I don't make guesses. I form a view based on what is known about an athlete and what we know about the sport.
That's guessing. As I said, you don't admit you're guessing so you find another name for it. We all do it to some degree. .
It isn't guessing. That is a disingenuous observation. If you observe something from a basis of known facts and come to a conclusion about what those facts suggest you are drawing an inference. That isn't a guess, which can be completely uninformed. Your use of the word would suggest every opinion on this site - about anything - amounts to nothing more than a guess and never a factually-based judgment or assessment.
An example: there were many on this site who suspected Katir was doping. They were right. I don't think they were simply "guessing". Another: there were many who thought Jakob would win the 5k at the last Olympics - which he did. Were they just "guessing"?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I recently did an analysis of men's world record progressions, looking at how much world records progressed in 25-year intervals during the last 100 years. This is what I found for the 1500m:
1925-1950: 4.1%
1950-1975: 4.8%
1975-2000: 2.9%
2000-2025: 0.0%
For almost every event I looked at from 400m to the marathon, the period from 1950 to 1975 had the largest percentage improvement.
Jazy ran his mile world record in 1965. Is it plausible that a teenager could run about as fast as him 60 years later with all the advancements that have been made in the sport since then? One way to look at it is to consider what teenagers were running in 1965 and compare them to the world record 60 years before them.
The world record in 1905 was 4:15. Teenagers were running much faster than that 60 years later. I wonder what elders thought about that in the 1960s.
What are the improvements since Jazy's era that would enable a 16 year old today to run as fast? How do you quantify those improvements?
What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors?
Sir Roger Bannister became legendary for his 3:59.4 mile in 1954. Less than 8 years later, Peter Snell ran 5 seconds faster.
Emil Zátopek ran a 13:57.2 WR in the 5,000m in 1954. By 1965, Ron Clarke was running 10,000m in 27:39, a faster pace than Zátopek could manage for half the distance.
High schoolers in the 1960s were running the mile as fast as or faster than Bannister.
What was going on in the 1960s? What did elders think back then?
That's guessing. As I said, you don't admit you're guessing so you find another name for it. We all do it to some degree. .
It isn't guessing. That is a disingenuous observation. If you observe something from a basis of known facts and come to a conclusion about what those facts suggest you are drawing an inference. That isn't a guess, which can be completely uninformed. Your use of the word would suggest every opinion on this site - about anything - amounts to nothing more than a guess and never a factually-based judgment or assessment.
An example: there were many on this site who suspected Katir was doping. They were right. I don't think they were simply "guessing". Another: there were many who thought Jakob would win the 5k at the last Olympics - which he did. Were they just "guessing"?
It isn't guessing. That is a disingenuous observation. If you observe something from a basis of known facts and come to a conclusion about what those facts suggest you are drawing an inference. That isn't a guess, which can be completely uninformed. Your use of the word would suggest every opinion on this site - about anything - amounts to nothing more than a guess and never a factually-based judgment or assessment.
An example: there were many on this site who suspected Katir was doping. They were right. I don't think they were simply "guessing". Another: there were many who thought Jakob would win the 5k at the last Olympics - which he did. Were they just "guessing"?
The same guys keep saying that about Lutkenhaus and it isn’t true at all. He looks like an average teen in person - younger looking than many of the HS guys he was racing last season. Maybe those posters are jealous or maybe they are simply reaching for an explanation as to why this kid is so fast. He just is.
I’ve interviewed the kid twice. I think you are misinterpreting what I’m saying. His face is completely boyish, he looks 17 and looked 16 last year. He’s just physically built (tall, muscular, powerful stride)and not someone who looks like HS Colin Sahlman for instance. But yes he looks like an average teen off the track, not like Alan Webb at age 18 let’s say.
Figures you’d back-pedal and rationalize. They gotcha man. Take the loss and move on. In person Lutkenaus is quite skinny and not really muscular at all, even for a runner. “Interviewed him twice…” is a nice story. In before this post is removed in a huff.
What are the improvements since Jazy's era that would enable a 16 year old today to run as fast? How do you quantify those improvements?
What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors?
Sir Roger Bannister became legendary for his 3:59.4 mile in 1954. Less than 8 years later, Peter Snell ran 5 seconds faster.
Emil Zátopek ran a 13:57.2 WR in the 5,000m in 1954. By 1965, Ron Clarke was running 10,000m in 27:39, a faster pace than Zátopek could manage for half the distance.
