I confess to debating this particular point very often. IQ100/Antonio Cabral also debates it, but his wording is very frank and shocking at times. I understand why people get upset at him. But saying, publicly, that he is me, still warrants an apology, and I'm still waiting.
On a basic level, this debate is ridiculous, because we all love running, so what's the big deal? Sheesh! However....
....I am intensely interested, as a student of this sport, in historical accuracy. I cannot understand why, time and time again, "Lydiardism" has been ascribed to something that is NOT Lydiard. Arguments are often made that this or that runner follows a Lydiard Program, when careful srutiny shows otherwise. Arguments are also often made for direct influence of Lydiard, when again, careful scrutiny shows otherwise.
I don't want someone to tell me that the Norman Invasion of England in 1066 is directly responsible for the production of the Austin Mini.
Now, because I debate this, CK, HRE, Nobby, and now Keith will tell me that I am jealous/defensive of Lydiardism, or somehow hateful towards this great man who achieved so much. Keith now wants to say, publicly, that I will pounce on someone if they deviate from a schedule that is written in a book. How he can come to such a conclusion is beyond my comprehension.
So, backtracking a little, we heard that Oz is now a Lydiard Disciple. I don't understand this statement at all. Perhaps Oz will see this, and state that he is indeed a Lydiard Disciple, and I will be the Dumbass. Until then, I'm going by what I know about the Lydiard Principles, and what I know about Steve's training, which was posted on a now defunct UVic Running site over the course of many weeks, a couple of years ago.
I want to know why JB did 6x1600m in 4:48, when somewhat out of shape, and very early in a macrocycle.
I want to know how, as much as I'm very greatful to see him there, 52 x CVRRTNW per year makes Keith a Lydiard Disciple.
Please list the main Lydiard Principles. Does the Lydiard Program have specific ideals and boundaries? I think it does. (If you are brave, read parts of that letsrun thread that I linked.) Why do we keep hearing from some people that Lydiard is responsible for things that other people in history are in fact responsible for? Why do we keep hearing that something is Lydiardism, when another influence would more accurately and truthfully decribe it? Why do we say that some people are following a Lydiard Program when they are not?
I have my own answers to why these things occur, and they jive with the basic premise that Antonio/IQ100 states. There are some very overzealous people who want to overlook history and definitions.
I know this is going to cause some people to have a fit. I try to be respectful in these debates. But there is so much emotion in it for those who disagree with my views.
Over the last few months I've quit a couple of running forums. I spend way too much time doing things like this, which become very draining, hahaha. I don't want this wonderful place to become Letsrun II, and I think my being here, debating the way that I do, will cause that to happen. My email is linked in the CVRRTNW page. I am the club coach, and like any coach, I have a certain style, and a certain belief system.
In closing, Lydiard was a Giant. He did wonderful things, and his influence is monumental. But he was a link in the chain. Many things happened before Lydiard, and many things happened after. There are countless great developments in running history, and Lydiard was a PART of that. Some people want to keep debating that he was much more than just a part, if not the whole. When I talk about training and racing and world events, I like to be accurate in defining influences and methods. To be otherwise is irresponsible and insulting to those who also contributed.