Captain Oblivious wrote:
If Moller's published training from '92 is any indication I see virtually no real "Lydiard" in it.
And Lorraine herself sees almost nothing but Lydiard in it. As with Igloi or any other method you need to adjust for circumstance and for the athlete.
HRE.
I used to know you well since long ago and your logic of argumnetation.
By you, where when the facts and the reality and doesn´t fit in your argument, ther´s no way to rove nothing. Only in the subjectivity of the choice of Lydiard, without physiology logic or factual prove there always one strong argument that Lydiard training wins ! At least one, but there are many, but not mine ones that proves thn opposite
Who talked about what works and doesn´t work ? Who brought to the debate the results when we were debating in the zone of training methodology ? It was you. Now you refuse everything that concerns the field of results, because it´s not friendly to your conclusions. I wait that in a minute someone will post "But Snell is the wordl best and that´s all"
for everyman wrote:
Yes. And let's keep the thread about Igloi
And you "everyman wrote" keep the therad about Igloi. What you said about Igloi i couldn´t read yet ?
HRE
Why the hundred of occasions ther´s a post saying that Lydiard is a superior training method, and the argument it´s because Peter Snell did win over the others, why you never replied with the same answer you did to me ? Why ? Why you never stand up and said. Look man it´s a fact that Snell did that performances that huge results , but “no one can´t prove by results that Lydiard training works” Why ? Strange don´t you think ?
Other aspect. You always argue pro Lydiard with your own case, that you improved quite a lot your results when you moved to the Lydiard training, and also when you adviced the long run for someone he did an huge performance improve. Then perromane improve and results are of value to be pro Lydiard but my results aren´t for the same conclusion ?
Now, once for all let us know, then why Lydiard is a rich training ? If it´s not for the physiology - you alwsys say you don´t undertand enough in that erea to prove wnat right or wrong i that area, and if it´s by the training methoddology - you say ther´s no different training since the 50s of teh last century, and if it´s not by the results, there is by what mean of debate, by what logic ? Your posts ?
HRE wrote:
Captain Oblivious wrote:If Moller's published training from '92 is any indication I see virtually no real "Lydiard" in it.
And Lorraine herself sees almost nothing but Lydiard in it. As with Igloi or any other method you need to adjust for circumstance and for the athlete.
That's called personal training tailored to the athlete. It's no longer Lydiard.
Captain Oblivious wrote:
HRE wrote:And Lorraine herself sees almost nothing but Lydiard in it. As with Igloi or any other method you need to adjust for circumstance and for the athlete.
That's called personal training tailored to the athlete. It's no longer Lydiard.
I found Coach Igloi's workouts to be very much tailored to the individual athlete and as Coach Igloi doled them out he adjusted them to how the athlete responded. In addition the coaches who use Igloi's methods now are very individualized. I also found his training very difficult for a slow twitch person.
By the way the coach's methods evolved more and more as he became more Americanized. This country seemed to be hard for him at first. Americans always want to know "Why".
This thread is about Igloi, not Lydiard. Please stop bringing him up, it was interesting without the usual Lydiard arguments.
I trained under Joe Douglas at the Santa Monica Track Club, and I couldn't explain the reasons behind anything that we did. Totally confusing! I would train with Johnny Gray and the NBC announcer, Lewis Johnson, on the weekends, and we would laugh that we didn't know what in the hell the coaches were talking about.
It was very individualized. Joe would give everyone a different workout, and then follow us in a car up and down San Vicente monitoring us.
J.R. wrote:
Orville Atkins wrote:Sorry. It would be too much of a guess. Also, it would depend on what had gone before and where I was in my training.
I asked Coach Igloi to coach me. He always knew what his athletes were doing but never told me a time. Once at the end of a workout, he had me do a 440 all out. It could have been my best 440 ever or it may have been a disappointment. I understand he kept logs on everyone.
He has a reputation for being able to predict the times one would run.
That is interesting you didn't know the times you were running, which I think is a great idea, as it allows the runner to focus on the body instead of external and arbitrary cues.
Personally I would (if I had it all to do again) be a Lydiard type. However it would have been very interesting although pretty tough at times to have had M. Igloi as a coach.
Having one go run a flat out 400 m after a workout? Reminds me of a 1976 movie, 'Second Wind' where this aspiring runner's coach has him run as far as he can in four min. on the track and then after comparing his distance achieved to that of a WC athlete, tells him he could probably right then after his hard 4 min. effort, run his best for a flat out one lap on the track even if he didn't think he could. The idea one is never as tired as he thinks he is? A bit airyfairy far-fetched in the movie, though I wonder if Igloi wanted to get an idea what kind of shape you were in.
Though the concept of focussing on effort and how one is feeling has merit, I would for one want to know how I did - maybe not if it were me and I sagged on that 400 m.
Good thread.
Moderators (If you exist)...
Please take the Lydiard battle out of this thread so it is a discussion of Igloi's method.
Thank you
running historian wrote:
António Cabral wrote:I see the irony, but you are going by a wrong direction of argumentation, the one you can´t defend with facts.
But just one example. When Lorraine Moller she did 33th in the Seul Olympic marathon don´t you realize that the other 32 that finished in front of her were best coached by different methods ....
When in the next Olympics she finished 3rd ...
First you say that HRE cannot demonstrate with facts that Lydiard training is particularly effective. Then you use Lorraine Moller, who used Lydiard-based training and improved from 33rd in the 1988 Seoul Olympics marathon to 3rd in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics marathon (at the age of 39), as a case study of the non-effectiveness of Lydiard training.
You could have hardly picked a worse example to justify your opinion that Lydiard had a poor training methodology.
António, responde lá a esta.
