Did the Beijing WC prove that Arthur Lydiard method is outdated?

the size principle is nearly as outdated as Lydiard

have you read anything published in the past 30 years?

Snell was fast in spite of Lydiard, not because of him.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Snell was fast in spite of Lydiard, not because of him.

Snell doesn't think that, but you know better than he does?

Have the distance finalists line up and sprint 400m.

My guess is that our guys would match or surpass the Africans in an open 400m.

The ability to close a race fast has more to do with endurance training than speed training. If your open 400 is 51 and you can close the end of a race in 52 that is a direct result of your endurance.

Dive even deeper. If you can run 100m in 15s you have all the speed needed to run a 45s 400m. Of course that's not practical, but it conveys my point.

Speed at the end of a race is almost never about speed. If you can run 13:00 then you will close faster at the end of a tactical 14:00 5k vs a runner who's best is only 14:00.

Alan

HardLoper wrote:

Didn't Peter Snell run the last 220y of his 3:54 WR in 24.5 seconds... on a dirt track. Sure, most runners today would blow the doors off Snell. Keep telling yourself that.

No, he didn't and he was gassed at the end and supported by the second and third place guys.

Kiprop pursed his lips and smirked while cavorting about after running way faster.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Dive even deeper. If you can run 100m in 15s you have all the speed needed to run a 45s 400m. Of course that's not practical, but it conveys my point.

Alan

no, it really isn't.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Snell was fast in spite of Lydiard, not because of him.

Snell doesn't think that, but you know better than he does?

Why didn't Lydiard make more Snells?

lovely lady trumps wrote:

TruthSayer wrote:

All the aerobic mileage in the world can't help you run that 51 second 400m that Kiprop dropped.

I read this and literally injured myself laughing so hard.

This. Clearly the OP doesn't have any background in physiology.

nope a dope wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Didn't Peter Snell run the last 220y of his 3:54 WR in 24.5 seconds... on a dirt track. Sure, most runners today would blow the doors off Snell. Keep telling yourself that.

No, he didn't and he was gassed at the end and supported by the second and third place guys.

Kiprop pursed his lips and smirked while cavorting about after running way faster.

Okay, it was the other time Peter Snell ran 3:54. 52" final lap, 24.5" final 220y, easing up at the end. What was Kiprop's final 200 yesterday?

The fundamental principle of Lydiard style training is periodization.

Every athlete still uses that principle, so no, it's not outdated.

wiggo wrote:

Why didn't Lydiard make more Snells?

Ummmmm...

" Lydiard's athletes—including Murray Halberg, Peter Snell, Barry Magee and John Davies—were ready to challenge the world, winning six Olympic medals amongst them in the 1960 Rome Olympics and the 1964 Tokyo Olympics."

And,

...the work he did in the late 1960s in Finland is generally acknowledged to have led to the renaissance in Finnish distance running in the 1970s (with Pekka Vasala winning gold in the 1500 metres at the 1972 Munich Olympics and Lasse Virén winning gold in both the 5000 metres and 10,000 metres at the 1972 Olympics and the 1976 Montreal Olympics)...

Lydiard Disciple wrote:

wiggo wrote:

Why didn't Lydiard make more Snells?

Ummmmm...

" Lydiard's athletes—including Murray Halberg, Peter Snell, Barry Magee and John Davies—were ready to challenge the world, winning six Olympic medals amongst them in the 1960 Rome Olympics and the 1964 Tokyo Olympics."

And,

...the work he did in the late 1960s in Finland is generally acknowledged to have led to the renaissance in Finnish distance running in the 1970s (with Pekka Vasala winning gold in the 1500 metres at the 1972 Munich Olympics and Lasse Virén winning gold in both the 5000 metres and 10,000 metres at the 1972 Olympics and the 1976 Montreal Olympics)...

None of those guys from NZ ran Snell like times. Lydiard didn't actually coach those Finnish guys.

HardLoper wrote:

nope a dope wrote:

No, he didn't and he was gassed at the end and supported by the second and third place guys.

Kiprop pursed his lips and smirked while cavorting about after running way faster.

Okay, it was the other time Peter Snell ran 3:54. 52" final lap, 24.5" final 220y, easing up at the end. What was Kiprop's final 200 yesterday?

Link to that 52 split please?

If you think a 3:26 guy compares to a 3:37 guy I don't know what to say.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Snell was fast in spite of Lydiard, not because of him.

I had a long lunch with Snell about 25 years ago and quizzed him extensively as to his thoughts about Lydiard's method. He was absolutely emphatic that his success was due to Lydiard. He said that if he had to do it again, knowing what he knew then about physiology (he's a PhD in Physio, remember), that he would use Lydiard's method.

Looby wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Snell was fast in spite of Lydiard, not because of him.

I had a long lunch with Snell about 25 years ago and quizzed him extensively as to his thoughts about Lydiard's method. He was absolutely emphatic that his success was due to Lydiard. He said that if he had to do it again, knowing what he knew then about physiology (he's a PhD in Physio, remember), that he would use Lydiard's method.

Snell already had speed before Lydiard helped him. That's the point.

It's still basic talent that makes champions, not their training methodology.

it's interesting that Snell actually performed terribly in true endurance events.

Hard to say without knowing how everyone trained. Asbel Kiprop doesn't do aerobic training?The Lydiard method incorporates speed training too -- you can't blame the Lydiard method if the finishing speed is under-developed for the important race.

TruthSayer wrote:

Even if Jenny Simpson's shoe had been left on she would have gotten destroyed in the last 800m. She trains more aerobically than most.

All the aerobic mileage in the world can't help you run that 51 second 400m that Kiprop dropped.

It's speed and lots of it that is proving to be the difference maker. Centrowitz found that out in the last 300m when a whole host of athletes blew by him. Tempo runs after a race ain't helping you here, son.

lost in the 60s today wrote:

Lydiard Disciple wrote:

Ummmmm...

" Lydiard's athletes—including Murray Halberg, Peter Snell, Barry Magee and John Davies—were ready to challenge the world, winning six Olympic medals amongst them in the 1960 Rome Olympics and the 1964 Tokyo Olympics."

And,

...the work he did in the late 1960s in Finland is generally acknowledged to have led to the renaissance in Finnish distance running in the 1970s (with Pekka Vasala winning gold in the 1500 metres at the 1972 Munich Olympics and Lasse Virén winning gold in both the 5000 metres and 10,000 metres at the 1972 Olympics and the 1976 Montreal Olympics)...

None of those guys from NZ ran Snell like times. Lydiard didn't actually coach those Finnish guys.

He asked for more "Snells." I s'pose I thought we were talking about the ability to win an Olympic Gold Medal. Training an athlete to win the races that matter. You know, a coach's job...

Doing aerobic training doesn't constitute being Lydiard training.

Everyone does aerobics wrote:

Doing aerobic training doesn't constitute being Lydiard training.

This post has some merit. Following a Lydiard schedule is different from doing aerobic training, sure.

The point is that Lydiard pioneered high mileage and periodized training.

Peoples' schedules are different than Lydiard, yes. But what you're going to find consistently is that the training for most athletes follows a similar program of easier aerobic work followed by more race specific work. And often this formula is done with very high mileage.

Didn't Salazar say Farah does 115 miles a week? He also does speed. This is not in direct opposition to Lydiard at all. The specifics changed but the big picture did not.