This is a great thread!
We all did it. Runners at every level did it. I never ran road races at an even pace or for time. They were called races and we tried to win. I ran less than 60 seconds slower than my best ten mile time for the first ten miles of my first Boston Marathon and then held on as well as I could. If I had not remained in the top ten I would have dropped out. I remember thinking that in the race. And there were no splits, no water and no gels. The shoes were pieces of flat rubber (no arch or heel) with a little burlap to cover the foot.
Long training runs were sometimes done in races or run with others and the goal would be to drop the other guys. I know every runner feels that he could have run faster but I strongly feel that I never found out how fast I could run.
Nothing new about distance training has been discovered since January 1, 1980.
Report Thread
-
-
Orville Atkins wrote:
Long training runs were sometimes done in races or run with others and the goal would be to drop the other guys.
I know every runner feels that he could have run faster but I strongly feel that I never found out how fast I could run.
+1 -
SMJO wrote:
Viren set world records, Farah hasn't. Come again about racing versus time trials?
Of course Viren set records. People have always tried for records. Viren always did it around the time of an Olympics. The records were by products of his Olympic preparation In "off" years he didn't do much at all, certainly he didn't chase records.
No one in the 70s was going to run under 13 for 5,000 meters no matter how well trained they were. You're going to ignore my question about whether you really believe that someone like Mottram sent back in time and born in 1950 or so was going to produce the kinds of times he has if he was running in the 70s, aren't you? -
Of course he would have if he did the training that he did when he ran 12:55 (or whatever it was exactly that he ran).
That is if he had the mindset that Moorcroft had when he ran just outside 13:00.
Absolutely. -
SMJO wrote:
Of course he would have if he did the training that he did when he ran 12:55 (or whatever it was exactly that he ran).
That is if he had the mindset that Moorcroft had when he ran just outside 13:00.
Absolutely.
...AND had a different sub-13 guy to pace him. Mottram finished 2nd every time he ran sub-13. And meanwhile there were probably fewer than 5 guys who had run the time needed to pace them through 3k. With depth comes faster times at the top. -
HRE wrote:
SMJO wrote:
Viren set world records, Farah hasn't. Come again about racing versus time trials?
Of course Viren set records. People have always tried for records. Viren always did it around the time of an Olympics. The records were by products of his Olympic preparation In "off" years he didn't do much at all, certainly he didn't chase records.
No one in the 70s was going to run under 13 for 5,000 meters no matter how well trained they were. You're going to ignore my question about whether you really believe that someone like Mottram sent back in time and born in 1950 or so was going to produce the kinds of times he has if he was running in the 70s, aren't you?
Farah hasn't exactly gone for any records, has he?
Do you think Moorcroft couldn't have gone under 13:00 a
few years earlier? He ran a little faster than he needed to, don't you think? -
Digging further, even in Mottram's fastest win (13:04) he had several guys right behind him to work with him. I don't know what the pacing situation was for Moorcroft, but he won the race by 20 seconds! How many seconds faster can you expect him to run?
-
SMJO wrote:
Farah hasn't exactly gone for any records, has he?
Do you think Moorcroft couldn't have gone under 13:00 a
few years earlier? He ran a little faster than he needed to, don't you think?
SMJO isn't that just proving his point? "No one was going to run under 13:00 no matter how good they were..." No matter how good Moorcroft was, he did not have the support to run the times Mottram was dragged to. -
Moorcroft is essentially an athlete of the 70s and if you don't think he could have run 12:55 solo if he had either started the event earlier in his career or not been plagued by weird injuries, then I can't help you there.
Moorcroft didn't have any support or the need to run 13:00:41. -
HRE wrote:
Clarke also told me something that I have sometimes thought about myself and it factors into a discussion like this. He thinks that coaches can have an overall detremental influence on their athletes because they need to make themselves useful so they either consciously or sub-consciously create stressful situations that make their athletes dependent on them.
I don't know if I exactly agree with that. But I do think the idea that some people are pushing here, that training is this complicated, precise process and that you need some incredibly clever coach who can guide you through the process or you're doomed.
+1 -
We hear about the successes of the great coaches but has anyone done research into the failures of each of those great coaches. They have all had athletes who they messed up or overlooked giving some of the athletes they coached the proper help physically and/or mentally.
I think that to be a coach you must watch the athlete work out and alter workouts as needed. Otherwise you are an adviser. -
Again doesn't this only support the idea that "nothing new about distance training has been discovered since the 70's..."? If Moorcroft could run a solo 12:55, something no non-African has been able to do since, then there have been no real improvements.
SMJO wrote:
Moorcroft is essentially an athlete of the 70s and if you don't think he could have run 12:55 solo if he had either started the event earlier in his career or not been plagued by weird injuries, then I can't help you there.
Moorcroft didn't have any support or the need to run 13:00:41. -
You seem to have trouble reading. Moorcroft could have run 12:55 in the 70s if he trained like they do now. His 1982 time shows that his training was different from his contemporaries. Better.
People are far better at completely mastering a wide range of distances now. Up to the 70s people just kept moving up and their performances declined at the shorter distances.
Now we see guys run a huge range of distances going up and back down with ease.
Gebrselassie won a 1500m World title after being an Olympic Champion over 10km.
Training now is much more complete. -
Renato Canova wrote:
........
About what HRE tried with himself, we continue to see how people don't understand that is not possible to compare the training of an amateur, not able to produce quality for his objective lack of talent, with the training of a talented athlete.
If you are not fast, NEVER can become a champion. ............It's not possible to compare a racing horse with a horse may be stronger, but good for pulling a cart. They belong to the same family of animals, but are two different individuals.
