Doesn't your quotation give a good inclination of your preoccupation.
You were the first runner who came to mind.
I am a product of the 70's & 80's. You remember when we had a depth of excellent performances which has not been approached since.
>However, none of Lydiard's runners ever ran as fast as Herb Elliott.<
3:54.5 Herb Elliott Herbert James "Herb" Elliott (February 25, 1938) was an Australian athlete, one of the world's greatest middle distance runners. He only ever lost one race over 1500 metres or the mile and during his career he broke the four-minute mile on 17 occasions.
Elliott, a native of Perth, Western Australia, set a new world record for the mile on August 6, 1958 (3.54,5) and broke the 1500 metres world record the same year.
..... Click the link for more information. (AUS)
6 August 1958 Dublin
3:54.4 Peter Snell Peter George Snell (born December 17 1938), is a former New Zealand athlete. He had one of the shortest careers of world famous international sportsmen yet achieved so much that he was voted New Zealand’s ‘Sports Champion Of The (20th) Century’. A protege of the great New Zealand athletics coach Arthur Lydiard, Snell is known for the three Olympic gold medals he won, but is also respected not so much because of what he achieved, but how he achieved it -- with total dominance, grace and humility.
..... Click the link for more information. (NZL) 27 January 1962 Wanganui
3:54.1 Peter Snell (NZL) 17 November 1964 Auckland
Antonio Cabral wrote:
There are people that´s hard to made them belive in facts. With al, respect you are one of them. you still insist in a Lydiard over emphasis that actually it exists only in America and in a few located parts mainly because english language influence.
But obviously what you say is fact is opinion. It is not a "fact" that Lydiard is unimportant. This is your opinion.
Come to mey country. We are 50000 that do running. Among them how many train by Lidiard method ZERO ! Go to Spain. They did lots of top class runners in distance events since 1992. How many they did train or actually train based in Lydiard method: ZERO ! Go to France, ther´s a large tradition in distance running despite last decades they decay in international context: How many they train by Lydiard principles ZERO ! Go to Germany. How many: ZERO. Go to England (ah...that´s a english language country) How many a very slight minority that we can´t consider. Go to Italy, Finland, Norway, All east european countries, go to Morocco - ZERO, go to Kenya (a second english language) a so shor minority that you can´t consider, and go to Ethiopia, in Africa eventually just in South Africa that is done but not too much - recently i received an e-mail from a south African runner that told me that top south africa coaches don´t know who is Lydiard.
I cannot imagine you can classify an entire country of runenrs. Do you know each of the million distance runners from all of those countries and you have asked every single one about Lydiard? Of course not. As for all the countries you mentioned, I am certain there are good runners from many of those countries who employ aerobic base building with high mileage, hill sprinting phases, and peak work along the same lines as Lydiard recommended.
You are right, he did not INVENT these concepts, but they were key to his program. Can you find me a top runner who does not build his base, run some higher mileage in the non-competition phase, use hills (you said yourself Rui uses them in a strength-training fashion; this was a HUGE portion of Lydiard's program), and lighten the load to peak.
Of the millions of runners from all those countries, "zero" use this program.
Now tell me about America ? How many like you think that Lydiard is dominant. What´s the Lidyard influence among america runners. Large one than in almost any other country. Thus i come to my original comment - american mistakes they come from the use of Lydiard training. Long runs for short distant events, 100 miles for everyone, 6 week peak season. The use of hills JUST in the "transfer" phase. I don´t see that use no more...among a larger world runners community. Just in America and a few more folks.
How is running 100 miles per week a "mistake?" And this is still not correct. Lydiard never said everyone should run 100 miles per week. Some did more, some less. And how can you argue with the results? Peter Snell ran 1:44 on a grass 350 meter track (equivalent to 1:42 on today's tracks) using these Sunday long runs at a FAST pace.
Not for everyone, but for some, and maybe many, it can work. And again, hills are not ONLY used for 3 weeks. There are hilly long runs at all phases.
That you don´t want to see the facts and the reality (by the numbers or range of influence) or that you to follow a an opinion that´s a reality distortion that´s up to you, in that point we will never agree, but we still are friends and people that respect each other.
