it be something else completely.

I think this is simple enough. Him (Antonio) not knowing background of Joe is not enough either. He's a 2:27 runner, took 5 years off and now trying to come back. What more would he need to know? Yes, that would be a good question too-what information wuold Antonio need to coach someone like Joe? If above information is not enough, he definitely should have some protocol of what he needs to know before he accepts coaching the individual.

As far as I'm concerned, training methodology means there's a certain set pattern the coach can apply to the individual. Sure, some details are different from a person to a person but you have to start somewhere and you give them this set-pattern and see how that individual would react to it. Then, moving forward, if necessary you'll adjust the day-to-day training. But it's pretty straight forward and simple to me; the guy is a decent runner (2:27) but took some time off and now trying to come back. In other words, fast enough but starting over. According to all the mumbo jumbo Antonio has been throwing at us, Joe would still need to start out with doing some 2:27 pace workout right from the beginning. Is it how he would coach Joe? That's what methodology is all about, isn't it? You have a certain "method" or "pattern" and, all the bullshit he's been saying against a typical Lydiard pattern, I'd like to see something different, his own, and like I said before, "I just do what I do" is not a METHODOLOGY. If you (Antonio) is not capable of answering all 4 question, just one-what is your methodology? If you don't have one, then we'll really know.

Frankly, I really don't think Hadd was saying what Antinio claims he had. I think he's just making it up now Hadd is dead, now he thinks he can say anything he wants. I really don't think Antonio has any honor or integrity. Just as he started badmouthing Lydiard now he's dead, I really think he's making it up to turn Hadd against Lydiard. As far as I know, and I believe rekrunner had pointed this out several times too, Hadd had said he did Lydiard type training. It's a decumented fact. All Antonio is saying, from his personal e-mail exchange with Hadd, that he had changed his approach completely separate from Lydiard, is as he had been criticising Lydiardites like Kim or HRE that their "personal conversation with Lydiard is not good enough" yet that's the EXACT strategy he's using, using the dead man's honor, to attack Lydiard. What a shame....

So I found the information on Roelants and his marathon time came out as 2:29, granted it was in Mexico City. I couldn't fine his 5000m but if he did "modern" training and his marathon trainnig was better than Hill's, with Hill's marathon being 2:09 and 5000 being 14:00, Roelants' 5000 must have been somewhere around 16 minutes. Yea, that's a great feat. Do some math yourself before you try to act smart, Antonio!

Skuj wrote:

gypsy wrote:

I'm not sure why i'm sounding like a nob, all forceful with my opinions. Anyone got an idea?

Um, because the name of the thread is Lydiard Imitations? :) Right off the bat, in spite of what is written in the OP, we knew where this was going to go.

(Keep up the great work Antonio and Renato.)

You are absolutely right. Everything we know and have experienced cannot be explained by science. A good coach looks both at science and also learns from his/her experience and others' experiences. But sometimes we fall in love with the past because of someone who revolutionized the sport, and error in not being able to move on.

I also believe that many in the first world romanticize the successes of the non-African runners and like to hold onto and analyze the successes of Cram Coe, Snell, etc while being not as interested and not analyzing the successes of Morcelli, Auoita, and Kipketer.

From memory Roelants PBs were about: 13-30 for 5k, 28-00 for 10k, and 8-26 for steeplechase. He was faster than Hill on the track but going by the results, he did not manage to optimize his training for the marathon compared with Hill, who was quite a lot faster at this distance.