So you have a Ph.D in exercise physiology? Nice. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it before. Do you also have some Olympic gold medals and world records? If so, I might begin to think you're as good a source as Peter is.
So you have a Ph.D in exercise physiology? Nice. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it before. Do you also have some Olympic gold medals and world records? If so, I might begin to think you're as good a source as Peter is.
I doubt you've offended Snell because I'm pretty sure he doesn't look at this site. But are you seriously wondering whether you've offended anybody? Does that mean you really don't think you've written anything offensive here?
Here's something you wrote on page 6:
Nobby is one fat runner of jogging
Do you even read what you write? You can write something like that and then wonder if you've offended anyone? And yes, it's fairly offensive to attribute comments to people that they never made. You do that with me constantly. The term for it is "lying" assuming it's done deliberately. When it's done consistently but inadvertently a wider range of terms apply but it's still offensive and gets more so when there are no apologies forthcoming after it's been pointed out to you that you did it.
Kadaffi out of power wrote:
You will see that it was sonner, but that didn´t trouble him to run 1:41 but more important, better ratio for Rudisha.
1:41.09 David Rudisha 49.1/52.0 +2.9
1:44.3 Peter Snell 50.6/53.7 +2.9
Slowing down by 2.9 secs in the second 400m of an 800m race run in 1:41.09 is a GREATER rate of speed decay than slowing down by 2.9 secs in the second 400m of an 800m race run in 1:44.3. The ratio of the splits for Rushida is actually slightly WORSE rather than better than those for Snell.
I do not believe that "Lydiard training" is the ultimate way to train - it is well documented that the best guys in the world have tried different approaches over the decades for all of the middle- and long-distance events.
However, you are making arguments targeted at the "strength endurance" of Peter Snell that are not supported AT ALL by the data that you have presented. As mentioned before in this thread, it is interesting to look at the splits of world records, but if you want to make firm conclusions about physiological characteristics of an athlete who follows certain training methods then you will have to do a more detailed analysis that just looking at the splits from one race.
Kim,
I hope no one here is forgetting that they raced three days in a row. Here is what is written in my programmes. I do not vouch for accuracy.
Oct. 14--Heat 4, first Snell--1:49.0
Heat 6--First--Crothers--1:49.3
Oct 15 --SF #1--1st Snell--52.6-1:46.9
SF #2--1st Kerr--51:4--1:46.1
2nd--Kiprugut--1:46.1
SF #3--1st--Crothers--52.3--1:47.3
The 400 splits would be for the leader.
Oct 16--Final--1st.--Snell--52.1 (for the leader)--1:45.1
2nd--Crothers--1:45.6
3rd--Kiprugut--1:45.9
4th--Kerr--1:45.9
Crothers passed Kiprugut and Kerr in the home stretch
The race was a great thrill for me!
Can you comment on training differences, without being judgmental, and without trying to convert HRE?It's an interesting metric, using 400m lap times in an 800m race to measure strength endurance (or whatever you want to call it). We'd have to rule out effects like bad pacemakers, and tactical races, and recent racing (i.e. several heats before a final), track surfaces, PBs of different years, etc. I certainly haven't ever given it much thought, so I have no sense regarding what normal values are, or what kind of standard deviations are normal.If I recall correctly, you still wanted to say something about TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION. I wonder what you might want to say here, since Lydiard customized training (in the ANAEROBIC and COORDINATION phases) for events from 800m to the marathon, and even distinguishing track events from cross country and road racing. There were also mechanisms to deviate from planned training, according to the individual athlete, based on the unique strengths/weaknesses of the athlete, and based on the day to day feeling of the athlete.
Kadaffi out of power wrote:
Can´t I comment on training, by the rules of this Forum, be my training comment focus on, Lydiard, Peter Snell, Gebrelassie, Renato Canova, Jonh Hadd, Jack Daniels, Malmo, Brother O´Colm, James Li, Kostre, what so ever ?
Just for the record.
Did i ever said that Peter Snell is one poor runner, or that he isn´t the champion he was ? No. I never did.
It´s the opposite. I do admire their performances but what I think of him is irrelevant for the methodological debate.
I think that´s because he was been so good, the best of the best, it´s why he is the focus of analysis so many times.