High schoolers in the 1960s were running the mile as fast as or faster than Bannister.
What was going on in the 1960s? What did elders think back then?
Army doesn’t understand the increasingly larger talent pools and the trial and error involved in coming up with better ways to utilize different types of training. He’ll continue to be obtuse and pine for the days when Lydiard had his turn at the top.
Haven't you been following the sport for a long time? If so, you should be well aware of the developments of the past 60 years.
I think we should learn from the past to better understand the present. If we can identify how athletes were able to smash records in the 1960s, that could give us some useful insights. I wasn't around in the 1960s, so I can't really speak to that decade. That's why I ask you: What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors? What did elders think back then?
Haven't you been following the sport for a long time? If so, you should be well aware of the developments of the past 60 years.
I think we should learn from the past to better understand the present. If we can identify how athletes were able to smash records in the 1960s, that could give us some useful insights. I wasn't around in the 1960s, so I can't really speak to that decade. That's why I ask you: What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors? What did elders think back then?
You have answered a question with a question. Are you not able to say what the advances are that enable a middle teenager today to run as fast as Jazy? How do you quantify those advances, if you believe they are what enable this?
What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors?
Sir Roger Bannister became legendary for his 3:59.4 mile in 1954. Less than 8 years later, Peter Snell ran 5 seconds faster.
Emil Zátopek ran a 13:57.2 WR in the 5,000m in 1954. By 1965, Ron Clarke was running 10,000m in 27:39, a faster pace than Zátopek could manage for half the distance.
High schoolers in the 1960s were running the mile as fast as or faster than Bannister.
What was going on in the 1960s? What did elders think back then?
Army doesn’t understand the increasingly larger talent pools and the trial and error involved in coming up with better ways to utilize different types of training. He’ll continue to be obtuse and pine for the days when Lydiard had his turn at the top.
I hear on this site that training is now a science and not "trial and error". What is the guesswork in exceptional achievement today?
Haven't you been following the sport for a long time? If so, you should be well aware of the developments of the past 60 years.
I think we should learn from the past to better understand the present. If we can identify how athletes were able to smash records in the 1960s, that could give us some useful insights. I wasn't around in the 1960s, so I can't really speak to that decade. That's why I ask you: What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors? What did elders think back then?
Frad Wilt wrote a series of "How They Train" books in the 60s. There was en edition for sprints, one for middle distances, one for long distances, and the original covered one to six miles. The guys in that one had careers from the very, very, early 60s and back. The one for long distances mostly covered guys from the early 60s to very early 70s.
Most of the training of the guys in the 60s to early 70s edition didn't look all that different from what people do today. But the training in that original edition, the one from the early 60s and before, looks very different for the most part from what came later. This is a really general comment but the most noticeable differences I see is that before 1960 really everyone did intervals nearly every day and throughout the year. You could find something that looked like periodization in some cases but it was still almost all interval work but the distances and speed of the reps would vary. Mileage was generally lower than what was about to come. A handful of guys did long runs but far more did not.
In the post 1960 edition you can still find guys doing loads of interval training, almost daily for a few. But it was a very few. Almost everyone was still doing intervals but it was more likely to be two or three times a week. A few had times of the year when they didn't do any intervals. Mileage throughout the group was higher than for the pre 1960 guys and long runs became much more common.
We're talking about dozens of runners here so you're going to see a lot of variety. You can find a guy in the later book whose training looks more like what you see guys in the earlier book and vice versa.
Frad Wilt wrote a series of "How They Train" books in the 60s. There was en edition for sprints, one for middle distances, one for long distances, and the original covered one to six miles. The guys in that one had careers from the very, very, early 60s and back. The one for long distances mostly covered guys from the early 60s to very early 70s.
Most of the training of the guys in the 60s to early 70s edition didn't look all that different from what people do today. But the training in that original edition, the one from the early 60s and before, looks very different for the most part from what came later. This is a really general comment but the most noticeable differences I see is that before 1960 really everyone did intervals nearly every day and throughout the year. You could find something that looked like periodization in some cases but it was still almost all interval work but the distances and speed of the reps would vary. Mileage was generally lower than what was about to come. A handful of guys did long runs but far more did not.
In the post 1960 edition you can still find guys doing loads of interval training, almost daily for a few. But it was a very few. Almost everyone was still doing intervals but it was more likely to be two or three times a week. A few had times of the year when they didn't do any intervals. Mileage throughout the group was higher than for the pre 1960 guys and long runs became much more common.
