U.N.O. wrote:
Roo leather wrote:
The spikes of that 60s era were not bad at all.
But still not as good, and as already said the synthetic tracks are better too.
Shoes like Adidas Tokyo etc and Puma were designed to better fit the contours of the foot. There was little arch support, so better replicated running bare foot. Also a semi-bubble spongy heel. Late sixties had really good track shoe designs. Road shoes not so much.
HRE wrote:
As you probably know, Arthur was not big at all on specific paces for reps of any length. Time trials were where he got a bit more specific, but you probably have seen the quote about "I do 440s, you do 220s, another guy does 880s, it's a lot of eyewash" and he thought that as long as you created oxygen debt it didn't matter much how you did it. That certainly is out of step with a ;lot of modern coaching but I have seen no evidence that either way is demonstrably better. I think it's an athlete by athlete thing. The length of the recovery depended on what you were looking to do with the session and it's where actual coaching would have come into play. Hodgie-san did a lot of his reps with Bill Squires who was generally, from what I recall of a couple conversations with him, more of a believer in short recoveries than Arthur was. A lot of what people now do with long reps and short recoveries was stuff Lydiard did with his Steady State Runs.
Lydiard's earlier training schedules published courtesy of Rothmans Cigarette Co. had specific charts (pages of them) on how fast to run intervals. For example, for a 14:00 5,000 meter running he had times for full effort 64 second quarters; 3/4 effort 67 second quarters; 1/2 effort 72 second quarters. He had the same set up for how to run time trials. Not all time trials were to be run at full effort (particularly early in the season).
Those tables were there at the publisher's insistence. So were the schedules. Arthur never wanted to include them and I never knew of anyone who worked with him who got anything other than general comments about paces.
I think you’re misunderstanding. Long intervals with short to very short rest are essentially ‘cruise intervals,’ which are, in turn, quite similar to Tempo runs but with less of a sustained effort. Tempo runs are very apparent in Lydiard’s base phase, as he advocated long hard efforts and time trials. So one can look at it this way, modern training tends to take specificity to a new level, while Lydiard’s training methods are highly adaptable as running became increasingly specific and competitive, and were a sort of prototype/blueprint for the evolution of this future training.
-Run 1-2 hours a day
-Mix paces up
-Recover
-Get to an ideal racing weight
-Prevent injury
That’s it.
There’s nothing more to this distance racing thing. It’s not about one persons “system” being the best. It’s not about special workouts. If it has these aforementioned components than someone will run to their potential.
optional wrote:
HRE wrote:
I'd bet that the hill bounding and springing is the most controversial phase of Lydiard training and possibly the most abandoned today. When I was getting advice from Barry Magee he told me specifically that when doing hill training I should avoid bounding and springing and simply run up the hills. I never asked him why nor did I ever ask if that was something he had all of his athletes avoid or if that was peculiar to me.
On the topic of Lydiard producing great 10,000 meter runners, Richard Tayler was quite good. If he hadn't been felled by arthritis prior to the Montreal Olympics he well could have been a factor in that race. And you cannot ignore the influence he had on Viren even if it was one step removed. The same is true for Billy Mills. Pat Clohessey got Mills to train more along Lydiard lines prior to the Tokyo Games, though Mills' version evidently was far from pure Lydiard.
That's weird. Barry Magee actually coached me for a year or so and said it was BOUNDING up the hills, not just running up them that mattered. So, different advice, but for two different athletes.
I've got more to reply later to Canova as I believe he is fundamentally wrong about Lydiard...I would say that the Canova fundamental period and Lydiard's marathon conditioning period are very similar.
I have heard from numerous NZ runners that regret they didn't do more hill bounding. Or at least continued it till the end of their careers. Hill bounding only works on grass hill peferably in barefoot.
Lydiard did develop the system. He didn't have great athletes; he only had Auckland athletes. He didn't coach the best in NZ, just the best in Auckland.
2000 Olympic 10k wrote:
-Run 1-2 hours a day
-Mix paces up
-Recover
-Get to an ideal racing weight
-Prevent injury
That’s it.
There’s nothing more to this distance racing thing. It’s not about one persons “system” being the best. It’s not about special workouts. If it has these aforementioned components than someone will run to their potential.
+1