LYDIARD OR DANIELS?

P.S. Nobby -- you forgot the part about human sacrifice every Tuesday.

Nobby wrote:

By the way, I felt offended by you calling my people "Japs" so please don't.

Mr. Nobby: In replying to "give me a break," I used his term "Japs" without thinking. My apologies, and I really had no intention of offending whatsoever. I'm Irish, and I've heard plenty about "micks" to last me the rest of my days!

Not to worry -- when someone deserves recognition and admiration, they should certainly get it. I hope Arthur felt this admiration during his years with the running world. \

Flightless -- you are quite correct that it would just about be impossible (no, it would be impossible) to carry out a study to try to determine what approach would be best in developing a distance runner. The best we can do is try to put together bits and pieces of research and the methods used by different coaches and athletes and then, with intelligent interaction between coach and runner do our best to figure out what works best for each individual. I am quite convinced myself that youngsters are not the same as mature runners, or maybe that treating beginners at younger ages as we think is best for older experienced runners will result in losing some very talented runners before they mature.

Oh crap! The human sacrafices are supposed to be on TUESDAYS?

No worry here either. I meant to carry on a bit of sarcasm as well as sense of humor. I call myself "Jap" all the time! He (or she) who feel insecure gets upset with small things.

I am a sort of scientist/engineer by trade (has anyone seen Breathe Right for horses?). Runners are the worst research subject. When they have a problem, they try EVERYTHING--change shoes, decrease mileage, start doing extra stretching and start popping some vitamin pills...you name it! In the end you have NO idea what the heck actually worked! To make things worse, I think, training effect usually takes quite a long time to be noticed. Someone doing all the mileage for a year or two and suddenly switch to fast training and he/she starts to perform really well. Is it because of the fast training or is it all the base mileage he/she did prior to?

Since you're still here, what's your take on the value or lack thereof of long runs, say a mimimum of 90 minutes or 13 miles arbitrarily, for half milers and of Arthur's belief that the 800 WR should be at least 1:40 because there are so many people capable of running 45-46 for 400 meters that if you developed their aerobic abilities properly they should be able to do back to back 50s? And if you don't want to respond to that, what's your opinion of run-on sentences?

no problem with run-on sentences. As for the mileage thing and 800 runners, not an absolute answer in my mind. People are not all the same in their physiological make up and to say that long runs will benefit each physiological type equally is stretching it in my mind. Seems I remember hearing that Coe was going to go after the 5k; same for Cruz; others. I'm not sure because you can run a fast 400 you can also automatically become a great 800 runner; maybe trying that would not be successful and in the meantime would take away from your already-proven 400 ability, and now you have neither, and the sentence goes oon and on. Would the next step be to make 800 runners out of the 100-meter guys and gals? Or jockeys out of NBA players who may not look like jockeys, but may actually somehow be able to be trained to be great ones?

flightless ask:

>

In my day job I'm an historian, and I think it is interesting that there is not a good intellectual history of the development of the science of distance running and coaching. Or perhaps I've missed it. Can anyone suggest something?<

Here is one worth looking at, from 1968:

"Out in Front"

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=gretton&y=0&tn=out+in+front&x=0

http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/774a74a9565fee81.html

HRE wrote:

Since you're still here, what's your take on the value or lack thereof of long runs, say a mimimum of 90 minutes or 13 miles arbitrarily, for half milers and of Arthur's belief that the 800 WR should be at least 1:40 because there are so many people capable of running 45-46 for 400 meters that if you developed their aerobic abilities properly they should be able to do back to back 50s? And if you don't want to respond to that, what's your opinion of run-on sentences?

ok, what Lydiard says is that aerobic conditioning(long runs) WILL produce a 1:40 800 from an athlete, who is already running 45-46 sec's for 400. maybe for some, but not for all. In order for these 400m guys to run an 800 in the 1:40 range, then they must have naturally high fatigue resistence and running economy. sure these sprinters will have some improvement in their 800m time with endurance training, but without the key genetics, the training will only go so far.

[quote]Hodgie-san wrote:

flightless ask:

>

In my day job I'm an historian, and I think it is interesting that there is not a good intellectual history of the development of the science of distance running and coaching. Or perhaps I've missed it. Can anyone suggest something?<

One section of Tim Noakes' "Lore of Running" takes a look at this, although not quite in the depth you might like. Other places in the book specifically address how scientists developed, used, and possibly misused, VO2max. A similar look at altitude training is also in the book.

