did snell run doubles or singles

Easy killer. I don't think Knobby will say that you need to run EXACTLY 30 in the AM and 60 in the PM. He is simply saying that a shorter morning shakeout and a longer afternoon main run is about what he believes to be optimal for best fitness. 35/55 would probably not offend him, nor 25/65, and I suspect that, he being a reasonable fellow, would be open to discussion of 40/50.You're freaking out about a stupid nitpicky detail and missing the forest for the trees.

shockwave wrote:

My main disagreement with Nobby starts when he goes out of Lydiard track or Japanese distance run history to express his own training comment. He is too much addicted to what he watched and he is wrong sometimes. It’s the case of 30m-60min. Why the heel is 30-60min doubles best than 35-55min or 45-45min or 40-50m or ? Simply because Snell did it that way ?

In 1967 Bruce Tulloh wrote about why dozens of people had run under 4:00 for the mile whereas less than a decade and a half earlier no one had been able to asying that now (1967) you needed to run that fast to win and in earlier years you didn't.

For that reason it is impossible to compare champions from different eras by comparing their times. Snell beat everyone he had to beat. There was no need for him to run 1:42. If he'd had rabbits, modern tracks and huge cash incentives to run that fast he might have done so or he might not. We'll never know. Nor will we ever know what Rushida or Kipketer would have run had they been around in 1958.

What we do know is that in the 45 years since nell retired no top 800 runner from New Zealand has trained like Snell did and none has run faster than he did. It is incredibly unlikely that in all this time theer's been no Kiwi 800 runner with Snell's "talent," whatever that may mean.

Peter's explanation for this when we talked, boiled down to its essentials, was that the current Kiwi 800 guys are not running enough miles.

A few years after my discussion with Peter I was reading an article about Ralph Doubell in which Doubell, who I believe still holds the Aussie 800 record or at least did at the time of the article, said the same thing about the current crop of Aussie half milers.

For the record, Snell also ran the mile (an indicator he had strength/endurance). Not only did he run it, but in his 3:54, he went 2:00-1:53 (tenths omitted but it was still a 6+ sec neg split) so he had possibly the best neg ratio of any world record ever in the mile. So did Snell have good strength for a miler but not for an 800 guy? How much sense does that make?

It’s not true literally, or he had win all the runs he participated and wants to win and it didn’t happen. By the way, may be you will say that he didn’t want to win that one that he lost against Jim Ryan, and then for every runner we have 2 rankings, one the runs he wanted to win and another one with the runs he participate but for every reason he doesn’t want to win. Otherwise if the performances aren’t related one each other the rankings and the WRs records would exist, because WRs were done in different periods.

But I understand your point and I agree that Snell is one runner with total success.

The main discuss of this thread is focused on Snell single or doubles, how to double, what is related with volume training, and the contribution of this type of training to what is the aerobic condition supposedly.

I also read from the Lydiard fans that by the Lydiard training the runner gets such a good aerobic condition that able him to be fast in ten final parts of a distance run namely the 800m. Or I don´t see it in the case of the 800m WR Snell splits.

Please say what you want, but don’t tell me Snell did the first lap of his 800m WR IN A DIFFERENT DAY, IN A DIFERENT COMPETITION, IN A DIFFERENT PERIOD, WITH DIFFERENT CONTENDERS, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, IN A DIFFERENT TRACK OR WITH DIFFERENT TRAINING than the second lap of the same run. Or was he the type of 800m runner that tired the others in the first lap to easy down in the second ?

Independently of what performance he did the conditions were the same for the first lap than for the second, but he did a poor ratio than many. He might have done 1:38 or 1:35 but you say it wasn’t necessary. But what he did really was one poor ratio that doesn’t show one good aerobic condition to able one fast second lap.

You see. When we cover some training with superlative adjectives it’s subjective. But with figures, numbers, chrono, splits, or mathematics the analysis turn to be objective. Then the reply of the individual that uses the superlative adjectives to define the training that is dismiss by the mathematic result he goes quickly on create excuses or reasons that might change the objectivity. Or he use the conjunction “if”. “If he'd had rabbits” …”If he had modern tracks” …”If he huge cash incentives to run that fast”… “he might have done so or he might not”. It’s all excuse to deny the evidence and the reality.

