BEDFORD SAYS MORE MILES - BUT WHAT IF YOU WANT TO RUN BEYOND 25?

Do you have the Book, "the David Beford Story" by James Coote? If so, where did you get it, I have been trying to get a copy for a number of years.

Thanks..........

Perhaps there is a difference between training to be fit and healthy and training to run as fast as you can. It must be amazing to think that at a certain point no one has EVER run faster than you have. Just to feel like that, just once in your life, must be incredible. A few more guys around Bedford and Clarke and the sport would be more exciting.

You think Webb would be where he is today if he hadn't been in the pool for 10 years befor ehe started track? That's 10 years of consistent aerobic work.

Furthermore, do you want to talk about Haile Gebrselassie, who still has PRs faster than Webb at every event from 1500m on up?

denali wrote:

Do you have the Book, "the David Beford Story" by James Coote? If so, where did you get it, I have been trying to get a copy for a number of years.

Thanks..........

I have a copy as a PDF file. It if contact me via my website (below) I can get a copy to you.

Ning Nang Nong wrote:

druuuuuggs wrote:

Maybe Dave Bedford should write a book called

"How to use high-mileage training to choke big time on the track in championship races!" (maybe Ron Clarke could co-write it with him)

(and oh yeah, I should add that: Alan Webb runs ONE THIRD the mileage that Bedford ran, and could destroy him in every distance on the track. Bedford should have WORKED on his speed)

Perhaps there is a difference between training to be fit and healthy and training to run as fast as you can. It must be amazing to think that at a certain point no one has EVER run faster than you have. Just to feel like that, just once in your life, must be incredible. A few more guys around Bedford and Clarke and the sport would be more exciting.

(1)Find me another runner with :57's 400m pr that ran Bedford's times...

(2)The slow natural speed runner has never ever had a chance in winning the big championship races.

(3)Bedford squeezed the maximum out of his limited talent.

(4)I enjoy the Bedford, Clarke, Ron Hill types. They are the one's that always pushed the pace in all of their races, "keeping it honest". Who wants to watch 10 guys jog for 11 or 12 laps of a 5000 and then see who has the best top end?

Except the mile.

I'll take Geb's 3:31.76 indoor 1500m as superior to Webb's 3:48.9 mile.

You can add a (5) to that:

You can bet your life that the Bedford, Clarke and Ron Hill types ran clean.

The biggest myth in running is that guys that refused to train their speed and ran 150+ mile weeks week in and week out "had no or little talent" . That is SUCH a load of rubbish!!!

A) Any one of those guys could have focused on speed training more and benefitted. If you really think that Bedford's physiologocal limit was :57 400m, then you are sadly deluded.

B) it takes amazing TALENT to be able to withstand tons of hard training and respond positively/thrive off of such high loads/heavy mileage stimulus. Everyone on the planet is not just born with the ability to handle/thrive off of high mileage ( just has everyone is not born with natural 48s 400 m speed. ). If you relaly think that it is simply willpower to be able to respond superbly and improve constantly off of high mileage training loads, then I will counter with the equally absurd statement that is simpy willpower to be able to train yourself to have 48s 400 speed. People are born with different talents, but aerobic potential and ability to handle/thrive off of high-mileage training loads is ALSO an inherent quality some are born with, and some are not. Natural speed is a just much more of an obvious talent, and one that one can take advatage of a lot more easily and with less work (maximising one's aerobic potential takes more time and work for sure, but it is still a NATURAL POTENTIAL and people are born with different training threshhold/ceilings)

Moral of the story about Beford-

* He was EXTREMELY talented (sorry, you don't run a WR if you are not)

* He didn't have a lot of natural speed, but didn't work on this weakness much at all. He could have improved his pure speed a lot if he had chosen to. Between not working on his speed and doing too much mileage, and maybe focusing on record times, he was overtrained, undersharp, and then blew it at the big championship races. Don't make excuses for the guy, he made his bed, let him sleep in it.

Yeah, he ran a world record. His training really sucked.

Alan

Someone asked to name another runner with Bedford like natuaral speed who ran as fast as he did for 10,000, my answer would be Alberto Salazar. I don't know exactly what his times were, but I know he never broke 4:00 for the mile and still ran sub 27:30, which would imply that his natural speed wasn't very good.

I agree. Salazar had terrible form. It is amazing that guy could run so fast.

Thank you, Alan.

It boggles the mind that "experts" like Tim Noakes can question the results of runners like Zatopek, Bedford, Ron Hill, etc. It worked for them. They were champions and great runners. End of debate. Simply because these runners were either injuried, sick, or otherwise not able to run much leading up to their successful races doesn't mean their training wasn't successful. Running 150 miles a week for 3 years then getting hurt and only run 50 miles a week for month leading up to a world record or pr doesn't mean you should train 50 miles a week. It means you should train 150 miles a week and then taper....:) Sometimes though you can train so much that you are forced to taper..:) Guys like Zatopek, Bedford and to a lesser degree Hill found this out, but their training was still the key. What really irks me is Noakes saying of Hill that later in his career he dropped the mileage and still ran well (2:12-15). That's complete BS. Hill ran 2:09 when he was putting in 120-130 miles a week. The reason he was able to still run 2:12-15 later in his career was because of his early career mileage. When you toe the line you don't toe the line with just the training you've done in the last month, 6 months, or even the last year. You toe the line with EVERYTHING you've done in your running career.

Alan

I'll nominate this for Post of the Week, or Month, or however long.

It's not just the "experts" dumping on guys like Bedford and Clarke that bothers me. It's some of the posters here who seem to think that Bedford or Clarke, etc. were complete washouts because they didn't win Olympic golds. There are, I believe three Brits who've run faster than Bedford did over 10k, the fastes being Jon Brown who's 12 seconds faster, and after 31 years Shaun Creighton finally took Clarke to second on the Australian 10,000 list by a wopping 8 seconds.

But don't train like these guys did, kids, and whatever you do, don't pay any attention to them when they tell you that most of you need to pack in the miles if you want to get any good because they were such losers. Nah, listen to me because I've read Owen Anderson and use a HRM and will be going under 15:00 for the 5,000 any week now.

I love it!!! Alan and HRE, excellent posts!

There's a price to pay for attempting to be the best. If you consistently run 130 mpw, are you more likely to set records than on 80 mpw? Or course. Are you more likley to get injured? I'd say so. So it's a question of whether you want to be safe and slower or really take a chance to run with the big dogs. If 130 mpw was easy, everyone would do it and we'd have a lot more fast times.

What if you have a car accident tomorrow? Won't matter a damn if you run 50 mpw or 200 mpw. Moral: F*** age 25 and beyond. Live for today, go for broke cuz ya never know when something tragic can derail your running ambitions before you even get started.

Noakes is a bit of an idiot no doubt, but he does not "question" the results of Bedford, Hill, etc. He merely states that they likely would have done better had they learned to rest their bodies.

Hill, for one, agrees with him. Hey, what the hell does HE know, eh?