We're talking about dozens of runners here so you're going to see a lot of variety. You can find a guy in the later book whose training looks more like what you see guys in the earlier book and vice versa.
Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard of those books. Very interesting.
Whenever I think about long-term progression in the sport, I wonder what it was like for a fan who admired Nurmi and remembered how close he got to running under 30 minutes in the 10k, then was amazed by Zátopek running 28:54 in 1954, only to see Clarke drop a 27:39 just 11 years later. Wild times.
I don't make guesses. I form a view based on what is known about an athlete and what we know about the sport.
That's a ridiculous statement. And obviously now you're just trolling for attention.
How is it "ridiculous" to base a view about possible doping based on what is known about an individual athlete and what we know about the sport and the presence of doping? What else would you rely on? Tarot cards?
Haven't you been following the sport for a long time? If so, you should be well aware of the developments of the past 60 years.
I think we should learn from the past to better understand the present. If we can identify how athletes were able to smash records in the 1960s, that could give us some useful insights. I wasn't around in the 1960s, so I can't really speak to that decade. That's why I ask you: What were the improvements in the 1960s that enabled those athletes to run so much faster than their predecessors? What did elders think back then?
Frad Wilt wrote a series of "How They Train" books in the 60s. There was en edition for sprints, one for middle distances, one for long distances, and the original covered one to six miles. The guys in that one had careers from the very, very, early 60s and back. The one for long distances mostly covered guys from the early 60s to very early 70s.
Most of the training of the guys in the 60s to early 70s edition didn't look all that different from what people do today. But the training in that original edition, the one from the early 60s and before, looks very different for the most part from what came later. This is a really general comment but the most noticeable differences I see is that before 1960 really everyone did intervals nearly every day and throughout the year. You could find something that looked like periodization in some cases but it was still almost all interval work but the distances and speed of the reps would vary. Mileage was generally lower than what was about to come. A handful of guys did long runs but far more did not.
In the post 1960 edition you can still find guys doing loads of interval training, almost daily for a few. But it was a very few. Almost everyone was still doing intervals but it was more likely to be two or three times a week. A few had times of the year when they didn't do any intervals. Mileage throughout the group was higher than for the pre 1960 guys and long runs became much more common.
We're talking about dozens of runners here so you're going to see a lot of variety. You can find a guy in the later book whose training looks more like what you see guys in the earlier book and vice versa.
I would differ from your claim that just about everyone was doing intervals all year round before 1960. Knowing Arthur Lydiard personally you should probably know this. He began to apply his endurance training regime through his own personal experimentation from 1950 and his methods were adopted by his proteges, like Halberg and Baillie, from the early '50s. Snell was included amongst them from the late '50s. Arthur's methods were of course a radical departure from Stampfl and the interval training advocates of that era and earlier. At the same time, across the Tasman, Cerutty was applying similar methods to Arthur with Elliott and the Portsea athletes. It explains much about the success of Aussie and New Zealand athletes in the late '50s and early '60s. However by the late '60s the value of base conditioning was becoming widely recognized and was fully incorporated in the sport by the '70s. Most forms of md and distance training today incorporate the mixture of methods today, although we see 800m specialists tend to emphasis speed work over conditioning training. Hence, few of them compete over longer distances.
Frad Wilt wrote a series of "How They Train" books in the 60s. There was en edition for sprints, one for middle distances, one for long distances, and the original covered one to six miles. The guys in that one had careers from the very, very, early 60s and back. The one for long distances mostly covered guys from the early 60s to very early 70s.
Most of the training of the guys in the 60s to early 70s edition didn't look all that different from what people do today. But the training in that original edition, the one from the early 60s and before, looks very different for the most part from what came later. This is a really general comment but the most noticeable differences I see is that before 1960 really everyone did intervals nearly every day and throughout the year. You could find something that looked like periodization in some cases but it was still almost all interval work but the distances and speed of the reps would vary. Mileage was generally lower than what was about to come. A handful of guys did long runs but far more did not.
In the post 1960 edition you can still find guys doing loads of interval training, almost daily for a few. But it was a very few. Almost everyone was still doing intervals but it was more likely to be two or three times a week. A few had times of the year when they didn't do any intervals. Mileage throughout the group was higher than for the pre 1960 guys and long runs became much more common.