Igloi and many other coaches have done the same. Right? Do you really thing that other coaches from the days of yesteryear(40's, 50's, 60's) recruited athletes from "far away lands" to develop? No, they worked with whom they had near them. Later, if they became popuar coaches, they did indeed spread their "word " to foreign lands and athletes (Van Aaken, Lydiard and Igloi did this). So nothing unique about Lydiard developing "local" athletes to greatness. It happened in his day all the time, ie, it happened with almost EVERY coach who developed an athlete to greatness.

And the fact that some 800m runners have run fast WITH long runs doesn't mean that they NEEDED them or that they were a key ingredient to their success. It works both ways. You can't say whether Snell would have done just as well with or without his long runs. Obviously though, they seemed to worked for HIM (but others have not needed them).

HA HA!! I just LOVE arguments like that one. " Kipketer .... ran long as a child if I remember correctly." I don't think I will take your word on that one, sorry. People like you start merging every world class athlete's training program into one homogenous one(steamrolling or ignoring any obvious differences) that become the same progam(in your eyes), so you can further erase any doubts that St Arthur figured it all out or that there are any other programs that are different or just as successful as his. (and... if I remember correctly....Kipketer was one of those rare Kenyans that did NOT do a lot of running as a youth. I know Tergat "walked nice and slow a short distance to school" as a youth, and I thought Kipketer was another great Kenyan that took some air out of the theory that all East Africans were great because they all ran 20 miles day as children. And Coe might have run long occasionally, but it was hardly a cornerstone of his program)

[quote]Admirer of Lydiard wrote:

Igloi was a great coach, but few around the world use his theories. All respect to Bob Schul, but 13:38, even on cinders, will shut you out of world class competition.

But Snell's 1:44 on grass (1:42 on Mondo) would have been #1 in the world last year!

[quote]

A) How would Bob Schul's 13:38 on cinders from 40 years ago translated to mondo rate him amongst AMERICAN performers today??? Probably right up there with our best. Impressive, eh? So really, the big change is that EAST AFRICANS dominate the 5k and 10k like nothing we've ever seen before. And THAT is why Schul's performance would "shut him out" of international competition, not because it was performed under an inferior Igloi program. VIRTUALLY EVERY NON-AFRICAN RUNNER IN THE WORLD TODAY (besides Mottram), USING A LYDIARD PROGRAM OR NOT, WILL BE "SHUT OUT OF WORLD CLASS COMPETITION." Puts your Schul comment in perspective, eh? The 800 just is not an East African dominated event as much as 5k and 10k are, which is where their natural brilliance lies. So don't ignore that important aspect when making your point: you are talking about 2 different events. The 800 has stagnated big-time in the last 25 years, the 5k and 10k have blown up. And this due almost entirely to the "East and North African factor."

B) I will always have some doubts about temporary tracks measured on grass from 40+ years ago (and that is a legit comment). But lets even remove those doubts and say, fine, Snell ran 1:44 all those years ago. So....

C) What OTHER Lydiard athletes(DIRECTLY coached) have run times that would be world class today??? NONE. So your argument against the times of Igloi's athletes is rather silly. Are you gonna say Snell alone proves Lydiard was the best coach ever? Because he is all you have if you want to only look at Lydiard athletes whose times would be world class TODAY.

You made a bad argument and you know it

I thought I would stay out of answering "give me a break".

However, one comment I will "jump on".

You mention the legtimacy of the measurement of grass tracks.

I feel I am somewhat of an expert in this area having put down at least one track a year for 27 years and as many as three per year on occasion.

Yes ! there is a chance that some are inaccurate, but in general you would be surprised just how accurate they can be. I checked my Survey pegs for my main track a few months ago and we are in good shape (This is for a High School running its own Track & field Champs)

Regarding the tracks that Snell ran the records on, In order for a World record to be set the tracks had to be certified again after the event(ie re surveyed/measured) in all aspects from the distance to the 'fall' in the straights.This was an IAAF requirement.

the Surveyor had to be an "independent' person. ie someone not involved in track and field.

Both Grass Tracks, Wanganui and Christchurch passed the test.

Also : Snell did not have the fastest mile on Wangnui, Jurgen May ran 3:53.8 in 1966 and Kip Keino ran 3:54.1 in late 1965. so it was avery fast grass Track.

The problem with grass tracks is the quality of the surface not the inaccuracy.

My track has terrible 'grass' , soft and can be very 'wet'. I have a kid who can run 50 secs for on Mondo but has not broken 53 on our "Dog Track".

As for the arguments re Anti Arthur, look at the subject !!.

