Lydiard Aerobic Phase

And "A Clean Pair of Heels," with Murray Halberg.

Thanks for the extra info Kim. You have to fit the training in to suit your circumstances.

123 wrote:

Lydiard WAS the father of jogging.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Arthur DETEST that notion?

Skuj wrote:

123 wrote:

Lydiard WAS the father of jogging.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Arthur DETEST that notion?

Oh come on skuj. Arthur basically ended up having a single method of gaining fitness that we see through two main mediums. Elite middle distance running and general health of the community. Two ends of the same spectrum but still the sam e spectrum. I see that spectrum as the aerobic health of our society, some people have little and slow jogging will help them the most. Others are super fit school leavers at 18 or 19 who can aim a little higher and so the elite side of Lydiard's method can be applied.

Take a guy such a Pre. Pre claims his performances were made of less talent and more work than his competitors. Say this is true and little Pre at 7 years old is toddling around with this deep desire to run and to run faster than everyone else. Give 10-15 years of intense development of the aerobic side of himself and maybe he did train himself into excellence. I believe such a thing may have happened. It is theoretically possible. I think Lydiard saw this and i think he helped people literally 'grow' into becoming the bigger, better people Cerutty also talks about.

I mean basically it's all about self development isn't it? How far do you want to go? How persistent are you on the path. How consistent? How much intelligence is in your training? Are you open enough to constantly seek out new advice?

Do you challenge things like me only in order to see if they hold true? And when they do hold true despite our best efforts to prove them wrong, do you then change your perspective instead of trying to continue to change the other things depsite already knowing it holds true?

For me now it's not whether Lydiard is speaking the truth, it's how accurate was he.

I'll ask it again, but change some words around:

Diodn't Arthur Lydiard HIMSELF hate the fact that he was being called "the father of jogging"?

same question same response stop trolling

Skuj wrote:

I'll ask it again, but change some words around:

Diodn't Arthur Lydiard HIMSELF hate the fact that he was being called "the father of jogging"?

Not at all. He was VERY proud of his influence on jogging and was always happy to tell stories about joggers who'd worked with him and improved their health noticeably.

He didn't like being called "The Father of Long, Slow Distance."

Kim Stevenson wrote:

I also suggest you do your research and actually get hold of much of what has published involving Lydiard ideas. . Success and failure is openly dscussed.

Great book : Champion of Nothing .. Norman Harris

Everytime you post you are so willing to post on this board true stories about Lydiard. Lydiard did this Lydiard did that Lydiard said this Lydiard said that. Lydiard was so good in this so good in that. Why about the Lydiard failure issue you advise us to read books instead of take some of your time and post to tell us some of Lydiard failures ? Do you have any confinement or are you bashful to let us know it on this board ? It seems so.

hey not a fanatic

I am wondering who do you like in MD running? Who are your favourite athletes and coaches?

ta

sim

Absolutely correct as usual, HRE. Arthur said that his "greatest accomplishment in life" was motivating millions of ordinary people worldwide to take up aerobic exercise. If you trace the origins of the jogging movement, it runs straight back to Arthur. I'm sure Darren and others will mock this statement, because that's what they do, but it is simply true. Unfortunately, a lot of people confuse his espousing of jogging as exercise for the masses with his training system for elite athletes, which included jogging only as a form of active recovery from the faster daily run.

Mark

These trolls will never reveal such info as these minions fear it would expose them to the same stuff they dribble out.

They are incapable of engaging in any type of meaningful dialogue the intellect just isn't there.

Like Sim, I would like to know who actually like in this world of Mid Distance running.

I see you attack he likes of Kim quite readily and yet you know nothing about him and his background.

I know he posts on NZ run and I note he posted the folloing when a discussion about Lydiard and Coe arose (minus Trolls !). He mentions studying a lot of Coaches and then posted the following in regards to Coe's 'Better training for Distance runners'

"I have that book and it is excellent. Can't say I have read it cover to cover but refer to it often. Some really good info, even if some of it is rather "Scientific". Has exerpts of Sebs training esp at a young age but nothing that outstanding in those.

However, as HRE can attest, I also have books like :

Seb Coe's ; Running for Fitness

Daniels Running Formula.

