|
Paul Petersen
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2008, 06:02:17 pm » |
|
Also, some people were great runners in spite of how they lived and trained, not because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dale
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2008, 06:32:23 pm » |
|
Modern day case-in-point of that is Usain Bolt...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2008, 07:20:34 pm » |
|
I don't disagree that great or lengenday runners are blessed with the right genes, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that hard training isn't a factor either. Years of dedicated work involved. Derek Clayton didn't break 3 hours in his first marathon, but eventually made it to 2:08 in 1969. His training was no different then what is applied to today's great runners.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2008, 02:56:09 pm » |
|
Peters could only run 2:18, and that on a good day. When racing Zatopek he lost even though Zatopek was tired from 5000/10000 double, had never previously run a marathon, and could only pull off a 2:23. Back in the 50s in order to win you had to have a moderate measure of talent, do some reasonable, but not necessarily optimal training, and show up at a race. Nowadays it is not enough. As more and more people are running, things are getting more competitive. Several things have to come together at a high level to be a champion nowadays. And it is probably going to get more competitive in the future. Eventually a champion will not be able to get away with even a little mistake either in training or recovery because the moment he does he will be pushed off the podium by somebody of equal natural ability who does not make that mistake.
We should however give credit to the pioneers of running for breaking the ground for us. One thing I admire about Clayton is that he introduced the concept of marathon being a long sprint where you start hard and keep pushing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kory Wheatley
|
|
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2008, 11:09:57 pm » |
|
To kind of twist the doubles thing. Do you find it more beneficial doing a double run in the morning than lunch, or morning and then evening? Or does this really matter? I really haven't see a difference other than I might feel more fresher in the evening. Only because there's more hours in for recovery.
What times do the elite runner's do their doubles?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Petersen
|
|
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2008, 07:17:45 am » |
|
Kory - I don't think it matters too much. Yeah, I prefer morning-evening because of more rest, but I've done it both ways. The biggest factor is probably just getting it to work with your own schedule and balancing other things.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2008, 08:20:33 am » |
|
Sasha - I disagree in that Peters or Edelen did more than just "some reasonable" training. Take a look at their running logs. Now, I do agree that he might not have been training "optimal" because they didn't have enough easy running. However, to infer that the running pioneers from the 50s onward were just a bunch of talented wonders that didn't train as hard as great runners of today is way off base. Not to mention, great runners today simply know more now and have more now then runners did back then in terms of training (science, tapering, nutrition, recovery, altitude, new equipment, etc.). Finish times don't tell the whole story.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Greg Harris
Lurker
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2008, 01:14:20 pm » |
|
I have only started running doubles a few weeks ago and I can notice a difference in my fitness. I wanted to jump up to closer to 80+ miles from 60-70. Running doubles seemed like the most logical way to do it. Talking to people like Logan, Dave, and Clyde and getting advice from them as well as reading advice from people like Paul, Jon, and others have really helped my training and confidence. Doubles take a lot of dedication and discipline, but I will make them a part of my training cycles from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2008, 03:17:24 pm » |
|
Bob - they were not even that talented compared to what you see on the roads today. But they were the pioneers. With that comes the challenge of discovering what works but also the privilege of not having to race those with more talent who are using the effective methods that have already been discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2008, 04:21:55 pm » |
|
Sasha - I understand what you are saying, but using your logic means that great runners of today will be proved "not even that talented" as finish times continue to get faster and new records are set. I simply see the great runners of the past just as talented and hard training as those today.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2008, 07:26:46 pm » |
|
Bob - possibly. I hope so but, we do not always move upwards. But if so, then we have to face the truth about our current level of fitness and knowledge of running.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
