Nobby and HRE have said it far better than I.
Nobby is correct when he said Arthur did not like being labled the "100 mile a week man".
This country is littered with athletes who ran weeks, months and years of 100 miles a week. I saw Training Diary totals of Clubmates that had at least 5000 miles a year in them. Did they run well ? Not really.
Many athletes find it easy to just get out and run miles, they don't want to do the Hill Sessions or the Track work.( Too Hard !)
Nobby has already eluded to that.
Arthur found that really frustrating as his name got attached to their efforts.(They thought they were doing "Lydiard work")
I Coached a Masters runner 20 years ago who had limited time on his hands. We managed every year to put together 75 to 90 miles a week for 10 to 12 weeks and than we basically ran Hill work and Track schedules. I deviated somewhat in the actual workouts but that was tied in with his workload.
One year, In an Auckland Championship he ran 50:10 for 10 miles. Just ahead of him up the road was a Club mate who ran 49:50. People were elated that this guy had run 49:50 and asked me if I was disappointed that my athlete was beaten.
I stated "On the Contrary, I feel our effort was far better".
I was looked at as though I was an alien.
I then said "We have averaged 50 miles a week in actual mileage over the last 10 weeks. To beat us Pete has averaged 140 miles a week for the last 10 weeks"
"Which athlete got the better return for the time and training investment ??"
When Arthur heard about that he laughed ( He knew the Guy I coached very well)and said "It is all about balancing the Training, you got it right they got it wrong. The man should not have been running that sort of mileage at that time. He needed to be fresh to race.!!"
Some may say : But your athlete was beaten. True, But then he was 10 years older than the other guy and had opted to run against the "young guys" rather than fellow masters. He was happy with the result as was I.
Apologies for the ramble !!!
Keep this thread going !!!!