We are friends and I respect you but I cannot agree. Because I do not agree does mean I follow a "distortion of reality." I have shown examples above. A "distortion" is to say that no one in any country other than America employs some of Lydiard's concepts. Maybe they learned it from their own coach and never heard of Lydiard, but it may still be based in some GENERAL principle of Lydiard's work. Distance running training is not THAT different even today.
That´s hard to get you out from your preconceived ideas. It seems to me that you are in a postion that you have an American hipnotisation that don+t made you think clear by the facts.
No, I am not a nationalist. I am Irish by origin but I live in America. This does not mean I dislike other countries and I do not embrace all things American. There are many things I disagree with that occur in America, even with running (such as the poor development of young runners in the high schools).
The main issue that´s not you - that American coaches and runners that still insist in your point of view and they don´t improve. And the results thet are there. For such a large population and so many interest for all athletics you did poor results in distance running evenst that what we may expect. In my opinion this have to do with the use of wrong training concepts.
But things are getting better and the ones who are getting better are using higher mileage and long runs--like Lydiard's athletes.
Meb Keflezghi medaled running much more than 100 miles per week, Deena Kastor medaled and approached 130 miles per week, Alan Culpepper was 12th, ran 2:09:41 recently, and beat Paul Tergat in the Olympics running high mileage, Bob Kennedy ran 27:37 and could have gone to the Olympics except for injury and will run the New York City Marathon, Dan Browne ran well in the 10,000 and ran 13:16 for 5,000 running high mileage, Tim Broe ran 13:18 and made the Olympic final, Dathan Ritzenhein ran 27:38 at age 22 and runs high mileage, Alan Webb has performed well winning in Ostrava beating Lagat and Heshko with 3:32 and running 3:50 twice with more mileage than he ever ran before, still low by world standards, Charlie Gruber broke through running 3:34, David Krummenacker won an indoor world championship and has run 3:31 and 1:43, Paul McMullen ran 10th in the World Championships and has lost all his toes in one foot.
Not all of these are high mileage runners but many are and look at the successes of the past few years.
I agree there is a bad lack of talent for such a big country but things are improving.
As Bob Hodge said, there is a return to the 1970-1980 type training (a Lydiard emphasis) when American running had the best success it EVER had--using Lydiard's methods!!
No generation has come close since. Salaazar, Hodge, Pfitzinger, Rodgers, Shorter, Meyer, Malley, and many others I cannot name ran much faster than people 30 years later, almost all using a Lydiard-based program.
How can we argue with these results?
That´s really hard to discuss with with. You try to pass WRONG FACTS systematically just to support your own idea.
Where did i use the word "unimportant" to classify Lydiard training? I did use "over emphasis in America". And relate to the world influence among top class runners (from the past and the present) THAT´S A FACT. I know in what training method most of th top class runners they did train and they do train. If you want to do a list of the top 1000 in ever ranking distance event - i know more than 90% in what training system they train.
As i never taugh in "patriotism" that´s a your own owrd responsabilty, not mine. I said "american hipnotisation" but i may say "america seduction". To you have any doubt that actually America civilisation do have a "seductional" effect over the other? I don´t´. From that idea to "patriotism"...
Just to mention one from the past: Frank Shorter training HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LYDIARD: zero, null.
David Krummenaker have nothing to do with Lydiard.
I have in front of me a Frank Shorter interview in Runners World and Frank Shorter book. He says that his training have nothing to do with Lydiard. He justifies: i don´´t use periodisation; i do intervals all year round 3 times a week, i do some hills (but if you read that´s not typical Lydiard hill training) That´s not the simple fact that someone else do mileage training - 100 miles a week or more that you can consider that he trains in the Lydiard method, as that´s not by the fact thet someone do hills or that someone uses weekeend long runs - that you can consider that he trains in the Lydiard method.
My marathon runners and also others they do more than 100 miles a week - but my training method that have nothing to do with Lydiard. Nothing at all. And i also use hills, and i also used Long runs in weekends (but not for 800m-1500m runners).
I also have a runner that did win over Tergat in the Olympics! But he doesn´t train in the Lydiard method. Stefan. Baldini he did win over Tergat, Meb but as far as i know he doesn´t train in the Lydiard method.
