lol@tards.. wrote:
Thomas Crowne wrote:For the record, Snell also ran the mile (an indicator he had strength/endurance). Not only did he run it, but in his 3:54, he went 2:00-1:53 (tenths omitted but it was still a 6+ sec neg split) so he had possibly the best neg ratio of any world record ever in the mile. So did Snell have good strength for a miler but not for an 800 guy? How much sense does that make?
shockwave, you've given a long, convoluted response to pretty much every post in this thread except the above... thoughts???
I don’t know if what you say it´s true but let´s think it´s true. I have no problems to admit that Snell did 3:54 that way.
My first comment is that your example doesn’t fit in my thesis. The mile or 1500m is so much more aerobic than 800m, so it´s not as good to prove the capacity to speedd up the pace when you carry too much lactate.
Another my comment is that one runner like Snell 1:44.3 800m pb, while does the first half-mile in 2:00 that first half is kind of a jog promenade for him. Then it’s not hard to admit that he did the second half in 1:53. This mile split paces doesn’t show no special anaerobic condition or resistance or strength endurance different than everyone else that doesn’t Lydiard training.
The mile or 1500m it’s more aerobic percent than the 800m and my original post with the Snell 800m splits is to show that is false the Snell’s best anaerobic condition gained trough Lydiard training relate to every other training of other different method. It’s false in the single case of Peter Snell as it’s false for every Lydiard runner considered. I say it by the results and performances done that is the undeniable prove of everything.
Therefore the 1500m – more aerobic than the 800m – it’s not as good to consider Snell’s anaerobic condition or Snell’s quality to speed up the pace after he enters in the high anaerobic zone of effort, that is what happens in the second lap one 800m – wity the condition that the runner goes in the main event pace.
I’m right, not that I know all Lydiard runners eventually, but my elementsm of prove are facts and numbers not doubious concepts of phylosophy like holism or holistic that someone uses as he pleased to justify that he is right he knows what´s Lydiard and some others we don´t know because he possesses a unique phylosophic intuition what´s Lydiard training and he is touch by the light of holism. This is less than fuzziology, it´s *****heet.
The Lydiard adept is the kind of person that as instantaneous argument comes with 17 medals, Lydiard the maker of champs and so. But when it comes the moment to prove something they aren´t able to contest by facts and results and performances and numbersa and the argument goes to subjectivity, philosophy or mysticism. The one of holism is one thats hippie. We don´t understand because it´s holism. Holism is something they will never prove, a trap to satisfy the eager of the ignorant. They aren´t ablçe to porve that Lydiard training or Lydiard the man-the coach does more holistic vision than everyone else.