Jerome Drayton 2:10:08 Canadian record holder how did he train..?

fred wrote:

How do you know what someone's training was if you can't

reference it.

From my brain.

António Cabral wrote:

After 10 years of hard training and 29 years old, he did just 28:40. 4 years later In the 76 Montreal Olympics Lopes with 33 years old wins his heat and did silver medal with some 27:45. On 1984 with 37 years old he did win marathon at LA Olympics. Why do you think he did that individual progression ? He did chance from the old school of training, and moved to better training of course.

I thought that Lopes was 29 years old at Montreal when he ran in for 2nd behind Viren. I think that Lopes also won a world cross title this same season. If I am right then I think that it is reasonable to say Lopes was showing high potential in his late 20s and he managed to prolong his career into his late 30s.

Nevertheless, for me it is very difficult to argue the superiority of "modern training" today for distance running compared with the training of 30 or 40 years ago if I look at the results of distance running in Europe today. If we consider that Lopes' results were some 30 years ago then why are there basically no European origin runners who are running faster than Lopes today at 10 km or marathon? Surely, if the modern training methods of today are superior to those of Lopes 30 years ago, then we should be seeing at least some runners running at least equivalent sorts of times.

Yes, you can argue that the East Africans are running faster but the fact that this is not the case for the Europeans makes this is a complicated issue to resolve.

J.R. wrote:

fred wrote:

How do you know what someone's training was if you can't

reference it.

From my brain.

Did Seko run 90 miles a day for 1 week in New Zealand?

J.R. wrote:

HRE wrote:

In Lopes' situation, in the context of this thread, even what he did after the change would be considered "out dated."

I think Lopes' training was not so outdated as you think, and with minor adjustments would be almost the same as the Kenyan marathoners today. For sure, Lopes' training was closer to the modern training than those before him, and his results much better as well.

I did not mean that I think Lopes's stuff was outdated. I was referring to others on this thread who said as much.

Lopes was 29 in Montreal but he kept improving as he got older rather than just being "as good".

Europeans have run faster than he did there has just been a bit of a lull, likely because of the discouraging performances of echelons of African athletes and the lure of Soccer.

SMJO wrote:

He barely cracks 30:00 when he's training for the Marathon.

Some people hang onto a much higher degree of their speed which helps when they are trying to run a fast Marathon.

Guys like Reid go up in distance and slip a lot at the distances below.

If he could hang onto his 10km speed and still do all the things he needs to in order to run a Marathon strongly, he'd be OK.

He has plenty of "speed" to go well under 2:10. If anything he needs to continue to build his endurance.

I think that if he continues his efforts for a few more years he will run well under 2:10.

HRE wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I think Lopes' training was not so outdated as you think, and with minor adjustments would be almost the same as the Kenyan marathoners today. For sure, Lopes' training was closer to the modern training than those before him, and his results much better as well.

I did not mean that I think Lopes's stuff was outdated. I was referring to others on this thread who said as much.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bump

Agree HRE. Lopes training, Drayton and Hill are all outdate. However Lopes training seems me to the best among the three. Also Lopes if we analyse the several changes that he did through is long career and that made him a fast runner, can be considered that the late training is best than the late training, since the huge enhance that the new/different (at that past time, today is outdate) made in his performance enhance don´t you think.

But don´t forget your original thesis "Different is not necessarily better or worse. It's just different. Let's see someone take what you're calling different and apply it to people like Hodgie-san or Drayton or Hill"

This is another my surprise if comes from you. Different it´s not necessary good - i agree. But in some case you know what´s better and worst don´t you ? For instance, You defend the long run. Here the question it´s not what i think about the long run. But what you think. There if someone moves to different training and did an huge improve with that new training must not be new shoes, new tracks, new facilities, but better training method.