the problem often on these boards is that people make assumptions by interpreting partial information that gets given in one interview or one article. then they have a personal emotional reaction to an interpretation of an assumption.
If the initial assumption is wrong, then all of the interpretations and emotional reactions are subsequently wrong also.
Lydiard didn't create running, or large volume of running, nor did he pretend to. Lydiard did use the information he gathered to design a training program that became popular because high level people used it and had success. I don't study it enough, but I am guessing there are lots of people who try "Lydiard" training and don't improve. I am sure there were people that trained WITH LYDIARD himself and didn't see the same improvements as others. Doesn't make Lydiard wrong or a failure. And there are probably people of lesser talent that improve using Lydiard styles of training, but they aren't fast enough to garner attention.
Coe didn't create training at a variety of paces, but Coe can explain why he chooses to use that method based on his experience. It isn't magical, and some have success with it, some don't.
Daniels didn't create tempo running or interval training, but he did label them using a new term. Daniels can explain why he feels these to be beneficial, and slightly different than how other people choose to train.
Those coaches also grew and matured over time with experience. They also were human and had personality quirks that could be described at some points as egotistical or self promoting because they were explaining what they did, and why they felt it was successful, and why they didn't choose another way because they felt their interpretation was better than other alternatives. If someone else feels differently, then it would be easy to at that point be critical and even call them names.
There are HS and D3 coaches that are wildly successful at their level, but the results aren't sexy enough to garner the kind of attention that wakes up the message board trolls.
Tom Schwartz has degrees in exercise science. As do many other people. Tom Schwartz loves the sport of running, and studies it, and wants to help people be better. As do many other people.
Tom Schwartz has spent time studying and coaching and likes a certain way of training, and he can explain it to you. As we all do as coaches to some degree. Each of us as coaches has learned something from somewhere else. The accumulation of our influences and our own personal touches make each of us coach in a unique way, even if heavily modeled after someone else.
Tom Schwartz didn't "invent" anything, just like Lydiard, Coe, Daniels, or anyone else. Tom Schwartz did study and make observations, and conclusions....just like all other coaches. He found something he likes and gave it a name, because he thinks it is slightly different. Through his studies, experiments and conclusions he arrived at some formulas he likes. Once using the formulas to come up with a training pace, as a way to explain it he says it is close to 10k pace, or close to 90% VO2max. Other coaches and athletes can understand 10k pace or 90%Vo2max a lot easier than being taken step by step through the process that arrived at CV. I don't find this much different than the way the Daniels arrives at some of his paces and terminology. Daniels himself can and does explain his paces, as does Tom when asked.
Every marathoner needs to sprint and jog and every pace in between, with or without a label. Every sprinter needs to jog and sprint fully and every pace inbetween with or without a label. How much of each any athlete does is the art of coaching. If someone coaches it slightly differently, and has success, it will be noticed, and on letsrun, it will be criticized.
So like Aaron Rodgers said. R E L A X. Listen, learn, agree, disagree, but damn, just R E L A X and there is no need to be disrespectful.