What´s is curious is that you contest that all around the Lyidiard influence is lesser than in America, but all the names you mention are american runners !
>However, none of Lydiard's runners ever ran as fast as Herb Elliott.<
3:54.5 Herb Elliott
3:54.4 Peter Snell
Very smart to use the mile distance, and miss 1500m distance to turn on the arguments for Peter Snell !
Ok, i agree, what Peter Snell did that´s a great achievement, but that´s not by the fact that Herb did win a single medal - smashing the others as no one else did at that time that Herb performances are more or less than Peter Snell. Each one in his own time they both were fantastics. But Herb is a case similar to El Guerrouj. He never lost a single 1500m race for a long period.
I put Lydiard method in 2 different levels of appreciation/interpretation.
One is that what he said and says and those he trains or did train directly. That ones i know that they train in Lydiard method.
A different level of interpretation are those who claim that in a minor or major scale by the use Lydiard principles they train. The last ones they have a undirect connection with Lydiard. Only Lydiard are able to judge if they train according Lydiard method or if they don´t.
In the 60s and 70s that you refers - to mention 100 miles as a weekly training volume target that´s a breakthrough, no doubt. Thus the improvement of those who did that.
Actually i know runners that as juniors they start to do 30-35-40Kilos a day (18 to 25 miles a day) more than 100 miles a week). They never did any interest neither his coaches by Lydiard. So, actually we can´t claim/argue that MILEAGE that´s a Lidiard idea, or in the Lydiard method, or a Lydiard intelectual patrimony, as a long term career as a startegy isn´t a Lydiard original idea.
So, with all respect i think the opposite than Malmo sentence. I think that actually we can follow most of the Ludiard concepts - without knowing who Lydiard is or who is the Lydiard training. Actually, most of the Lydiard training aspects - mileage, hills, long ones - have no Lydiard authorship or paternity. Just when you put all that training elements all togheter working in the Lydiard method as a whole.
I think Lydiard was only a guy who pointed out that higher mileage is a vital key to success, nothing more than that, no specific programs.
Same with the guy Gershler, just because you use interval-training you don't say you train the Gershler-way.
I think there are very few good runners who train the true "Lydiard"-way today.
The problem is that people SAY they train the "Lydiard"-way, just because they do higher mileage and nothing else in Lydiard's program. I think it's a misunderstanding....people use the name Lydiard too much. He just pointed out a fact, like Gershler did. Coaches of today uses these facts to build their own training-system, but they also uses facts from not so famous guys who pointed out great facts as well. And sometimes coaches take a fact for granted, and forgot who actually pointed out the fact.
I 100% agree with your post.
>I put Lydiard method in 2 different levels of appreciation/interpretation.
One is that what he said and says and those he trains or did train directly. That ones i know that they train in Lydiard method.<
OK Antonio. Perhaps I credit Lydiard with "inventing the wheel" creating original concepts that had been tried and tested by others.
I believe the key ingrediant great coaches possess is their ability to motivate.
His books & the biographies of his athletes played a role in my own concept of running preparation and have been my model. I believe it is a solid model, a good place to begin.
Knowing the history of the development of "training" methods you appreciate Lydiard's role.
Lydiard is about to begin a final tour of the United States and will be in Boston at Brandeis University on Nov. 10.
Perhaps you could stop by and exchange some ideas?
Here is my Belief:
Regarding sound training methods and the science behind it, which has been discussed a lot lately: I can honestly say that after 30 years of involvement in long distance running as an athlete and a (sort of) coach, I cannot tell anyone "exactly" how he or she should train.
I only know what worked for me and my contemporaries; I can offer broad guidelines based on that experience, giving young runner a starting point to work out what will be best for him or her.
I have read books by David Costill, Jack Daniels, and Peter Pfitzinger/Scott Douglas. Very interesting. I highly recommend them, but contrast them with books by Arthur Lydiard and some of the great biographies - Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Ron Hill, Ron Clarke, Clarence DeMar, and even Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter. The latter provide inspiration and methodology. While reading them you want to head out for a run.
