Can anyone please give me some background on David Moorcraft. This video sparked my interest
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRXk9pHfPzg
What was his background, training, other prs, etc.
I think its amazing how good the britains used to be in the 70s 80s
foster, moorcraft, coe, ovett, cram, jones.
Anyone have any info.
Was the race he broke the world record even paced at all or did he just go for it.
My main sense of Moorcroft training:
-really very little in the way of periodization.
-a love of intensely paced interval runs with very long intervals. (6x1000m with 7min rest at near 1500m/Mile pace.)
BMC has some good info on his training.
In the 70s and 80s we had runners who were built like Kenyans. Moorcroft and Cram were 2 prime examples. see below for the greatest 1500m race ever seen involving Crammy.
amazed. it is truly amazing. almost too much to believe. Its fairly likely that they were all doping. There was virtually no drug testing and these guys were running times that zero Brits can even dream of touching 30 years later.
Yes you can say they trained hard but I don't by it. That explanation is an insult to the efforts and talents of hundreds of runners around the world today.
last thought: we are almost certain doping was widespread in the east german camp around this time and yet Moorcroft is running 30 seconds faster than these guys. Same with the rest. We know doping was rampant then and these guys were killing the others
fattie wrote:
last thought: we are almost certain doping was widespread in the east german camp around this time and yet Moorcroft is running 30 seconds faster than these guys. Same with the rest. We know doping was rampant then and these guys were killing the others
Kenny Moore wrote an incredible article in SI about Moorcroft and his training after that breakout seasson. Extensive commentary by his coach. Great read if anyone can get their hands on it. I don't have it or I would give you the date of the issue.
Never mind, I found it. Here's the entire article:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1120525/index.htm
Enjoy.
From the article, pages 11-12:
The fundamental tenet of Moorcroft's training is inescapably simple. "Races are won by the fast," says Anderson. "And here I was presented with this wee boy at 15, maybe 5'6" and eight stone [112 pounds], who said, 'I've got one pace and no changes.' We had to cultivate the speed factor, but you don't learn that in five minutes, especially if you're a late developer. So we set the pattern in training for developing acceleration. We recognized that eventually the 5,000 and 10,000 would be his best distances, but we had to avoid the traditional cycle of plod in winter, race on the track in summer, then give it all away for the grind on the road and sod the rest of the year. That just wasn't on."
Instead, Anderson devised schedules that had Moorcroft doing fast running on grass or the track a couple of times a week nearly year round. "Specificity is a word I quite like," Anderson says. "Dispense with the inessentials, keep to the vitals. Those are speed in all its manifestations, such as pure sprint, sustained speed and change of pace. It is essential to link them in the body. Then there is endurance, the ability to keep going, at a high level."
All these elements are worked at consistently throughout the year under Anderson, a departure from the cycles made popular by New Zealand's Arthur Lydiard, wherein runners do weeks of straight mileage before spending time exclusively on hills and finally going to the track. "Dave, therefore, can come out in the winter and race because his speed work is never dropped completely."
Stacked in a corner of Anderson's office are bundles of scientific papers. "I've tried to interpret the findings of the best physiologists and translate them into sound practices," says Anderson. "That's made me a radical. We've turned some coaching sacred cows on their ear."
For one, Anderson dismisses the stretching that most runners do. "It's rubbish," he says. "The received idea that by touching your toes you lengthen the fibers in your hamstrings is wrong. Soft tissue stretching like that is a learned skill and doesn't carry over into running. Dave requires a flexibility, a joint mobility, but running fast is the right kind of stretching for him."
The world-record holder mutely demonstrates his suppleness by reaching toward his toes. His fingertips get down to about midshin.
To build speed, Moorcroft sprints sets of 60-and 100-meter dashes. For sustaining it he runs sets of 150s. For "linking" speed with endurance he runs 300s and 600s, not very many (four to six) but always very hard. "Over the years Dave took his workout of four 600s from 100 seconds to 81 for each repetition, and effectively destroyed that session because the effect of 80 seconds of running is different from 100. We had to go to repeated 1,000s."
There is little emphasis in Anderson's schedules on a gradual progression of improvement. "The human body doesn't progress that way." He slashes at the air, great sawtooth shapes. "The body improves in peaks and valleys on the graph. The thing to do is let effort dictate pace. Your guide is the ability to sustain quality. If you practice fast, you run fast. If you practice slow, you run slow."