We're talking about dozens of runners here so you're going to see a lot of variety. You can find a guy in the later book whose training looks more like what you see guys in the earlier book and vice versa.
I would differ from your claim that just about everyone was doing intervals all year round before 1960. Knowing Arthur Lydiard personally you should probably know this. He began to apply his endurance training regime through his own personal experimentation from 1950 and his methods were adopted by his proteges, like Halberg and Baillie, from the early '50s. Snell was included amongst them from the late '50s. Arthur's methods were of course a radical departure from Stampfl and the interval training advocates of that era and earlier. At the same time, across the Tasman, Cerutty was applying similar methods to Arthur with Elliott and the Portsea athletes. It explains much about the success of Aussie and New Zealand athletes in the late '50s and early '60s. However by the late '60s the value of base conditioning was becoming widely recognized and was fully incorporated in the sport by the '70s. Most forms of md and distance training today incorporate the mixture of methods today, although we see 800m specialists tend to emphasis speed work over conditioning training. Hence, few of them compete over longer distances.
None of Arthur's guys are profiled in Wilt's first book. The closest was Pat Clohessey who eventually learned and used Arthur's method but evidently was not when he filled out his profile. Yes, both Cerutty and Lydiard were coaching successfully in the 50s but it was the 1960 Olympics that caught everyone's attention and for some of the 50s Arthur was still working the kinks out. I believe Elliott shows up in both versions and Les Perry might be in the early version.
I was only writing about the profiles in Wilt's books. Obviously there were many more people running before 1960. I'm only reporting what's in Wilt's books. I did know a couple guys who were mildly successful whose careers started in the 50s and went into the 70s. Both were doing nearly all interval work in their early years and switched to doing more miles in steady runs and fewer interval sessions in later years.
That's a ridiculous statement. And obviously now you're just trolling for attention.
How is it "ridiculous" to base a view about possible doping based on what is known about an individual athlete and what we know about the sport and the presence of doping? What else would you rely on? Tarot cards?
Because you claim to know, when you're just wildly speculating. That is delusional.
I would differ from your claim that just about everyone was doing intervals all year round before 1960. Knowing Arthur Lydiard personally you should probably know this. He began to apply his endurance training regime through his own personal experimentation from 1950 and his methods were adopted by his proteges, like Halberg and Baillie, from the early '50s. Snell was included amongst them from the late '50s. Arthur's methods were of course a radical departure from Stampfl and the interval training advocates of that era and earlier. At the same time, across the Tasman, Cerutty was applying similar methods to Arthur with Elliott and the Portsea athletes. It explains much about the success of Aussie and New Zealand athletes in the late '50s and early '60s. However by the late '60s the value of base conditioning was becoming widely recognized and was fully incorporated in the sport by the '70s. Most forms of md and distance training today incorporate the mixture of methods today, although we see 800m specialists tend to emphasis speed work over conditioning training. Hence, few of them compete over longer distances.
None of Arthur's guys are profiled in Wilt's first book. The closest was Pat Clohessey who eventually learned and used Arthur's method but evidently was not when he filled out his profile. Yes, both Cerutty and Lydiard were coaching successfully in the 50s but it was the 1960 Olympics that caught everyone's attention and for some of the 50s Arthur was still working the kinks out. I believe Elliott shows up in both versions and Les Perry might be in the early version.
I was only writing about the profiles in Wilt's books. Obviously there were many more people running before 1960. I'm only reporting what's in Wilt's books. I did know a couple guys who were mildly successful whose careers started in the 50s and went into the 70s. Both were doing nearly all interval work in their early years and switched to doing more miles in steady runs and fewer interval sessions in later years.
I misunderstood you; I thought you were referring to Wilt's books as being definitive on training in that era.
I wouldn't really say Arthur was still ironing out his methods in the '50s because Halberg was employing them in '54 when he competed in the US and was the world's fastest 20 year old over the mile.
I might also suggest that it was '58 that caught a lot of attention, because that was when Elliott ran his mile and 1500 wrs and Halberg beat the mile record in the same race and they were both victorious at the Cardiff Games that year. But you're right, that the world really took notice of what Arthur had done with New Zealanders after "the golden hour" in Rome.
As a youngster in that era I read two books: the first was Stampfl's text on training - which was all about intervals - and the other was Arthur's "Run to the Top", which emphasized stamina and conditioning. I chose to apply the latter. It worked.