Hair Splitter wrote:

Easy killer. I don't think Knobby will say that you need to run EXACTLY 30 in the AM and 60 in the PM. He is simply saying that a shorter morning shakeout and a longer afternoon main run is about what he believes to be optimal for best fitness. 35/55 would probably not offend him, nor 25/65, and I suspect that, he being a reasonable fellow, would be open to discussion of 40/50.

You're freaking out about a stupid nitpicky detail and missing the forest for the trees.

He might say whatever your imagination goes but the fact is that he said 30-60min among many options.

His second lap was significantly slower than the first because the first lap was so fast! It is as simple as that.

Do you understand how long it would take to type ou all the possible options? 30-60 is a guidleine, not a formula.

Let me know when shockwave says something interesting, or even intelligible.

It makes a whole lot of sense to me gentlemen. Perhaps, you may want to read over schockwave's post which included a list of the world record progression in the 800 meters. Maybe you may want to read that over and see if you can understand what schockwaves says about Peter Snell's slow down in the 2nd lap of his world record.

HRE and Nobby, just curious, why do you think Snell slows down more in his 2nd lap of his 800 world record than most of the 800 meter world record holders on that list, whom, by the way, happen to do less mileage than Snell?

Read the post where I referred to Bruce Tulloh's comment.

Antonio who?

Haven't read the thread, just its title--sorry if this has been covered:

Anyway, while *Lydiard* certainly advocated "supplemental" running, the 100mi that he advocated was to be in a week's main sessions. Also, a former student of mine, who had previously worked with Lydiard, said that Lydiard never counted the odd fractions of a mile--if your session covered 14 7/10 miles, it went down in the log as simply "14."

However, I remember reading Snell as being quoted that he (and others of Lydiard's gang) counted every single step they ran in their week's total. Snell's famous 1012 miles in ten weeks, during his prep phase for Tokyo, would then certainly have included the mileage from doubles.

In Snell's biography, "No Bugles, No Drums," Snell mentions running twice a day some days and once a day other days. He's also said in interviews that he counted all the miles he ran in his training logs. If a guy runs twice a day some days and once a day some days, does he do "doubles" or "singles" or does it not freaking matter?

I didn't know there was controversy.

When Is aw the title of the thread I was tempted to answer "Yes, he did."

jon boy wrote:

Antonio who?

Antonio, the guy who removed that message.

I am with Rich. But if you look at Snell's History and diaries you will see some 'inconsistencies'. He would be the first to admit he was not a good "trainer".

However, when he decided to put a block of training together the result was he was never beaten in the subsequent race period. Singles or doubles .. what the .. !!! It depended on what and where .. Don't forget the guy was holding down a "normal" job (at least 8 hours a day) and had to fit training around that.

If anyone here has any idea what the climate of West Auckland is like in Winter/Spring there is only one word RAIN > .. Yes ! I lived in it for half my life. My Parents actually lived in Waitakere itself. The Rainfall there was twice that of Auckland !!!!!!!!!!!!.

So Snell was doing much of his training in the dark with only street lights to guide him and in a lot of rain .. same if he did that in the am .... who gives a dam whether it was 30 in the am and 60 in the pm. His famous 1012 was made of doubles BECAUSE of lots of factors. he may have had the odd 45 min am .. I don't know ..

AND for those wondering about the World record and its slow second lap .. it was run on a grass Track in a Rugby Stadium .. Many of us rate his 800 in Tokyo as a better run .. Negative splits there . How many 800's in subsequent Games have been done like that !!!. The only person to have run faster at that time was Snell himself and he did Games 1:45.1 after racing heats and Semis.

Shockwave,

So far you are batting .0000.

That's sort of sad.

The guy that came second in the Tokyo 800 ran a quicker last 200 than Snell. He beat Snell the next year.Ovett's 800 was a big negative split. I think the Christchrch 800 was better than Tokyo.

True Jon Boy, but don't forget Snell himself said he eased up in that 800 being aware that he had a 1500 heat coming up. True that Crothers beat him the next year but he was just going through the motions and really had not prepared for that Tour , although he would never use that as an excuse .. Crothers beat him fair and square.

True about Ovett's Neg Split . Not sure about ChCh '74 .. could have been close to even pace.. must check !