Great canova article

Renato Canova wrote:

About Luciano Gigliotti and Giorgio Rondelli, I think I was clear explaining that Lucio was the coach of Bordin and Baldini, but we worked together for about 17 years. And, about Rondelli, nobody of the athletes I named was coached by Giorgio : he was the coach of Alberto Cova (world and Olympic champion of 10000m) and Francesco Panetta (world champion of 3000 steeple), and of several other top runners not so famous (in the marathon, his best athlete was Goffi, 5th in OG 1996).

So, everybody of us is aware of what he did and the athletes he coached. Instead, doesn't seem you were aware of what you wrote.

I did not make the comment about Gigliotti and Rondelli so actually it's you who's not aware of what I wrote here.

HRE wrote:

But he did have success coaching Finns and none of the athletes he coached were nearly as fast when they started with him as the Kenyans Renato coaches are when they start with him.

Did Lydiard's Finns end up as fast as Renato's athletes?

HRE wrote:

I've said on this thread and many others that I don't think there is much that's new in the training of distance runners and I would include what Renato does in that comment.

Many, many others.... THIS is the comment that invariably sends Antonio into outer orbit. :) I wonder what Lydiard would have made of it?

I don't wonder what Lydiard would have made of it. I've discussed it with him.

HRE

You usual paranoid obsession for the Lydiardism is infinite.

You don´t want just to prove that everybody is Lydiard, you turn on every Letsrun.com thread subject as a Lydiard propaganda.

The usual paranoid-obsession by Lydiardism that is known long ago on LetsRun.com or everywhere.

Not long ago, i and Nobby Lydiard Foundation representative, we share some personal emails. One of the questions i remember quite well that Nobby asks me is this one: does Carlos Lopes used to be a Lydiard ? Typical and meaning answe,r don´t you think ?

Not so long ago Wetcoast/Keshall that pseudo-journalist did the interview that Renato Canova refers while try to prove that james Li the coach of Bernard Lagat trains by the Lydiard method. Silly conclusion, result from paranoid-obsessive Lydiardism as well as training ignorance. But more important, not factual

Actually, once again you come with the idea that the Finns from the early 70 did Lydiard. It´s not true. As you know Juko Kuha the early 3000m steeple WR, never did Lydiard. Juha Vaatainen was self coached and in many occasions refused the benefit of the Lydiard method.

Viren as you might know as you were been in Finland, he was coached by R. Haikolla, and if the Lydiard influence is undeniable we can´t say that Viren was coached by Lydiard, that is ignorance. Viren major success comes after that Lydiard did work for the Finn Federation and Lydiard never lead Viren training sessions. Just a distant influence not a present and direct influence.

The same with Pekka Pavarinta that was coached by Haikola as well asn the same relate with Tapio Kantanen that had the same Finn coach ever.

With Pekka Vasala, it did happen a funny thing that i did resume on several occasions on this board. He did win the 1500m in the 72 olympics by his Finn coach, that was Lydiard influenced, but then 2 years later he did come close to Lydiard the man in NZ for a long period of training coached directly by Lydiard. But it was a poor season that one. He was just 6th on the european champs in 74 in Rome. This shows how good and out of success was been Lydiard DIRECT training in some occasions.

Finally the other ones like Maninka and the drugged Vaino - caugh with drugs, if they were been coached by the Lydiard method they were winned by many other runners from the same period.

Resuming. You lie one again and you are unfactual once again. You keep on going to see the training with 2 weights and 2 measures. If you comment on Lydiard everything is beautiful and success. When it´s not Lydiard everything seems to be weak training.

Then the Lydiardists on this board, you say that i´m obsessed to comment on Lydiard. When will continue to exist and post tendentious Lydiardism as you are one and Wetcoast/Keshall is another, i will continue to comment on your Lydiard obsession.

I taught that when Lydiard did built his training late 50s- 60s what he did was a breakthrough to the "traditional method" from the past decades. Actually you say the that most of the training of success is by the traditional method.

Of course that you don´t see nothing new and you never will. your training understand did start continues and ends on Lydiardism. Everything that you see on the recent training was done by Lydiard long ago, even the kind of training that Lydiard never did and the kind of training that Lydiard didn´t knew. Or is that Lydiard did all kind of training.

Intervals during the winter as Salazar does. What really matters, it´s Lydiard training. Despite Nobby says it´s not Lydiard what really matters, it´sLydiard as well.

Skip the long run ? Lydiard did miss the long run

More than 100miles ! Lidiard prescribes it.

Different season periodisation ? What really matters. Lydiard agrees with it.

Etc...Etc...Etc Your training sentence might be resumed "everything is Lydiard"

It looks like people are attempting to argue about training in this thread only because they've taken antagonistic viewpoints on subjects outside of training. Some want to argue about whether or not Canova could have success with not so talented athletes but that is secondary to the discussion of training. Like HRE said, what Canova does is not all that different from what Lydiard would have done. Canova doesn't seem to disagree with that. And yet there is still this back and forth tension between two people who don't seem to really disagree.

HRE wrote:

I don't wonder what Lydiard would have made of it. I've discussed it with him.

Okay, I'll bite. What did Lydiard have to say about Renato?

Sorry who are you? Ad far as i can tell you are a poor copy of Canova. Poor in understanding and poor in creating athletes. And i don't rate Canova because his system is founded on what lab physiologists and chemists advocate. So what does that make you Mr Cabral? A copy of a copy?

