David Moorcroft training and discussion

Glen, do you think one reason why DM's WR is so far ahead of any of the other GB greats was maybe that his coach was just that little bit more clued up on the - legal - science than the coaches of some of the other guys may have been at the time? In his pre senior days there was little to indicate what Moorcroft would achieve later

I don;t think the idea of some natural 'cycle' of success/decline/success is valid, that strikes me as a bit passive. I;m sure some GB guys can over time run as fast, or very close to, UK endurance records but it won't happen simply because of a cycle. They might need to be based mainlu outside UK to get there tho'

go to the British Milers Club Website. select the BMC news link and there you will find back issues in PDF with great training insight on Cram, Ovett, Moorcroft and others. Great stuff.

Glen,

I'm sorry but the difference can't be accounted for based on work ethic. Coe ran what 60-70 miles a week if that with 46.5 second quarter speed. He ran 1.41.7 with equipment, tracks, pacemaking that are all far inferior to today's standards. If you plotted a linear progression of the 800 meter world record and adjusted for track speed I'm certain the record books would show a dramatic spike in times from 1975-1990. We know there was no testing and drugs were available.

Rick Wuhlhuter ? said that he had friends who were doping (but he wasn't?). So it is obvious that drugs were readily available to anyone who wanted them and that there was widespread knowledge drugs were being taken by others.

I think you are fooling yourself if you suggest that those Brits not only resisted the temptation to run faster but also that they were smashing guys who were in fact doping based on hard work. (As if the others werent working hard as well.

It was a different time. I think most of the elites then knew everyone was doping and it wasn't necessarily seen as a bad thing. With all of the fame involved and competition i think you either had to dope or become irrelevant.

Man, you've added 2 + 2 and made about 55555555555555555.

Please just remind us of the poor quality compared to today of the 'equipment, tracks and pacemaking' in the early/mid 80s and how this is proven to have slowed down endurance runners of that era.

Zat0pek wrote:

Never mind, I found it. Here's the entire article:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1120525/index.htm

Enjoy.

Thanks for that. I remember reading that when it came out, but had forgotten about it. Nice catch.

jareldulce wrote:

Man, you've added 2 + 2 and made about 55555555555555555.

Please just remind us of the poor quality compared to today of the 'equipment, tracks and pacemaking' in the early/mid 80s and how this is proven to have slowed down endurance runners of that era.

I've raised that same question about tracks before (granted, I was trying to provocative, but the point that we lack data is the same):

Pacemaking? Rabbits in the '80s were fine, and often highly paid.

Shoes? Again, very little difference from the '80s. Biggest factor would be weight, which is also not hugely different and in fact I'd wager the average spike today weighs very close to the average spike of the '80s.

You are both fools. From Mondo's website:

"Today’s modern training programs require long hours of intense, repetitive training on the track. To prevent stress injury, a track needs to deform evenly in order to properly absorb and return energy. A track also needs to have a consistent response to allow athletes to execute the relaxed high-speed training necessary to establish proper motor-memory.

Mondo’s precise factory manufacturing system produces the most uniform track surface in the world.

The Super X Performance optimally designed geometries allow for the greatest deformation and subsequent energy return with the most consistent response. No other track system is capable of maintaining its initial properties and providing consistent performance over its useful life."

In other words companies wouldn't invest thousands of dollars to create a slower surface. Do I have proof no. Do you have proof that you are smarter than my dead dog and can you ever prove that? No one studies it because it is taken for granted. And rightly so.

You’re an idiot.

All the people who run well in the world today (i.e. Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans, Europeans, some Americans) Use a variation of the multi-tier training that the bits developed in the 80’s. Either they all took dope, or we have to accept that hours and hours of hard work pay off.

You’re an idiot.

All the people who run well in the world today (i.e. Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans, Europeans, some Americans) Use a variation of the multi-tier training that the bits developed in the 80’s. Either they all took dope, or we have to accept that hours and hours of hard work year after year pay off.

sorry, my computer did some weird stuff

You're an idiot Templar. Not everyone uses five pace theory. and multi tier system is like saying Michael Jordan shot jump shots in practice everyone else does now too therefore they are imitating him. Seb coe didn't invent the interval.

Just because they run intervals, tempos and easy days doesn't mean they adapted it from the Brits.

Finally, if it is the system where are those amazing brits today. Surely they too could copy the system as well as those Africans, Americans and other Europeans could.

The majority of them were doping. I don't pretend to know who was and who wasnt but I think we have a fairly good idea.

Go back to happy land now and imagine they just tried really really hard and other runners only tried hard and thats why they destroyed East Germans who we know were doping.

Just kidding. I think this is potentially a good discussion despite all the "stupid" and "idiot" name calling. I don't think it's a question of who trains the hardest or whether the Brits did drugs then and now they don't. Maybe some were on drugs then, I don't know, but here's my theory. I think it has more to do with the right people putting the right kind of hard work in.