Don't ignore someone who shows you how wrong you are.
with joe douglas, there was a rationale for the lack of information to the runner, and i assume this philosophy was influenced by igloi, at least from what i gather from orville's accounts.
he did require absolute faith in him as a coach. so, when you'd do an all-out 400 at the end of the workout, this was more of an assessment for the coach to gather information, not for an athlete's confidence. you'd have to trust the coach to use this info to tailor future workouts and expectations, so when he'd tell you you're ready to run ?:?? time, you had to assume he was basing this on the information he's gathered through your workouts. i personally liked this, because running was hard enough--i didn't want to have to worry about the thinking part of it. however, this did not work for everyone, and any skepticism generally doomed you...
the other reasons for him not giving splits all the time, and why we rarely ever knew what the whole workout was, were twofold: one, he wanted you to focus on them moment, or the repetition at hand, and not worry about the 12th 400 while you're doing the first; and two, it allowed him to make adjustments without you knowing and worrying like most compulsive athletes will. in other words, joe may have had a plan for you to do 12x400, but if on the 10th one you'd fallen off the target pace, he'd cut the workout short, thereby maintaining the integrity or purpose of the workout, but saving the athlete from worrying or fretting about "not completing the workout." these were some of the ways (and reasons) joe, and i assume igloi, would individualize the workouts...
socal cush wrote:
with joe douglas, there was a rationale for the lack of information to the runner, and i assume this philosophy was influenced by igloi, at least from what i gather from orville's accounts.
he did require absolute faith in him as a coach. so, when you'd do an all-out 400 at the end of the workout, this was more of an assessment for the coach to gather information, not for an athlete's confidence. you'd have to trust the coach to use this info to tailor future workouts and expectations, so when he'd tell you you're ready to run ?:?? time, you had to assume he was basing this on the information he's gathered through your workouts. i personally liked this, because running was hard enough--i didn't want to have to worry about the thinking part of it. however, this did not work for everyone, and any skepticism generally doomed you...
the other reasons for him not giving splits all the time, and why we rarely ever knew what the whole workout was, were twofold: one, he wanted you to focus on them moment, or the repetition at hand, and not worry about the 12th 400 while you're doing the first; and two, it allowed him to make adjustments without you knowing and worrying like most compulsive athletes will. in other words, joe may have had a plan for you to do 12x400, but if on the 10th one you'd fallen off the target pace, he'd cut the workout short, thereby maintaining the integrity or purpose of the workout, but saving the athlete from worrying or fretting about "not completing the workout." these were some of the ways (and reasons) joe, and i assume igloi, would individualize the workouts...
Thanks there, SC
Yes, running in the moment would have resonated with me.
HRE wrote:
There is no way to say that Lorraine finished behind two or thirty two athletes because they trained better than she did or that she finished ahead of dozens of others because they didn't train as well and you know that. Training is only one part of the equation. No matter much "better" than you I trained I was not going to beat you in a race. You simply were better than me.
Therefore, people who use non Lydiard training are simply better.
Captain Oblivious wrote:
HRE wrote:And Lorraine herself sees almost nothing but Lydiard in it. As with Igloi or any other method you need to adjust for circumstance and for the athlete.
That's called personal training tailored to the athlete. It's no longer Lydiard.
About 15 or 16 years ago I got in touch with Lydiard via e-mail and had him coaching me. When his wife stopped helping him with the computer and he no longer was in touch I got in touch with Barry Magee, who people have described as "more Lydiard than Lydiard" and got advice from him until maybe eight years ago. If you looked at what I did in those 7-8 years you'd say exactly the same thing about it as you did about what you saw from Lorraine in 1992. Yet I was doing what Lydiard told me to do but individualized for me and my circumstances, i.e., what you call, accurately, personal training tailored to the athlete but as it was Lydiard and then Magee tailoring it you'd be hard pressed to argue that "it's no longer Lydiard." It's not what YOU understand Lydiard training to be but that's because of a shortcoming in your understanding.
ALL good coaches have some basic ideas about how to train their athletes but adapt the application of the ideas to their athletes. People on the thread who trained with Igloi have made this point about him. I think one big reason why so many more people use Lydiard's ideas than Igloi's is what Orville said earlier; you really had to train with Igloi to do Igloi training. He didn't leave any books about what he did and why or go on lecture tours and Lydiard did loads of that sort of thing.
Antonio, I'm not doing this again with you and I've explained why in the past on other threads where this comes up.
Antonio,
You let me interview you and you exposed your training methodologies to resemble the genius of the great, great Arthur Lydiard. You hardly protested my indicating so. It is true, your training is very similar to Lydiard's. Good choice. You must be an excellent coach.
But you come on here and go batshit crazy with lunatic statements, totally ignoring logic; the logic of others, especially HRE, a man you should at least admire, if not port his water bottle and jock strap for. you could be his privates caddy (you wont get it - never mind).
Bi-polar is no laughing matter. There is help if you need it.
By the way, I accepted your Linkedin request and of course I asked myself as I clicked "accept", "what sort of insane shit is going to fly now"?
I think I laughed myself to sleep last night reading your comedy.
Get well soon.
My apologies for the self-promotion, but here it is, see how sane he comes across? Amazing:
I miss arguing with you guys.
Actually I don't. Who cares? It's all about running. Intensity. Duration. Frequency. Methodology.
WTF are you all arguing about? Find the coach who speaks to you and explain why you like them.
I like the Cabral interview, btw.
Athletics Illustrated and Antonio Cabral are both disgusting personalities. Cabral has previously contributed a lot to letsrun though. Can't say that about Mr Kelsall.
So Roszavolgyi was no longer doing Igloi training when he ran faster than he did under Igloi?
I doubt Igloi was making phone calls back to Hungary.