BrandonStark wrote: Some want to argue about whether or not Canova could have success with not so talented athletes but that is secondary to the discussion of training

Is it? In Canova's case it is central to understanding his situation and cannot be ignored in any analysis.

And it can be simply understood. Before Kenya, Mr Canova had no success with his own countrymen. Outside of Kenya, where is the success of Canova?

Let's also look at Canova's ability to peak athletes correctly. How did his athletes fare in London is a question that is very relevant.

Why is working with talented athletes a bad thing? Do you criticize NFL coaches for not working with the local high school teams?

Azaleas wrote:

Why is working with talented athletes a bad thing? Do you criticize NFL coaches for not working with the local high school teams?

It's not, if you deserve it. Canova doesn't. He failed for 20 years in his home country. That is all i need to know.

ps how did Renato's legion of Kenyan talent fare in London?

Ola, Antonio. Relax, HRE is not Lydiard. ;) Anyway, we are discussing Renato's article here, as against "traditional" marathon training.When I think of "traditional" marathon training, I think of something like Hal Higdon, which I have used. (Perhaps HRE will disagree with me here, but I see this as NOT a Lydiard training plan.)http://halhigdon.com/training/51142/Marathon-Advanced-2-Training-Program

Jshsg wrote:

Who has used traditional marathon training philosophies and had positive results?

To answer the OP, my result that marathon, although a PR by 31 minutes, was quite a bit slower than 2:05, so I don't know if Higdon's plan is as good as Canova's. Give me another 5 years of building an aerobic house and I might be ready to give Canova a shot. I'll be 61 then, so I might also be ready for an easy chair.

Good point, but I meant that if we want to talk about training then I primarily want to see a discussion on the meat and potatoes of the training, what is actually being done. It seems to me that a lot of this talk of Canova's athletes and why he chooses who he does was being done to try to discredit him, not to better understand and critique his training. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no person in this thread has pointed to something in Canova's training philosophy and said "I disagree with that".

Random edit caused me to mis-state my age, sorry. I'll be 56, not ready for an easy chair I hope.

How does turning this thread into (yet another) Canova/Lydiard debate advance training knowledge? What's the practical upshot of such a debate?

To my mind, the best contribution that Canova has made has been in the introduction of new concepts to the vocabulary of coaches and athletes. It is obvious that this is also important for Canova, as he usually capitalizes essential concepts. INTENSITY - EXTENSION - GENERAL - SPECIFIC - STIMULUS -ADAPTATION - etc.

As Nietzsche wrote, concepts are made for cutting, and a new vocabulary of training allows us to carve up training differently, see it freshly, and perhaps understand it more fully -- or at least from a different angle. That's a contribution. Every coach knows that the concepts are what's most essential to intelligent training -- the workouts are produced on the basis of the application of those concepts.

Lydiard had a different array of concepts -- AEROBIC, ANAEROBIC, EFFORT, BASE, - etc. Are these still useful -- definitely!

please explain wrote:

It's not, if you deserve it. Canova doesn't. He failed for 20 years in his home country. That is all i need to know.

ps how did Renato's legion of Kenyan talent fare in London?

I don't know all his athletes off-hand, but Kirui was 2nd.

BrandonStark wrote:

Good point, but I meant that if we want to talk about training then I primarily want to see a discussion on the meat and potatoes of the training, what is actually being done. It seems to me that a lot of this talk of Canova's athletes and why he chooses who he does was being done to try to discredit him, not to better understand and critique his training. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no person in this thread has pointed to something in Canova's training philosophy and said "I disagree with that".

I'm with you on this, however, in the past my attempts at doing this have been constantly thwarted by that Portuguese guy up above.

One of the problems i have with Canova is his training doesn't have a cyclical nature, which is one of the fundamentals. He also doesn't observe the standard recovery cycle of 48 hours. Furthermore, these concepts he supposedly created are in fact age-old. Short to long and long to short are two of the most used methods in training, dating far back.

BrandonStark wrote:

... I primarily want to see a discussion on the meat and potatoes of the training, what is actually being done. ... no person in this thread has pointed to something in Canova's training philosophy and said "I disagree with that".

Phil Latter wrote:

EXTEND THE WORKOUTS IN THIS BUILDUP AND BEYOND, BUT DO SO AT YOUR OWN PACE

Twelve weeks out from the marathon, you may find yourself capable of running 10 miles at 95 percent of your goal marathon pace. Three weeks later you should be able to run 12 miles, then 15, then 17.

http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=26792

I agree with that. It's a good way to train.

Someone help me out here, I think 95% means 5% SLOWER than marathon pace. Correct? How to do the actual calculation was missing, another defect in the article.

please explain wrote:

I'm with you on this, however, in the past my attempts at doing this have been constantly thwarted by that Portuguese guy up above.

One of the problems i have with Canova is his training doesn't have a cyclical nature, which is one of the fundamentals. He also doesn't observe the standard recovery cycle of 48 hours. Furthermore, these concepts he supposedly created are in fact age-old. Short to long and long to short are two of the most used methods in training, dating far back.

But Canova's training does have a cyclical nature, according to Canova's own explanations. It follows Canova's view of periodization, not Lydiard's.

And the notion of a standard 48 -hour recovery cycle is really only a rule of thumb.