Similar enough but still very different, i am not sure which approach i would like to follow. If anyone has a considered opinion on this please reply.
Similar enough but still very different, i am not sure which approach i would like to follow. If anyone has a considered opinion on this please reply.
Lydiard had more of a concrete method that people everywhere could follow.
Cerruty trained his athletes on the sand dunes of Portsea.
Both were spectacular coaches. Percy was perhaps a bit eccentric, but thats part of what made him the coach he was.
Its a shame Elliot vs Snell never happened in Tokyo, it would have been epic.
Its embarrassing to have to say it again ... so I wont.
why die? wrote:
Its a shame Elliot vs Snell never happened in Tokyo, it would have been epic.
"Elliott"
He was one of The Sport's all-time greats, gang. Let's try to get his name right.
If you're going to want to see sample schedules you're better off with Lydiard. He wrote more, gave more talks whose transcripts have made their ways onto the Web and into magazines, wrote more sample schedules, etc., than Cerutty did.
Cerutty was once asked about Elliott's training and he said that he had no idea what Elliott did in training and that he was more interested in making men than in making athletes. There's a lot to be said for that approach but if you want specifics you'll likely be disappointed.
Cerutty was an inspirational guru. His emphasis on tempo training, weight lifting, core building have been proven and used by modern champions. Lydiard's ideas produced many great runners also. I prefer Cerutty and admire Lydiard.
Cerutty outlined his methods perfectly in "Middle Distance Running."
Thanks for the replies guys, to be honest i am seeing more similarities than differences between the two, which is a good thing from a learning perspective. The differences are interesting to look at. Cerutty advocates 'high intensity weight training with low volume', yet his running training is founded in the proven 'low intensity high volume' approach. Lydiard on the other hand didn't go down the weight training path at all, but looking at Snell you can see why it wasn't as important. Also Lydiard was a nuggety type whereas Cerutty was a weakling type early on, which would have led to a difference in approach. Elliott of course was also a totally different body type to Snell.
A Snell/Elliot 1500m/mile race at their best would have been one of the all time greatest matchups. Pity.
The reason why i avoid any coach advocating the modern training is this: Any coach who has turned their focus to the 1%ers without properly attending to the 25%ers, has to be ignored, due to lack of perspective on what is really important and what is really going on in the athlete during training.
*Elliott
(sorry Herb)
its down to two wrote:
Similar enough but still very different, i am not sure which approach i would like to follow. If anyone has a considered opinion on this please reply.
A combination of both training methodologies has proven to work best. That is the approach I would strongly advise.
rsttstrj wrote:
"Elliott"
He was one of The Sport's all-time greats, gang. Let's try to get his name right.
I am so sorry
I am going to cut my face off now, I am so ashamed.
Goodbye cruel world!!!
its down to two wrote:
Cerutty advocates 'high intensity weight training with low volume', yet his running training is founded in the proven 'low intensity high volume' approach.
Cerruty's training was not low intensity. It was high intensity. Herb has stated this many times, and there is an interview around somewhere in which he talks about his training and thinks athletes are focusing too much on volume nowadays. He wasn't a professional and didn't have a lot of time to train so when he ran, he ran hard.
He said something to the effect that if he had 6 training sessions in a week, 4 of them would be hard.
why die? wrote:
its down to two wrote:Cerutty advocates 'high intensity weight training with low volume', yet his running training is founded in the proven 'low intensity high volume' approach.
Cerruty's training was not low intensity. It was high intensity. Herb has stated this many times, and there is an interview around somewhere in which he talks about his training and thinks athletes are focusing too much on volume nowadays. He wasn't a professional and didn't have a lot of time to train so when he ran, he ran hard.
He said something to the effect that if he had 6 training sessions in a week, 4 of them would be hard.
This is an important distinction to make, for overall clarity, however it is a little separate from what i am meaning. Running for one hour at optimal intensity may drain an athlete of their energy reserves, but it is still a far cry from doing 3 sets of 3 deadlifts at optimal intensity. The intensity, from a perceived effort standpoint, is quite low comparatively. I'm not sure why Cerutty decried circuit style strength development. Does anyone know?
