You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
RE: LYDIARD OR DANIELS?
I am pretty sure this is a losing battle. Part of me wants to respond to 'him' part not. ....well okay not really....
There is no benefit to proving this guy wrong, you have already proven him wrong anyway. It will be nearly impossible for him to become man-enough to admit to being a complete and utter moron. He is doing this for reasons well outside of good old fashioned logic.
I beleive the tally is 17 Olympic Gold medals. Now if that be the case, I wonder how many major event gold medals he coached?
Or how many Olympians he coached, some who didn't place top three, but still made the show and all the other big shows?
17 Oly Gold - I wonder if that projects out to 50 or 150 medals in all major events, directly coached? Or perhaps 400 or 500 appearances in major games? Directly and indirectly coached...or more?
How about athletes he indirectly influenced we never hear about?
Culpepper, Daws, Moller, Dixon, Viren...are obvious.
I know a 2:16 marathoner (aspiring to greater things) who just signed a poster for me who said, "we are all born Lydiard athletes..."
The comment goes further but I think he is suggesting it is simply human physiology in the works, which hasn't changed in thousands upon thousands of years if ever.
I talk to good to excellent athletes all the time who are inspired by Lydiard or others who adapted the method, like one guy who is near Olympic calibre who follows Daws, who followed Lydiard.
Or Jon Brown, European 10, 000 metre record holder, 2 x 4th place marathon Olympics....going to Beijing...I have a podcast of him saying:
"There hasn't been anyone since Lydiard".
"I wouldn't be the runner I am today without Lydiard".
...what about Ryan Hall, his dad attended Lydiard clinic(s) and met the man and was the first coach of his son.
As discussed throughout this thread, African runners happen to build a huge aerobic base through lifestyle. This, just as Lydiard had athletes do. How can this overwhelming proof be debated at all?
Anyone can argue the benefits of Lydiard with logical points, perhaps to improve it or undersand what Lydiard meant, because he was not always perfectly clear and his scientific terminology wasn't perfect, but it takes a real idiot to completely denounce the irrefutable proof from people who knew Lydiard personally and know the system better than anyone else.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.