If somebody doesn't have the talent and does a tonne of hard work they're not going to improve as much as somebody who has talent and perhaps only does a medium amount of work. I think that in the 70s and 80s there was an excitement in British track that made young talented athletes excited to test themselves through hard training. I don't see the same excitement there right now. The really talented runners are probably more likely to be playing soccer with a local club team than training their asses off. So you may have a few moderately talented runners who love the sport training their asses off now and who just can't get the job done (which of course decreases the general excitement around the sport even more, because now all the roll-models are from 2 decades ago and nobody really believes they can do it again).

I think the same thing happened in the states through the 90s, but now there is excitement again and talented athletes are once again sticking with the sport and giving it a go. I don't think this resurgence is because the states has all of a sudden discovered that the way to success is drugs. The improvement is too wide spread for that. It's the excitement that is driving this new cycle. The question is, how can other western countries learn from the states right now in order to have their own resurgence (I'm not from the states by the way).

fattie wrote:

You are both fools. From Mondo's website...

today's tracks may be more uniform & better quality material, but whether there is any significant speed improvement is debateable

iaaf have specs to which all tracks must adhere - the relevant parameter being no less than 35% energy retention by the track ( effectively a measure of hardness/speed ) - this "law" has been in place at least since '91 when tokyo track was found to be illegally hard post-meet & hence possibly was in effect before then

i'd imagine tracks were close to limit hardness in '70's/'80s just as they are now ( no point in having a "slow, soft" track back then )

darkness wrote: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

you are the one who hasn't a clue about what your talking about

there were 2 oslo races that year :

3:48.53 Steve Scott USA 05.05.56 1 Oslo 26.06.1982

3:48.85 Sydney Maree USA 09.09.56 2 Oslo 26.06.1982

3:49.34 David Moorcroft GBR 10.04.53 3 Oslo 26.06.1982

3:47.69 Steve Scott USA 05.05.56 1 Oslo 07.07.1982

3:49.08 John Walker NZL 12.01.52 2 Oslo 07.07.1982

3:49.77 Ray Flynn IRL 22.01.57 3 Oslo 07.07.1982

moorcroft didn't win dream mile that year, but in hindsight he didn't run to his strengths - he was by then more a 3k/5k guy & he's not really likely to shoot off a 55s last lap in a fast race like established milers like scott, maree or walker - waiting 'til the bell against theses guys was a waste of time - they'd outkick him in a fast or slow race - his one chance in a fast race was to make his 3k/5k strength tell & that means a big push from 500 or even 600m out & see if he couda held on - i have little doubt he couda gone 3'48 with such tactics, but unfortunately he tried his luck with the last lap sprint

as for his 7'32 against maree ( 7'33 ), it appeared a relative stroll for him & he easily outkicked maree - there was a helluva lot more in the tank that day if the pace to the bell had been quicker

No it is not debatable whether modern tracks are faster than cinder. it is not debatable so stop debating it.

Well, I stand corrected. You're brilliant. Certainly marketing materials from a website of the company with a financial stake in convincing people that THEIR track is faster without a shred of factual or scientific evidence to back it up should be taken as gospel.

Sounds just like bee pollen, "vitamin" B-15 and every other snake oil remedy for "improving" performance. Apparently you missed the time when Geb asked for a Mondo track to be wetted down because he was convinced it made him run faster.

And if you read all my postings on the thread I linked, I made it very clear that I believe Mondo is probably faster than other surfaces, but the fact is, we have absolutely no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "faster tracks" are not a fact but rather a theory, a working hypothesis which could easily be BS. As such, it should not be accepted as some sacred cow of the sport, which is exactly what is being done. It is nothing more than rank speculation.

nobody is debating whether modern tracks are faster than cinder. Runners in the 80's ran their best times on synthetic surfaces.

Also, the idea put about here by some that runners need drugs to run 13 minutes or under for 5000m is ridiculous. Low body fat and superior running economy (the main benefit of interval training) are the main ingredients. It ain't rocket science.

Zat0pek wrote:

Apparently you missed the time when Geb asked for a Mondo track to be wetted down because he was convinced it made him run faster.

sorry to be picky, but i just listened to a Geb radio program about those Olympics where he asked to have the track wetted down. He asked because it was too hard for his feet which were in awful shape. They were blistering and sore. He was in danger of not being able to run...not being able to not run fast.

also, fattie, that mondo exerpt that you provided suggested that Mondo is to prevent a "stress injury" (direct quote from your exerpt). It does not say that it's faster. All of its features help the training process, not the race performance. It's like having good cushioning in your shoes.

Can Glen or one of the older Brits give us a summary of Moorcroft's junior years. He was a prominent UK junior, with a big breakthrough in making it to the 1976 Olympics.

I personally think his 1978 year was far better than his 1982 year.

Also, what did Moorcroft do in 1980 and 1983....2 major championship years.

Thanks in advance.