Noakes : Lore of Running

Dr Joe Vigils : Road to the Top

Bill Dellingers: Winning Running

Dr Dave Costills : Scientific approach to distance running

Marty Liquoris Guide for the Elite runner.

Arch Jelleys ; Runners Diary and Training Guide

Gary Elliot/Alison Roe ; Every Runners Companion

Larry Myers ; Training with Cerutty

The East German Track and Field Manual. Great info but book comes complete with awsesome Bulls**t Commy propaganda.

The two Manuals put out by Track and Field News : 1) Middle Distance running 2)Long Distance running

Plus the two texts I had when I did my PE degree in the US;

Ken Doherty's : Track and Field Omnibook (Bloody thing weighs a tonne)and Bill Bowermans ; Coaching Track and Field

To top all that I do have everything that Arthur has produced.

I won't bother with the Ex Phys and Biomechanics Texts or the file cabinet full of all sorts of stuff !!!

As you can see I am a Hoarder. But I do get them all out and "Browse" and "think" and "Plan"

Just a few more I forgot to post just to whet your appetite:

The Complete Runner (1st Ed) Runners World

The Complete Middle Distance runner by Denis Watts, Harry Wilson (Ovett's Coach) and Frank Horwill. Great little book, learned heaps out of it.

How they Train : Vol 1 :Middle Distances and Vol 2 : Long distances (Both 2nd Ed 1973)

Really good stuff on what many of the guys "back in the day" did, plus good training definitions and descriptions.

Focus on Running: An Introduction to Human Movement. 1978

An aussie book that has some really good stuff in it. Some "heavy" science as well.

Run Strong ; Edited by Kevin Beck . I'm currently working my way through it at present.

I also have a pile of old Runners World booklets sitting in a Trunk in my Garage !!

As you can see. I am a bit of a student of the Sport. But that is one of the strengths I gained from my education in the US. I was lucky in that when we studied "Track and Field" we had to look in depth at Coaching Philosophies and the "whats and the Hows" of various aspects of the Sport. Luckily the Prof was a Distance runner (1:49 .. 800) so that helped.

But Arthur Lydiard also taught me to think about what I was trying to do with an athlete and above all use "common sense", don't get sucked in by 'eye wash'. "

Yes! he is a lydiard Man but not a closed mind.

I'll probably regret this, but I'm going to say again that when you ask about athletes who failed, you need to explain what you consider failure because usually if we know an of athlete who "failed" it's probably because that athlete also had many successes. On the other hand, if someone was nothing but a failure they're probably anonymous.

As to Lydiard's athletes, it would be very hard to make a case that Snell, Halberg, Viren, Vassala ever failed as they have Olympic Golds and World Records. But what about the ones who have silver or bronze medals. Was that success because they got medals or failure because the medals weren't gold? Were guys like Jeff Julian and Bill Baillie, who made Olympic teams but didn't win medals failures or successes? What about a guy like Bill Rodger (not Rodgers) who ran with Arthur and did some very good performances in the 3-6 mile range but never made an Olympic team? Yet most of us who post here would kill to have his PRs even forty some years after he turned them in.

Ray Puckett ran some tremendous marathons but was never the runner out of New Zealand as he was in domestic races. Failure or success? Kim already mentioned that Arthur's marathoners performed well below expectations at Tokyo so you might consider that a form of failure.

My own initial experience with Lydiard training was a huge failure mostly because I misunderstood a very basic part of the aerobic work. But is that a failure of the approach or my own and does the fact that I eventually got it right and improved my marathon best by an hour fifty nine change the decision?

In his later years, when he'd come back to New Zealand, Arthur had numerous athletes ask him to coach them and then left when the improvements they wanted didn't come fast enough despite the fact that he'd told them it would not be a fast process. You might be able to construe those cases as failures, but where would you assign the failure? To the athletes? To the coach?

I expect this is mostly rhetorical as you rarely answer questions or advance any ideas of your own, preferring to draw out the ideas of others and then critique them. But for others thinking about success and failure it might be worth noting that it's very difficult to hang those labels onto a particular situation.