But he, as ever other runner is not enthroned the way can´t be subject of comment as well as methodological scrutiny. No one runner is out of scrutiny. But more. The reason he is mentioned and analyzed so many times it´s because he was so good, the best of the very best. It doesn´t matter me to analyze HRE, Nobby, wellnow, or wetcoast performances. I don´t intend to.
Snell performances are quoted in several academic studies of sport science, physiology, by books, newspapers, articles, sites, forums, blogs etc. The analysis of their performances as well as his training is done hundred of times, thousand of times.
Besides, I did collect the data I presented and that includes him, from one public source. This one. It’s not my own original data collect.
I don´t wanted to sit on the little chicanery. But if you insist I repeat the same once again.I repeat once again. Relate to the distance runner body profile mainstream Nobby is fat (excess of weight) and relate to the mainstream of competitive runners on distance events he participates Nobby is one slow runner of jogging.However, you forget to say why it´s the reason I said what I said. The reason it´s because Nobby took several posts with analysis of the Lydiard training by his own single case. He is very expressive about his own training as example of what is good, how to do, how to progress. There I need to remember in what category of runners he fits to. Can´t relate Nobby to justify what would be with Lydiard training analysis.He did that type of analysis quite a lot on their posts. As you also you do many times. It´s when I remember you all, that he is no good example. He is no major example of training study because he is fat for the distance run and also he doesn´t get no special talent to the run sport. About performance level he is in the jogging category.Finally. Might be you want to get back and can remember what Nobby early calls me in many posts. Do you ?Do you want to know what the others call me ? One recent example.
Jon Orange wrote:
you are a ranting lunatic.
HRE wrote:
I doubt you've offended Snell because I'm pretty sure he doesn't look at this site.
I also don´t read the Lydiard Foundation site.
Ok. The problem is everyone else, not you. Thanks for clearing that up.
Orvile,
I have a copy of the official 1964 Olympics results in front of me now.
The 800 is exactly as you say.
I was just a young Teenager when that race happened but I feel that 800 of Snell's was far better than the 1962 1:44.3. YES ! 2 previous days of racing on top of it !!
Then 3 days later he runs around 38 secs for the last 300 to win the 1500 final.
Soft cinder track and all.
Endurance factor !!!!!
Kim, I wouldn't say it was better than his 1.44.1.49 and 1.47 would not have take that much out of himCrothers was catching Snell.
Kim Stevenson wrote:
Orvile,
I have a copy of the official 1964 Olympics results in front of me now.
The 800 is exactly as you say.
I was just a young Teenager when that race happened but I feel that 800 of Snell's was far better than the 1962 1:44.3. YES ! 2 previous days of racing on top of it !!
Then 3 days later he runs around 38 secs for the last 300 to win the 1500 final.
Soft cinder track and all.
Endurance factor !!!!!
1:44.3 Jim Ryun 53.0/51.3 -1.7 1,033138(*)
1:44.3 Dave Wottle 52.9/51.4 -1.5 1,029183
1:49.8 Tom Hampson 54.8/54.9 +0.1 0,998179
1:43.44 Juantorena 51.4/52.0 +0.6 0,988462
1:44.0 Wohlhuter 51.7/52.3 +0.6 0,988528
1:45.7 Roger Moens 52.6/53.3 +0.7 0,986867
1:46.6 Harbig 52.8/53.8 +1.0 0,981413
1:42.33 Coe 50.6/51.7 +1.1 0,978723
1:43.7 Fiasconaro 51.2/52.5 +1.3 0,975238
1:43.50 Juantorena 50.9/52.6 +1.7 0,967681
1:49.1 Ben Eastman 53.7/55.4 +1.7 0,969314
1:44.40 R.Doubell 51.2/53.2 +2.0 0,962406
1:43.5 R.Wohlhuter 50.7/52.8 +2.1 0,960227
1:41.73 Seb Coe 49.7/52.0 +2.3 0,955769
1:41.11 W.Kipketer 49.3/51.8 +2.5 0,951737
1:41.73 Kipketer 49.6/52.1 +2.5 0,952015
1:49.0 E Robinson 53.2/55.8 +2.6 0,953405
1:41.09 D.Rudisha 49.1/52.0 +2.9 0,944231
1:44.3 Peter Snell 50.6/53.7 +2.9 0,942272
1:48.4 Wooderson 52.3/56.1 +3.8 0,932264
1:41.24 Kipketer 48.3/52.9 +4.6 0,913043
(*) ratio by the division of the first lap split to the second what is more accurate as claculation, because each lap split is one time unity.
