You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

The Light
RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
I didn't understand CraigMac4h to be on your side. In spite of all your words, I'm still not sure you've shown that anything is "wrong", "inadequate", "inconsistent", or "contradictory". If "outdated" just means old, or that no one is doing it anymore, I still don't know if that is significant.

With respect to "They wanted to spread their truth and get back the approval of all the rest even from those who don´t agree with them". Lydiard enthusiasts believe the system is the best, and want to spread what they believe is a good thing, and hope others see it the same way, but I hardly believe they are waiting to get back your approval.

Lydiard gave us a package, and said, if you do this, it works, and he explained why the package is the way it is. Although everything in the package already existed, he was the first one to come with that specific package. The package itself allows for a great deal of adaptation to the athletes, so quite often, what people might call "modified" Lydiard, is still the same package.

Now if you take that package, and take out some stuff, and replace it with other stuff, you have a different package. What can we say:
- Although the new package may have a lot of common with the Lydiard package, it is not a Lydiard package.
- Success with the new package does not disprove the Lydiard package. You can not assume, and certainly have not proved, that there was anything wrong with the stuff taken out of the Lydiard package, or the whole package itself.

If you look at all of the successful packages that there are, you could prioritize which elements are the important, and which are not. Lydiard said a lot of things but surely some are more important than others.

For example, taking aerobic development, periodicity, hill work, and coordination out will leave you with a pretty empty package.

But it should be possible to take small elements, like "Lydiard lacing" out of the package, and not suffer too much negative impact on performance development (assuming that doesn't contribute to a foot injury), and still have a pretty package.

Regards,


IQ100 wrote:

Thanks CraigMac4h
With your post perseverance and and my own we were able to allow Lydiardism and all the rest that "the king is naked".
I ever knew that i´m not alone on the Lydiard method crticism the one of Lydiardism.
Ther´s no democracy of opinion without a fair debate. They can´t spread his own vision of the Lydiardism without the contradictory. That´s what some Lydiardism they want to avoid. They wanted to spread their truth and get back the approval of all the rest even from those who don´t agree with them.
The Lydiardism ultimate argument is based in an emotional and sentimental attach to the Lydiard The Man Lydiard The Coach and his memory. I respect Lydiard, and i think that we all do. Simply this is not enough to let pass what´s wrong, or outdate innadequate inconsistent contradictory.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.