Now here's a bit more civilized and intelligent "discussion"! Hey, thanks, wellnow! Get a pay-back for being nice, huh? ;o)
As far as I'm concerned, along with many, many, many advocates who joined Lydiard Foundation either as a member OR advisory staff such as Dixon, Steve Jones, Watanabe, Sakaguchi, Koide, Nic Bidea, Jon Brown...; Lydiard training principles are spot-on. It works (if applied correctly). But, in regards to his runners success, there is a HUGE gap between the program (written on paper later on) and the way he applied it. When I was in Flagstaff, there was a little joke whenever Greg McMillan came across some "zen-like" phrases, he would take notes. One of them was; "The way you deliver the training is just as important as the training itself."
I'm in the middle of putting together Lydiard Certificate Program Part III where we deal with what we call "X" Factors. Equipment, diet, tactics.... Yes to all, but also coaching psychology. If you read Joe Romano's "Arthur's Boys", it actually deals A LOT with how Arthur applied coachng psychology. He probably didn't even know that term but he executed it beautifully. Some of the things HRE shared are dead-on. Be positive; but not in a way it sounds like a lie... I, for one, got such energy boost when he spoke some of the things when we were both running through the streets of Auckland or through the bush track or along the iron sand beach. Anybody watched "Miracle"? Coach Herb Brooks was another one of those coaches. Love how he drew psych out of the athletes; how he waited an waited and waited until the athletes say it; or how he "insulted" that one guy to get his "psych" up... He must have been a master of that. Of how coach Carter developed "dignity" and "honor" in his players and, in time, "respect" for one another. Lorraine Moller one time said that; "It's 100% physical and 100% mental." I know it won't add up; but I love this phrase. You just cannot be good with one and not with another.
Okay, maybe I digressed a bit. To your question, wellnow, first of all, I think it's not a smart idea to limit athlets in any way at all. It's kinda like that movie, "Gataca". If science advances so much that we know what our limits are; then what's the point of even trying? It might be fine in the medical field; but not okay in the athleic field. I hate it whenever I see that thread saying "predict my time". Why limit yourself? Another thing is that we are just tapping into real human science now. Years ago, scientists said that if you are 40 years old, your body deteriorate so much that your performace would decline by so many %. Even in high school, I questioned that. That was the time when Jack Foster ran 2:11 at the age of 41. How do you explain that? Now with so many masters runnrs running, they would probably have to change the number. Scientists, as Arthur used to always said, are driving a car by checking the rear view mirror. I think they do a better job explaining what had been than what would be or what could be.
That's not to say there's no limit. Even Arthur had said that not everybody can be a champion. There's a limiting factor like basic speed for one. I mean, Poor Paula! She's great; but no way she can beat some other competirors in the final sprint. So what did she do? She moved up. So what is talent? You can be fast--that's talent. You can endure; both physically OR mentally like Reiko Tosa who excel in adverse condition. It's just a matter of knowing what you've got and apply it in the best suited event. There's this young girl in Japan (pretty one too) who has been the best 400m runner in the country. She may have gone to Beijing; Berlin for sue. I can't remember what her PR was but something like 52 seconds. I've been telling Nabe that she should move up to 800. She finally did. She just ran her second ever 800m in 2:02. She had satisfaction of running the Olympic (or WC) 400m heat when she probably could have moved into the final of 800m. Her speed was not good enough in 400m in the world scene to place.