In my opinion the data that I present, THE CIRCUMSTANCES Peter Snell or EVERY OTHER RUNNER did the 800m WR (or Snell), don´t change the analysis.
Some of you remember some circumstances. The type of track (cinder, synthetic, grass, etc), the weather (windy, temperature); other runners, with or without pacemakers and more.
Some of you remember other kind of circumstances that might interfere in the runner ability of that day. Several runs in the last days, to be or not to be a professional, that in the case of Snell he did finish his run career so soon and what might had he done if he continued, and more.
One runner that does one second lap slower that he might have done by one circumstance is not a valid argument. Here we aren´t consider what´s the final result s long as be a WR. Here what really matters is the ratio calculus, the difference from the first lap to the seconds lap and the circumstances that he the runner does the second are the same for the first lap.
For example. One runner that did the run with heavy spikes, what might be one reason to slow the pace, but this is true for the first lap as well as for the second lap of the same run, therefore the ratio is valid.
Another example. It´s true that be a professional runner might help fast performances, but then the slow down of the pace and an eventual poor final result by the runner that do work in a job, or the speed up pace and best final result by the runner that is a professional runner doesn´t change the ratio !
I don´t see one or all of this circumstances can be considered to deny the interest of the methodological analysis that is to relate the first and the second lap split of 800m and to link that RATIO with strength endurance.
Every since I introduce one aspect of the methodological discuss, I rarely get any feedback about that subject focused on training methodology. What I get is ideas take from the Lydiard training agenda, the type of “monkey see monkey do” Lydiard did then I do, or some subjective consideration that all it´s resumed to holism, intuition or gestalt, and many true stories around the data facts. Some others post about his relationship one each other. Finally we get on this board 2 kinds of post contain that is out of every methodological debate. Personal consideration, or in the case of the Lydiard debate the attempt to move the debate for the Lydiard Foundation is one frequent argument.
NONE OF THIS YOUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT FOLLOWS THE METHODOLOGIC DEBATE.
Here -- let's get away from "monkey see monkey do" knee-jerk responses. I'd like to know a little more about this ratio, and its connection to training methodologies.
Maybe the real problem here is no one yet understands the use and significance of this "strength endurance" metric you've just introduced into the discussion. It's not clear to me that 2.9 seconds is a good, bad, or normal value.
How strong is the link between this metric for world record performances, and training methodologies? How do we know they are even related? Does this metric remain constant across eras? After all, world records were easier to beat 50 years ago, allowing for less optimal racing strategies. Maybe the significance with respect to training methodology is how much this RATIO improves for a single athlete, rather than comparing different athletes with different inherent talents. Do you have a reference to a paper?
I think it would help everyone understand, to cover the mathematics a little more. What is a good "expected" value, and how much can such values deviate in world record attempts, and still be considered normal? Whenever you look at statistical data, we need to compute values like the average, standard deviation, correlation, and confidence interval, before we can make any meaningful conclusions. What are these values like for world record attempts, and how might they change for "tactical" races, or any representative sub-samples, and how have they changed over the last 50-100 years?
From the numbers you gave, a 2 second slow down between laps looks typical, being a median value of your sample. Is 2.9 seconds a significant outlier, just or an insignificant deviation? Seems 2.9 seconds puts Snell in the same league as Kipketer and Rudisha, from a ratio point of view. Do/did Rudisha and Kipketer use outdated training methods? Maggie Vessey always races with a slow first lap, and a fast second lap. Is this because of her training methodology?
As the second lap is highly dependent on the first, I can think of two scenarios which can impact your RATIO greatly:
- Running the first lap too slow leaves more energy for a fast second lap, resulting in a "favorable" ratio.
- Running the first lap too fast consumes too much energy, causing a slow second lap, resulting in an "unfavorable" ratio.
So equal times for the same athlete (using the same methodology) might produce a fairly broad range of RATIOs.
Has anyone calculated the correlation between this "strengh endurance" or "resistance" RATIO and the training methodology? Usually in statistics, we measure a value "R", to describe the correlation. You would have us take for granted that R=1. But unfortunately it doesn't work like that.
800m PBs wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:And all races are tactical.
Thank you for articulating the point that I was trying to make so succintly.