Everything we need to know about training was discovered many years ago through the ultimate science: trial and error. The exercise physiologists merely explain (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) why they think these methods work, and many write books suggesting they themselves invented the best methods.
When you begin to believe, that is when you will be on the right track to try and accomplish whatever you have set out to do. My advice is to start with Lydiard for some sound training methods, followed by the "Horatio Alger"-type biographies for inspiration.
Personally I have no vested interest in promoting Lydiard AS A PERSON for his methods, whether or not he invented some or none or all.
My point is the specifics of the program; Meb, Shorter, and many of the others I put there used concepts, at least in the base phase, of a common ethic often associated with Lydiard. If it was not Lydiard, so be it. But it is fact that these people ran high mileage and have results.
As for KRummenacker, I said some of those people do not run high mileage. This was an example to respond to your statement about Americans not having results.
I agree. I would love to be present in that Lydiard conferences. Such an experienced and master coach as Lydiard is he may have many things to teach us - but directly, not by a third person.
One other point that you got it. Biographies, articles, interviews, all that are running teachings, inspiration and MOTIVATION as well. When i was a teenager i did read the book "Dave Bedford story" that definitively turn my focus and my motivation to the running distance. Before that i was a mile runner. Here we are again. Dave Bedford - a guy that claims to be done 200 miles a week as training base, that did 27:30 10000m WR, but his training that have nothing to do with Lydiard method.
Are you going to that Boston Conference? If so, please, report us. Your report will be wellcome.
Would you say that Radcliffe follows a Lydiard program? I wouldn't say she periodizes as he lays out in his book but he has said that she is doing all the right work.
With Lydiard, I feel that there should be less emphasis on how he periodized in his books and that his system comes down to a few rules that virtually all successful middle and long distance runners more or less follow.
What makes them "his" rules?
his system comes down to a few rules that virtually all successful middle and long distance runners more or less follow.
because they are the ones that he follows; you could call basic universal rules because they apply virtually all successful middle and long distance runners.
If you agree that what says in Lydiard official site - that Lydiard “he invented the simple exercise of jogging” (quote)…
…one day you will discover that when i did my first step into a “jogging run” i´m training with some Lydiard influence. Even those that did train and run before that Lydiard be born they did train with some Lydiard influence.
With all respect to Lydiard the idea that Lydiard did invented the "jogging" besides that´s untrue that´s an
I don't know that Lydiard "invented" anything -- I think that he studied what the current training systems were and compared it to his own experiments and developed some basic rules that (whether by inspiration or independent invention) are followed by the majority of the world's successful middle and long distance runners.
I myself, a huge Lydiard fan, would not periodize myself nor an athlete of mine as outlined in his books -- but the physiology behind his training is sound.
Whether or not he "invented" anything is sort of moot, I think (although it's funny to read that on his website).
If you mention Arthur Lydiard's name to a distance runner, either they will know the name and have at a general working understanding of the principles he used (whether they agree with them or not), or they have been hiding under a rock.
Can any other distance running coach claim the same widespread name recognition?
Lydiard certainly popularized "jogging" along with Bill Bowerman in the US.
Lydiard also popularized the idea of "base building" with how he did it, HIS method and the success of his athletes.
You could argue that no one ever "created" anything not that it matters much. I doubt Lydiard worries much about it!
1500 meters: 3:36.0 WORLD RECORD
1500 meters: 3:35.6 WORLD RECORD, OLYMPIC RECORD
Peter Snell: 3:38.x ?
I agree Lydiard is a fine coach, and also an excellent motivator, the latter however only if you things "exactly" his way and no change, no other ideas, no thinking for yourself. Thus you get motivated only relying on Lydiard but not otherwise any confidence in yourself.
Percy Cerutty was basically the opposite of Lydiard as to philosophy, open mindedness and method. The athletes from his camp were strong minded individuals.
As to method, Seb Coe's training was much like Elliott's, very close, and no resemblance at all to Lydiard.
For example Coe regularly did 40x sprints up a short steep hill in the winter, very similar to Percy's sand hills.
Interestingly Lydiard thought Coe was lying about his training (a quote in RW), and that he was really running 100 miles a week.