By June of 1982, thanks to the calf operation, Moorcroft had had his best winter and spring training since 1976. He was running his six 1,000-meter repetitions in 2:26 each or 3:54-mile pace. "It was patently obvious," says Anderson, "that when he got into a race he would run out of this world."
Moorcroft stands. He must leave for another appointment, but the coach isn't done with this visitor yet. He takes him for coffee to a nearby shop. "Here's your usual, Mr. Anderson," says the waitress, placing before him a tea cake toasted so rigorously that it resembles a clay pigeon. Its crusty blackness is running with butter. Anderson looks a little uncomfortable. "My departure from reason is diet," he says.
Speaking of departures, says the visitor, why did Moorcroft decide to lead in Oslo, after a lifetime of staying off the pace?
"Most of that career had been in the mile, of course," says Anderson, "where the gamble of leading is much higher. In the 5,000 the decision was more sensible because there is more time to extend the opposition. But beyond that, it was just time to find out what was there. We've had talks all the way along about no performance being the end, but only a part of the pursuit of still better ones. The philosophy of never being satisfied and the practice of running fast combine to reject the logic of just running to win and get you on toward perfection."
His words recall Moorcroft's own answer. "It had its own logic," he had said. "Its own daffy logic."
"I knew he'd do well in that 5,000," Anderson says, "and Dave knew, too. But you know Dave, he was after me not to talk about it. He'd won the Revco 10,000 on the road in Cleveland in May by a great margin. In June he ran 3:49.34 for the mile behind Scott and Sydney Maree in Oslo. 'You're in absolutely staggering form,' I said. 'You could beat anyone in the world.' Normally he'd stammer and demur. Instead he said, 'You may be right.' I nearly fell off my chair."
Back in his office, Anderson digs through dusty papers. "It must be clear that I'm delighted with David," he says. "If ever I've had a perfect coaching relationship, this is it." He takes out a thick gray file with Moorcroft's name on it in fading black ink. It is filled with training schedules and correspondence. Here is a letter of regard from Bob Moorcroft and the first schedule Anderson had sent to David in 1969, which asked for four stiff 660s. And there is the letter back from the 16-year-old David, in a blocky, ordered hand: "I'll put in all the work you advised and hope that my future progress serves as repayment for your efforts."
"He always was a nice kid," says Anderson.
No way fattie- If you knew David you would find a true gentleman- reserved and totally committed to athletics. His dedication, committment and knowledge of running science are a credit to this sport! HE JUST LIVED FOR RUNNING AND WINNING AT ANY COST!
Still involved in athletics on the management side and provides masses of knowledge to inspire young talented hopefuls.
A great ambassador for running!
trying this with his '82 bests of 1'46.64 / 13'00.41 :
1'46.64 / 13'00.41 ->~
3'31.67
3'48.51
4'49.38
7'29.19
27'26.99
again, I'm sure he'll claim he coud have paced his 800 better (if he'd run it more often that year ) - call it 1'46.0 & his 13'00.41 wouda certainly have been faster with a pacemaker, probably about 12'55 ( wabbit gives you close to 1s/lap gain with perfect drafting, so drafted to 3k/7.5 laps, call it 5s for "non-perfect" drafting )
1'46.0 / 12'55 ->~
3'30.33
3'47.05
4'47.50
7'26.18
27'15.10
obviously indicates he was capable of the 1500/Mile/2k/3k/5k/10k WRs in '82 if well prepared, paced & rested beforehand ( 10k if his "endurance" extended "perfectly" to 10k )
i'd suggest his 1500/mile poor performance that year was due to him still running like a "pussy" over those distances & not having the balls to kick from 500 - 600m out, when wabbit was dying, & instead settling to follow leaders to the bell & try his luck then - he loses everytime
his coach instilled in him bravery over 5k, but obviously not over 1500/mile...
There is some good info in here on his training.
I'm sure he may be a nice guy but step back and look at things objectively.
There were hundreds of people doping in elite competition. (I am sure you accept this.) And he was simply obliterating many of them.
How many Americans/Europeans have run 13 minutes flat for 5 k in the last 30 years?
Baumman was certainly doping and he barely ran faster than Moorecroft.