In addition, Rushida's second 800m world record had exactly the same lap differential as Peter Snell's world record back in the 1960s. Such a poor "stength endurance" suggests that Rushida needs to follow a more modern training methodology to improve ...
Once again. The data relates 800m world records, not ANOTHER RUN that is good to prove your point. Every world record. Similar situation, the world fast run of each period. If i wanted, i would take for the discuss some other Rudisha runs or every other, that will smash your point. But i don´t. Snell´s other runs might be he did fantastic negative split and good performance but it´s not his all time best. HE need to relate similar contexts. In this case what matters is the world record, the 800m best performance ever done in 800m that was a new WR.
About Rudisha. You see the problem upside down. You see the fact, but you take the wrong conclusion, different conclusion than my own, anyhow.
Rudisha being some 3 seconds faster than Snell what it´s not so little thing as that, and it´s right what you say, that on WR Rudisha did similar RATIO than the Snell you quote, THEREFORE the conclusion is that to train by the Lydiard method, what Rudisha don´t do, doesn´t bring no special "strength endurance", namely what the Lydiard propaganda spells.
Rudisha trains differently than the Lydiard method. Very different indeed. What the present Lydiard runner that is able to challenge Rudisha as fast as Rudisha is ? No one.
Rudisha is the prove i’m right.
Lydiard training doesn´t bring no special supremacy or special strenght endurance over every other modern training method and it´s all.
Observerer of thingies wrote:
Kadaffi out of power wrote:NONE OF THIS YOUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT FOLLOWS THE METHODOLOGIC DEBATE.
You replied to yourself. Just sayin'.
It was my own decision to do so. I post as mutiple answer of several posts at the same time. But as i don´t want that no one thinks that he is the one that i focus my reply, i did reply to myself.
Yet again, your analysis gets you nowhere because you are only looking at one performance for Peter Snell, as you are for most of the other athletes in your list. Look at how much Kipkitir differs in only 3 PB runs.
If you REALLY think it is worth doing, a more appropriate analysis to test your idea (that Peter Snell has poor "strength endurance" compared with other top 800m runners) would be to look at the splits from, say, the best ten performances over 800m by Peter Snell and then to do the same for the other athletes in your list.
What is ironic is that performances by athletes in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's are coming up with the best "strength endurance" in your anlaysis. This is not a good argument for modern training being a better method to improve specific "strength endurance" over 800m. However, as I said, the data and the analysis are not appropriate to make these kinds of conclusions so this may come out differently with more data.
Finally, the methodological debate !
I might not agree more with your comment about the strength endurance. By the kind of most replies that most of the posts participants did, they don´t understand my methodological analysis. But you did, independently if you agree or you don´t. The others, the percent of disagreement is proportional to the misunderstand, and after all they alwys see the same ghost on my posts, I want to get down the Lydiard training, in this case I want to get back the immaculate Peter Snell. Or my target isn´t this one. My target is to introduce some elements of analysis that might “be light” into the darkness of repeat the same slogans “Lydiard the perfect training method” and all that stuff.
My introduce of this rate/ratio of analysis is not one pretentious think, very elaborate. It´s simply the build of one hypothesis of analysis
The content analysis is a methodology for determining the content of written, recorded, or published communications and data via a systematic, objective, and quantitative procedure.
You are right that deep analysis of contain by mathematics and statistics would need a different treatment of data, different data management, but I have that data. Simply I did one basic ratio, very naïve, early on I did the difference of the first to the second lap splits, no one showed interest, then later i did post the same data with another ratio calculation, the best one of the 2, to divide the first lap split for the second lap split, what is more correct. However by a kind of curiosity the order of the ranking is the same by the 2 methods of calculus.
I can´t go out of the main target. What I try to present here it´s easy, basic simple data to make the Lydiard adept aware that the Lydiard training variables don´t get no special training supremacy over most of the other method. Of course that the Lydiard training able some improve. There is growing evidence that every kind of training can result in performance enhancement even with no measurable physiological changes. Therefore the Lydiard one is not an exception. But from here to say that is the best, you shall analyse it divided in parts, and one important part is to what degree the Lydiard training able physiologic changes on every training variable that results in superior performance enhance.