Distance Advisor wrote:
its down to two wrote:Similar enough but still very different, i am not sure which approach i would like to follow. If anyone has a considered opinion on this please reply.
A combination of both training methodologies has proven to work best. That is the approach I would strongly advise.
This^is the right answer.
Middle Distance Coach wrote:
Distance Advisor wrote:A combination of both training methodologies has proven to work best. That is the approach I would strongly advise.
This^is the right answer.
I agree with you strongly, however i am also aware of the need to be careful when merging any two things. The problem we have is that both Cerutty and Lydiard developed their own 'complete' system. To then assume i know better than those two individuals would be sheer arrogance. And in order to selectively choose which parts from each system to take, means i have shifted to that arrogant stance. I am reluctant to do this for obvious reasons. So instead i am looking for what is the same in both systems. For these factors i can more definitely rely on, like the fact in their running training they move from high volume/low intensity to low volume/high intensity. Or that they use hills as a primary tool in strength development. Or even that they use hills to develop strength-endurance and not strength pure.
However, in doing this similarity recognition one comes up against the things that are not similar, the differences. So Cerutty's hills are somewhat different in approach to Lydiard, but the differences are small and can be explained almost totally by environment and what was possible in light of that. Perhaps if Cerutty has a mountain house instead of a beach house his hills would be even more circuit like, and if Lydiard only had isolated sandhills then his hill specific training would be less circuit like and more purely alternating.
Yet i am still stuck on Cerutty and circuit strength training. Why did he not include it in what i perceive to be the appropriate phase of training for it?
In doing so i found that Cerutty doesn't like circuit training, even though this is the weight lifting equivalent of longer running. No doubt i am missing something, so i'm wondering if anyone here knows that that is.
Cerutty advocated lifting the heaviest possible weights because doing so will produce maximal strength, whereas higher reps at lower weight produce larger muscles (bodybuilders) but not as great strength. It makses sense that you want the greatest strength to weight ratio. You are trying to improve your explosive strength, not build huge muscles. Also, a distance runner has so much endurance already compared to their explosive strength, that using high low weight high rep is building more endurance but not making you markedly stronger. You have endurance already, you need killer strength.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by circuit training. Cerutty called his running paths "circuits"', for instance the " Hall Circuit," the "Dune Circuit."
His runners did circuits of the weight pile also, but did low reps high weights.
Clearly Cerutty. Had more success, was admired greatly by numerous athletes from other nations, coached athletes in different events, managed to be 30 years in advance of the world in nutrition for athletes, thaught philosopy and life to his athletes, helped them become better persons.
Overall, both great coaches, but Cerutty is way to underrated.
Yes circuit style weight training which, by its nature can be used to increase muscular endurance locally, so body parts we individually don't access through our normal running movement pattern, can be discovered and then developed. Sure lifting reps of 6-10 to maximum means muscle mass is going to develop somewhat in advance of strength, whereas reps of 1-5 will allow of strength to advance in front of mass. Yet 45 seconds of continuous pushups is not mass producing, which would be what a circuit does.
The only other problem with this is that movement patterns are refined through low intensity and high volume of repetition, whether that be repetition of the running stride or repetition of the deadlift movement. To take people with poor technique or low experience and move them directly to heavy weights can be dangerous. I am wondering how Percy dealt with this issue.
Percy Cerutty's athletes were not kids who played xbox all day. They were pretty strong already, though he does talk about starting with easier weights and moving up to heavy weights later.
If you want an inspirational life philosophy, I highly recommend reading some Cerutty. I read and loved "Athletics: How to Become a Champion."
Neither. You won't run 3:26 training like Elliott or Snell. Coaches of today's best learned from Lydiard and Cerutty and others, and came up with a better approach. And the future WR holder will learn from the best of today.