Great to see a fellow Beach Boy fan on the Board !!!!!!!!!!!.

Thanks Caroline No !!

I think HRE has offered an explanation far better than I could.

I offer the following. I had an athlete come to me wanting to run as well as he could. He had just had a Motorcycle accident where he nearly lost a foot. He had more steel pins in his foot than I could count. Surgeons said he would be lucky to walk let alone run.

We got him to run 15 minutes for 5k .. How did he train ... Yeah !You guessed it ....Is that Success or Failure !!!!!!!.

Kim Stevenson wrote:

He had more steel pins in his foot than I could count.

I didn't know you taught primary school Kim!

sim wrote:

hey not a fanatic

I am wondering who do you like in MD running? Who are your favourite athletes and coaches?

ta

sim

sim wrote:

Kim Stevenson wrote:

He had more steel pins in his foot than I could count.

I didn't know you taught primary school Kim!

This your question reveals your wrong approach to the attempt to have a correct training understand. I don't consider coaches or their train methods by the names of the coaches or the runners performances. May be you are relate to that - the top ten of your the best actors, the ranking of your best movies, your favourite song or your favourite coaches and athletes.

The same need to personalise all subjects as the cult of personality that´s the motto of your last post comment for Kim. What´s the interest really that you knew or you didn´t knew that Kim did teach primary school ? This your last post that is a waist of time and unrelated to our discuss. As would be if i named my favourite runners or coaches. What that nominations would add to your or everyone of you to understand my comments about Lydiard ? Nothing at all. That would add the same than your comment about Kim. Nothing at all. What did add to my understand of your training ideas when Caroline no copy your NZ post? Nothing at all. For the issues we are discuss it really doesn´t matter that you did read 100 or 1000 or 10000 books about the running sport.

One of the characteristics of those who want to be connected in the same group of affinity is to socialise as a ritual of engagement among the pairs. That´s what you do

when you write private posts one each other. What you reveal is nothing but the need of emotional identification with the same issue. On this board we have a great number of posts about Lydiard idiosyncrasies. Some said he talked to that runner, that he said that to Kim, that Nobby did stay in Lydiard home in NZ and on and on. This is nothing but a ritual of identification and a share of partnership that is quite irrelevant to the share of the discuss and that add nothing to the pros or cons Lydiard argument.

HRE wrote:

I expect this is mostly rhetorical as you rarely answer questions or advance any ideas of your own, preferring to draw out the ideas of others and then critique them. But for others thinking about success and failure it might be worth noting that it's very difficult to hang those labels onto a particular situation.

Part of my answer to this your comment goes in my last sim post reply. Thats a fact that i rarely expose myself. The reason is because i think that my individual case or my other preferences that doesnt really matters for the subject we discuss. In that issue im also different athn most of you. I really don´t matter who you are or comment on your individual choices. I don´t discuss and i dont fight no one as~an individual, I respect everyone. I fight the idea of the individual whats a different level of discuss. I really don´t care who you are what sim he is or what Nobby is in the real life or what you do. When I include the nick names or the real names thats an atempt to an easy identification from where comes that idea that i do a comment. When i quote or i direct my post intervention thats not because i have lack of respect for the man i discuss. Contrary to what most of this board i guess thats no interest to know who are the board participants as indivuduals. That preserves each one personality and individuality. When i comment about HRE you are simply an imaginary individual known by tha 2 letters that i build an opinion about your ideas trough your posts, not about your real life or your real identity.

Then you are wrong when you say that i rarely answer the questions you ask me. Simply i don´t do the answer that you wanted or that you did expect. Anything you ask me about the subject we are discuss i will answer but i have nothing of interest to let you know about me or my own choices. The same my procedure with Lydiard. I don´t discuss Lydiard the man. I discuss Lydiard training ideas and Lydiard the coach and Lydiard runners achievements.

not a fanatic wrote:

When i comment about HRE you are simply an imaginary individual known by that 3 letters that i build an opinion about your ideas trough your posts, not about your real life or your real identity.

No. You don't discuss Lydiard's training ideas or Lydiard the coach or Lydiard's runners achievements. You simply prattle on about other people's responses.