If in the middle and long distance run events the RESISTANCE or STRENGTH ENDURANCE is defined by the elements of energy, coordination, biomechanics and psychological that able to delay and/or sustain an optimal pace during the length of the competition run, we may understand that it´s by the training that the runner might improve that strength endurance ability. Of course that most studies shows that is a fact that reduce or decrease of that optimal intensity the longer is the activity. However the optimal ability to not decrease the optimal pace is done by the SPECIFIC strength endurance that every kind of training brings to the runner, the management of the run variables trough the training method.
The analysis of distance pace management, shows that all the world records are done by the use of a during the entire run event pace average and certain negative split pace somehow, and this pace management, determined voluntary by the runner (with a pace split agenda) or involuntary (natural consequence of the runner natural ability to pace) is what able the runner to be able to run in event pace and speed up on the last part of the run.
If you take a look at most of the world best performances is what happens. If you take a look to the world record progression from 5000m and 10000m they are done they way I say.
In the special case of the 800m, the strength endurance is peculiar, because due to the high anaerobic demand the runner tends to decrease the pace in the last part of the run since he reaches his maxVO2.
There, he needs to be able to run anaerobic. For able to resist and pace sustain, he needs to be very fit in the aerobic condition and aerobic power that is the support that able him to resist anaerobically. All this have to do with what the training method add to the runner potential, to the runner individual talent, and the sum of all that aerobic and anaerobic contribute to able optimal pace is named resistance or strength endurance. As you lives in Europe might be you name it resistenza (!).
List of 5000m WR progress. As you might see the optimal performance tends to be event pace with some negative split pace. Simply the 800m WR progression it´s an exception. However in one case or another the way the runner is able to sustain the pace during the run means his specific strength endurance for the event. Why the WR do progress ? Not because new spikes, not because new tracks or less windy runs. Because by training the runner gets more specific resistance/strength endurance wit more modern training methods than with the older ones. For example, why Lase Viren did 13:16.4 WR and Dick Quax 13:12.86 both be Lydiard influenced, but do you think that Dick Quax diod best talent than Viren. No he doesn´t. Simply the at the moment Dick took the world record his strength endurance is better than Viren, just a little bit better, but when we think about Haile or Bekele they run 30secs faster than Dick , and the main factor to that faster pace is strength endurance.
5000m WR pregression
Arthur Robinson (1908)- 15:01.2
Hannes Kolehmainen (1912)- 14:36.6 (2:45.5, 3:01.5, 2:59, 2:54, 2:56.6)
Paavo Nurmi (1922)- 14:35.4
Paavo Nurmi (1924)- 14:28.2 (2:48.6, 2:54.6, 2:57.1, 2:56.7, 2:51.2)
Lauri Lehtinen (1932)- 14:16.9 (2:46.5, 2:54.0, 2:55.5, 2:57.5, 2:43.4)
Taisto Maki (1939)- 14:08.8 (2:46.0, 2:53.0, 2:53.5, 2:52.0, 2:44.3)
Emil Zatopek (1942)- 13:58.2 (2:40.0, 2:47.0, 2:51.5, 2:50.5, 2:49.2)
Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:56.6 (2:44.0, 2:52.7, 2:47.2, 2:48.4, 2:44.3)
Chris Chataway (1954)- 13:51.6 (2:41.5, 2:50.1, 2:44.9, 2:53.4, 2:41.7)
Vladimir Kuts (1954)- 13:51.2 (2:38.4, 2:52.4, 2:51.8, 2:45.0, 2:43.6)
Sandor Iharos (1955)- 13:50.8 (2:44.0, 2:49.4, 2:49.8, 2:46.4, 2:41.2)
Vladimir Kuts (1955)- 13:46.8 (2:42.0, 2:48.0, 2:46.0, 2:50.0, 2:40.8)
Sandor Iharos (1955)- 13:40.6 (2:42.0, 2:46.0, 2:48.0, 2:51.0, 2:33.6)