We are discussing "How" Arthur did things. We already know his record and we know that can be argued until the cows come home.

give me a break wrote:

You made a bad argument and you know it

Yes, by virtue of the six page encyclpedia he's treated us to in which he waxes mystical about Schul and denigrates Lydiard, I am now certain this is Lancelot.

As for bad arguments, that's true, you made a horrendous argument. Better for people not to listen to this guy. I'm sure now he'll come back with his favorite insult about how I must be friends with Bush. Way too predictable buddy.

OMG ur right. That's Lancelot. Same old crapola about "genetic dominance".

Many moons ago, Runners World had a three part series on the history of training and racing. It wasn't exhaustive, but as I recall it wasn't bad. I think it's still at their website, but I'm not savvy enough to tell you how to find it there.

Actually, this was always a part of Arthur's schtick. You take someone who is a decent miler, develop his endurance and make a 5-10k guy out of him. Or you take a decent 5-10k guy and develop more of his endurance and make him a good marathoner.

When we talked about the 1:40 800, he essentially said that there are all these 400 meter guys in the US particularly who can do 45.5-46.5 and who'll never even make a major national team. Why not have some of them do a lot of aerobic work, run even splits, and move the record down? It was a very consistent theme for Arthur. I don't think it would work for every 46 guy on earth, but if you had 20-30 of them training that way, I'd guess that you'd find a half dozen who would be able to hit those 50s.

In focusing on Kipketer, you overlooked Coe's long runs which have been pretty well documented. As to the Schul/Snell comparison, if you give each of them the second per lap improvement that people generally allow when comparing performances on cinder and all weather tracks, Schul is quite aways from the modern world list leaders while Snell is, as mentioned, at the top.

You can analyze that anyway you want. Certainly East Africans have taken the 5,000 marks to their current levels. But the Kenyans have ALWAYS excelled at the 800. Wilson Kiprugat got the bronze behind Snell at Tokyo.

The fact that Snell's adjusted time would still be among the world's leaders today while Schul is way back suggests to me that Snell trained better than not only his contemporaries but also better than his successors while Schul's successors have trained better than he did.

But as Kim points out, that really isn't the point of this thread which is a discussion of people who already are interested in the ideas of Lydiard's or of jtupper's. It's not really about discussing the merits of each approach relative to other approaches. So I'll ignore you from now on.

When we talk about "genetics" for 800m, I can not ignore the image of one man--Juantorena. Lydiard was a bit too much in saying all those good 400m guys can make it in a great 800m if they work on their aerobic development and he had been criticised with it. To that, I feel HRE's argument is spot-on. Surely he didn't think any of those 400m guy can become a brilliant 800m runner. But here's the argument on this "natural talent" stuff; Lydiard ALWAYS said that "You cannot determine what you can do or cannot do unless you engage yourself in a systematic training program over a several years."

It really annoys me when all those thread posters asking expert readers such questions as "If I do this, how fast can I run?" If we know that, what's the point of competition? If we know the result, whether we can or cannot do something, what's the point of even trying? How can you say you do or do not possess "key genetics" without training systematically for 3 or 4 or 5 years? That's the name of the game, isn't it? Sure, I remember asking Arthur what he thought I could run. His reply, with a grin, was "You tell me!" He asked me my 200m time--he was big on measuring one's "basic speed" over 200. I told him, at that time, that I had not done much speed training or sprint work that I didn't know. He said, "Well, you need to work on that and figure out what's your best speed is." I can hop on a track today and run, oh, maybe 32 seconds for 200? That, I hope, is nothing to reflect my true potential as a sprinter. If trained correctly, who knows, I could have been a great white (or yellow?) sprinter of the 80s!? I never trained as a sprinter, I never checked my muscle type, I always seem to be able to pass runners in the last 100 yards of the race--I'll just leave it with "Perhaps I could have been great in sprinting..." I never found out (so I can say anything!).

Lydiard, ever so positive in his approach, always said that individual's potential is SO much better than we limit ourselves to. Most of us never find out because we never train properly--be it Iglio system or Lydiard system or Nakamura system--to fulfill it.

I hate those time comparisons. Snell actually told me that the grass tracks he used to run on in NZ were quite well trimmed and he didn't have any problem running on them. However, as Lydiard said, his style was such that he would probably have benefitted even more on the today's rubberized tracks. And then of course there's always the advantage of having competition, money and multiple rabits (and drugs?). In short, you can NOT compare times. Schul won the gold medal. Well, it was on such a muddy track. But he won the gold medal. It was a tactical race. And he won the gold medal. And Snell won 3 of them.