So very likely the elite training methods may not work for the mid packers. Those hard long runs, intense long intervals, grueling long tempos should then be set aside? -
SMJO wrote:
You seem to have trouble reading. Moorcroft could have run 12:55 in the 70s if he trained like they do now. His 1982 time shows that his training was different from his contemporaries. Better.
If he would have run that time in the 70's had he started earlier, than he didn't discover anything after Jan 1 1980 right?
SMJO wrote:
People are far better at completely mastering a wide range of distances now. Up to the 70s people just kept moving up and their performances declined at the shorter distances.
Now we see guys run a huge range of distances going up and back down with ease.
Gebrselassie won a 1500m World title after being an Olympic Champion over 10km.
Training now is much more complete.
The evidence to support that is going to be very weak. The number of guys who could "easily range" down has always been few. Why would someone want to move down anyways? Gebrselassie only did it for world indoor. Didn't exist in the 1970's. -
How would you know, you weren't there. You weren't born yet.
-
SMJO wrote:
You seem to have trouble reading. Moorcroft could have run 12:55 in the 70s if he trained like they do now. His 1982 time shows that his training was different from his contemporaries. Better.
People are far better at completely mastering a wide range of distances now. Up to the 70s people just kept moving up and their performances declined at the shorter distances.
Now we see guys run a huge range of distances going up and back down with ease.
Gebrselassie won a 1500m World title after being an Olympic Champion over 10km.
Training now is much more complete.
Good analysis of Moorcroft training here beginning on page 6:http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdf
I have looked at many runners training from that period who could be considered Moorcroft contemporaries. Not sure why you think his was different or better. Him and his coach used lots of low key races for training as well FYI.
Good article on Brendan Foster as well. More westerners have forgotten how to train is a problem. -
HRE wrote:
[You're going to ignore my question about whether you really believe that someone like Mottram sent back in time and born in 1950 or so was going to produce the kinds of times he has if he was running in the 70s, aren't you?
Let´s imagine the opposite. Here´s the list of every 5000m WR from then 50s.
Do you really think that all that guys from the 50s but with Mottram training instead that what they did, wouldn´t run faster what they did ? Old cinder tracks...everything from the 50s but Mottram training instead.
13:57.2 Emil Zátopek (TCH) 1954-05-30 Paris, France
13:56.6 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1954-08-29 Bern, Switzerland
13:51.6 Chris Chataway (GBR) 1954-10-13 London, United Kingdom
13:51.2 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1954-10-23 Prague, Czechoslovakia
13:50.8 Sandor Iharos (HUN) 1955-09-10 Budapest, Hungary
13:46.8 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1955-09-18 Belgrad, Yugoslavia
13:40.6 Sandor Iharos (HUN) 1955-09-23 Budapest, Hungary
13:36.8 Gordon Pirie (GBR) 1956-06-19 Bergen, Norway
13:35.0 Vladimir Kuts (URS) 1957-10-13 Rome, Italy
Now go back and try the same exercise with Jim Peters or Popov both great WR marathon runners from the 50s and imagine that they did train under modern marathon methods like Wilson KIpsang.
2:20:42.2 Jim Peters United Kingdom, June 14, 1952
2:18:40.4 Jim Peters United Kingdom, June 13, 1953
2:18:34.8 Jim Peters United Kingdom October 4, 1953
2:17:39.4 Jim Peters United Kingdom, June 26, 1954
2:15:17.0 Sergei Popov Soviet Union, August 24, 1958
It´s so obvious that they will run faster to what they did in the 50s living and competing in the 50s but with actual training. -
Records improve as time goes on. Sometimes it's better training sometimes it's just that the guy who wants to set the record today has to run faster than the last guy did.
Peters' training was not very different from Steve Jones'. Plenty of milers before Bannister trained similarly or even better but didn't get under 4:00. And speaking of Mottram and his sub 13:00, Bideau said in an interview that there was "nothing special" about Mottram's training and that he, Bideau, thinks training he gives his athletes is the least valuable thing they get from him. -
A paced Moorcroft on that day would have been able to run 12.56-58. Moorcroft's training was not particularly unusual or different to his contempories.
He was the fastest 1500m runner to really have a red hot crack at the 5000m world record. Faster 1500m runner Said Aouita was able to lower it further to 12.58.
Mottram was a more talented distance runner than Moorcroft. He also was a 100% full time professional who probably covered those "one percenters" a bit better. He wasn't as talented as Aouita. Aouita's training program was crap. Had he trained like Moorcroft or Mottram he would have been able to run sub 12.50.
Clarke was not as talented at the mid-distances as Mottram. His best mile was just 4.00, perhaps worth 3.56-57 on today's tracks. He was never going to run comparitvely as fast as Mottram (3.48)(or Moorcroft (3.49)) over 5k.
His best time would perhaps be worth just 13.05 on today's tracks. He was a superior 10000m runner to Mottram though. Mottram's best was 27.34, Clarke ran 27.39 on a poor quality cinder track, having to run well away from the inside most of the way because of track deterioration. This was probably worth a 27.10-15 on today's tracks, this was run solo. Clarke felt it was his second best 10000m race.
Clarke was an amateur who worked. Travel to Europe from Australia was slow in those days. He would race frequently to make the trips worth his while.
Clarke didn't have access to the benefits of a professional athletes lifestyle. The small details that can make quite a difference to performance. His approach to training wasn't as refined as the modern day athletes.
He basically ran lots of mileage, often as progressive tempo type runs. A lot of this was on the turf of Caulfield racecourse and a lot was on the hilly roads (mostly dirt) and trails of the Dandenongs. He raced very frequently, at any distance that was available. He didn't do a great deal of interval type work because he raced so often.
He also did what we now call core work and other strength training. Not surprising as his big bro. was a champion Australian footballer.
Was his training ideal? Probably not. I wonder what Renato would have been able to do with a guy like Ron if he had him as a full time pro runner?