Gordon Pirie (1956)- 13:36.8 (2:36.0, 2:46.0, 2:47.0, 2:48.0, 2:39.8)
Vladimir Kuts (1957)- 13:35.0 (2:37.8, 2:46.5, 2:44.4, 2:44.2, 2:42.1)
Ron Clarke (1965)- 13:34.8 (2:43.8, 2:43.6, 2:44.4, 2:43.1, 2:39.8)
Ron Clarke (1965)- 13:33.6 (2:39.5, 2:41.9, 2:48.0, 2:46.1, 2:38.0)
Ron Clarke (1965)- 13:25.8 (2:39.1, 2:41.3, 2:43.7, 2:44.6, 2:37.0)
Kipchoge Keino (1965)- 13:24.2 (4:16.0, 4:17.8, 4:24.8)
Ron Clarke (1966)- 13:16.6 (2:40.2, 2:36.2, 2:41.0, 2:41.6, 2:37.6)
Lasse Viren (1972)- 13:16.4 (2:36.6, 2:41.9, 2:41.8, 2:42.3, 2:33.7)
Emiel Puttemans (1972)- 13:13.0 (2:33.7, 2:38.3, 2:39.2, 2:44.4, 2:37.4)
Dick Quax (1977)- 13:12.86 (2:39.21, 2:39.21, 2:37.51, 2:42.99, 2:33.94)
Henry Rono (1978)- 13:08.4 (2:42.0, 2:36.0, 2:39.5, 2:37.0, 2:33.9)
Henry Rono (1981)- 13:06.20 (2:38.5, 2:38.5, 2:38.0, 2:38.0, 2:33.2)
David Moorcroft (1982)- 13:00.41 (2:38.0, 2:34.6, 2:37.6, 2:38.5, 2:31.7)
Said Aouita (1985)- 13:00.40 (2:35.14, 2:38.68, 2:37.18, 2:41.16, 2:28.24)
Said Aoiuta (1987)- 12:58.39 (2:35.35, 2:37.68, 2:33.34, 2:39.68, 2:32.34)
Haile Gebrselassie (1994)- 12:56.96 (2:36.6, 2:37.1, 2:37.2, 2:37.4, 2:28.7)
Moses Kiptanui (1995)- 12:55.30 (2:35.2, 2:36.6, 2:35.2, 2:36.2, 2:32.1)
Haile Gebrselassie (1995)- 12:44.39 (2:34.3, 2:34.7, 2:34.0, 2:31.2, 2:30.2)
Haile Gebrselassie (1997)- 12:41.86 (2:34.6, 2:32.0, 2:31.6, 2:35.0, 2:28.7)
Daniel Komen (1997)- 12:39.74 (2:32.7, 2:32.7, 2:31.9, 2:31.21, 2:31.21)
Haile Gebrselassie (1998)- 12:39.36 (2:34.8, 2:31.6, 2:32.9, 2:32.8, 2:27.3)
Kenenisa Bekele (2004)- 12:37.35 (2:33.24, 2:32.23, 2:31.87, 2:30.59, 2:29.42)
800m PBs wrote:
What is ironic is that performances by athletes in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's are coming up with the best "strength endurance" in your anlaysis. This is not a good argument for modern training being a better method to improve specific "strength endurance" over 800m. However, as I said, the data and the analysis are not appropriate to make these kinds of conclusions so this may come out differently with more data.
What you say proves me that you don´t understand the data.
It´s true that the past runners did similar strength endurance ratio BUT BETWEEN the first and second lap split. Here the ratio shows the strength endurance from the first laps to the second, independently of the final result.
BUT OF COURSE THAT THE FASTER IS THE FINAL RESULT/PERFORMANCE, THE HARDER AND IS TO KEEP THE RATIO BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND LAP, and consequently the fast WR of that list (the young ones WR) they possess better strength endurance for the event, what doesn´t mean strength endurance ratio. Might be you did 800m runs but didn´t you knew that since you go faster it´s harder the pace sustain.
Here we have 2 different kind concepts. One is 800m specific strength endurance, and the faster is the result better the runner strength endurance. This is about training but about talent as well, the potential.
Imagine a 3:00 800m talent runner. The better he can train he will never be able to do 1:44, but imagine that with proper training he is able to run 2:30, he can do 2:30 by 1:15+1:15 splits, or 1:20+1:10 and in the case of he is able to run 1:20+1:10 it shows better strength endurance ratio than the 1:44 of Peter Snell.
For example. Snell (1:44) did best strength endurance than Elroy Robinson, but not as good as Rudisha(1:41). Other concept is the ratio specific endurance what it means the ability to pace sustain (increase or decrease) during the second lap relate to the first one. This kind of ratio strength endurance deals with training more than with talent, that´s what to run fast final 800m result deals with.
Anyhow, in the best strength endurance every modern runner got best specific strength endurance by training because they are faster than the past/old ones and no one breaks the 800m WR without training.