In an era when there is widespread drug use and virtually no testing it is difficult to believe the only guy who isn't doping is the one who is blowing the competition away by 30, 40, 50 seconds over 5k.
Gregg C wrote:
There is some good info in here on his training.
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdf
Great--many thanks for the link!
ventolin wrote:
trying this with his '82 bests of 1'46.64 / 13'00.41 :
http://www.jundo.co.uk1'46.64 / 13'00.41 ->~
3'31.67
3'48.51
4'49.38
7'29.19
27'26.99
again, I'm sure he'll claim he coud have paced his 800 better (if he'd run it more often that year ) - call it 1'46.0 & his 13'00.41 wouda certainly have been faster with a pacemaker, probably about 12'55 ( wabbit gives you close to 1s/lap gain with perfect drafting, so drafted to 3k/7.5 laps, call it 5s for "non-perfect" drafting )
1'46.0 / 12'55 ->~
3'30.33
3'47.05
4'47.50
7'26.18
27'15.10
obviously indicates he was capable of the 1500/Mile/2k/3k/5k/10k WRs in '82 if well prepared, paced & rested beforehand ( 10k if his "endurance" extended "perfectly" to 10k )
i'd suggest his 1500/mile poor performance that year was due to him still running like a "pussy" over those distances & not having the balls to kick from 500 - 600m out, when wabbit was dying, & instead settling to follow leaders to the bell & try his luck then - he loses everytime
his coach instilled in him bravery over 5k, but obviously not over 1500/mile...
You don't really know what you are talking about. He won the Dream Mile that year I believe in a PR 3:49.XX. Very few people had ever run faster than 3:49 by that point. Coe, Ovett and Scott are probably the only ones. I could look it up but I don't care too.
He won a big race (in London I think) over 3000m, don't remember if there were mnay other heavies in that meet ... but he won it in 7:33 ... the SECOND FASTEST 3k ever run. The fastest being run by Rono in '78.
In terms of a single record-breaking season by one distance runner, not many had ever been better in the modern era. Rono's FOUR WR's in '78 is obviously the gold standard.
But I believe that his 1982 campaign comes close:
13:00.41 WR
1:46.64
3:33
3:49
7:32.79 2nd all-time
All this has made me think about the UK's current low standard in distance running. The US certainly has nothing like the UK's longterm tradition in the sport, yet on the whole British distancemen nowadays are truly a pitiful lot.
I can't buy the notion that Britain's great distancemen of the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s (not to mention outstanding success earlier in the century) were somehow all doping, and that current runners aren't. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
I'm not based in Britain and can't give a reason(s) for the lowering standard of performance. I know others have talked about the distractions now available for youth, compared with a few decades back. Perhaps there's something there, I don't know.
In any case, I believe that British distance running will return to international class in the relatively near future. I think this is just a cyclical phenomenon, and just as US runners seem to be climbing out of the doldrums, so will the UK men.
I say this because, based on what I know of American culture, I should have expected the US standard to continue to decline--and yet, somehow, the trend seems to have reversed. This makes me entirely hopeful for Britain.
[I'll spare you a repetition of my rant about what I think went wrong in the States, because now American results in our sport seem to be getting a bit better--and yet the "causes" that I would have postulated haven't disappeared or even lessened a bit. Maybe the slow times were just the down part of a cycle, and maybe the same thing is happening now in Britain. I really hope so.]
I've always wondered about GB's excellence in MD and distance running wasn't related to the fact so many played soccer in their youth and if it isn't adult soccer that is now siphoning off some of that potential talent? Or are they all just training improperly ( whatever that may mean)or in a down cycle that every country seems to go through every once in awhile. Either way sooner or later they will break out of it, too rich in tradition to be otherwise.
1255? Sure. 146? Absolutely. Mile record? No.
Roughly a bit superior to Mottram without the super-sized ego. And all this on 1500-2000 miles less running/year.
And Moorcroft was as tough as they get.
Moreover, in response to fattie, without drugs....no way read the article above and his biography.
I'd say that Crammy was a tad taller than the typical kenyan on the circuit.
avg. about 80m/week during base and 60-70 in summer, 13 runs a week, two tough sessions(1ks at 2-3k , 400s at mile pace were his bread and butter workouts) and a long run, regular distance runs in the 6:30/mile range.