On that last aspect of consideration no need to relate Snell WR. Might be that during all that years since Snell WR in more thousand runs the Snell earlier WR is smashed. More than thousand times by many runners.
Jon Orange wrote:
And all races are tactical.
And Rudisha ran two World Records, 1.41.09 and 1.41.01
Orange
Haven´t you read what rekrunner says ?
rekrunner wrote:
Otherwise we are just comparing apples to oranges.
I read with great interest all the posts about this argument.
Of course, there are differents points of view, and to find a common idea about training is not possible.
However, I think there is a basic error in all the discussion.
The most part of people in this thread speak about TRAINING SYSTEM FOR ONE DISTANCE (in this way of discussing, Snell becomes equivalent to 800m). This fact doesn't exist, and is one of the biggest methodological mistakes.
THERE IS THE TRAINING FOR AN ATHLETE, not the training for a distance. Is one of the most important tasks of a coach to be able to individuate the best event of an athlete for his career, and to mould his attitude in direction of his future best result.
Every athlete has some different attitude, and there is NO EVENT where it's possible to find exact mathematic investigation about the percentage of intervention of different qualities. When some pseudo-scientist tries to do this (for example, 800m is 60% anaerobic and 40% aerobic), this is simple speculation, without any real base.
Can somebody suppose that Rudisha, Konchellah, Juantorena, Fiasconaro, Susanj, Courtney can use the same training of Coe, Cram, Snell, Cruz ? Or, for women (doping apart), Kratochvilova (47.99 in 400) and Olyzarenko or Kazankina ?
We must remember that, FOR EVERY DISTANCE, we have two typologies of runners : the FAST, and the RESISTENT.
If we want to train Konchellah, Fiasconaro or Rudisha with the system of Lydiard, we can only produce a runner of medium level, BECAUSE WE DON'T EXALT THEIR MAIN QUALITIES.
In the modern methodology, we can't spend a lot of time for filling in the gaps every athlete has in some direction. Instead, WE NEED TO EXALT THE QUALITIES THEY HAVE.
Many coaches speak about the BALANCE between the qualities. In my opinion, this is the best way for NOT producing the best results every athlete can reach. Top champions can have a lot of gaps in some direction, BUT ARE OUT OF THE GROUP ABOUT THEIR TOP SPECIFIC QUALITIES.
So, the first step is not to have a "common" methodological system, thinking it can work with everybody. The first step is to UNDERSTAND the main qualities of the athletes, to ANALYSE them and to find the best methodology for each one.
The great coach is like a great taylor. Of course, he has in his mind the "model" of the cloth : but, before making the cloth, he needs to measure the client, and to arrange on his body the best solution. Instead, starting from the system, we have the same behavior of a taylor making a good cloth, but after is the buyer that has to work for adapting the cloth to his body.
In this way, we make confusion between "cause" and "effect", because we don't consider the preliminary remarks are different.
So, to discuss about Lydiard system for all middle distances (and especially for 800m) is a phylosophical discussion without any practical base. Different is to discuss the best training system for a determinate athlete, and this is possible only AFTER analysing the characteristic qualities of each one.
One thing is clear :
1) There are not competitions of RESISTANCE or ENDURANCE : in every event, the winner is the FASTEST as average.
2) There is not (in our events) TRAINING OF SPEED : the main point is to train in order to EXTEND the basic speed every athlete has.
I want to give an example not connected with endurance events, but for that reason very significative, speaking about Ben Johnson. The fact he used doping, under this point of view, is not important.
We know the PB of Ben while 18 (10.80) and while 28 (9.79 in Seoul). We know also his PB in 50m in both the seasons (5.64 in 1978, 5.50 in 1988).
Supposing to put these two athletes in the same race, we can see that, after 50m, the difference was about 1.5 meter (3%). But, at the end, the difference is 11m. This means that in 10 years of training for increasing muscular strength and all the qualities connected with the different expressions of strength, HE IMPROVED OF 3% HIS BASIC POWER, AND OF (11m - 1.5m = 9.5m in 50m) 19% HIS SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE.
So, for me it's clear that the key for every runner is to improve in his SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE.
The problem is : HOW.
The methodological discussion is open.
Can you say specifically what about Lydiard's system pervents Konchella, Fiasconaro, or Rudisha from "exalting the qualities they have?"