Youngy,
To my knowledge there is very few if any stables that ‘religiously’ follow Jim Bradley’s methods.
Well, there are few where I come from 
So I doubt very much you have done the homework you say you have.
I doubt that your speculation about my homework may ever be correct
So if you are referring to my squad in Adelaide I suggest you go back to the drawing board and make a comparison of athlete’s performances before & after joining my squad. To suggest our results have been ‘ordinary’ is ridiculous and pretty insulting.
Never been to Adelaide Youngy, and was not referring to you at all.
After coaxing him out of retirement and only half a winter, he won 5 pro races, over 3 grand in prizemoney, and ended up SAAL sprinter of the year. In his few runs in the amateurs he recorded PB’s of 21.98 and 10.99 PB’s.
That’s about right. My argument is that with Bradley’s methods you will always have well conditioned, lean, and overall powerful and ready athletes BUT not TOP or ELITE sprinters.
I’m more than happy with what I’ve learned from Jim Bradley and applying that knowledge accordingly.
Youngy, you got me wrong. Didn’t think of your stable at all when I was writing my previous response to you.
If you do not mind, and when you get a chance, would you be so kind to enlighten me providing answers on those questions?
[i]
Is it true that many pro runners flocked to Bradley over a few decades after there was an initial breakthrough with one of his champions and that Bradley wasn’t the one to identify them or select them?
( Further comment - let’s think of Glen Mills now. He does not need to travel the world scouting for athletes. The best will come to him. The same, I believe happened with Bradley. Therefore, it made his work (selection) much easier. Therefore the greater chance of success.)
Would you say that from such a vast number of willing participants Bradley’s chances to produce more fast runners were increased?
How many pro runners, or other runners in general under Bradley did not make it to an average level?
How many pro athletes apart from Bradley’s stable during the 60’s and the 70’s had followed well structured and planned training program over 6 days a week? [/i]
(Further comment - Think of AFL players during the same period and of today. Many of them back then just played games with little or no conditioning training. Any of AFL players of today would absolutely destroy those that played during the 60’s or 70’s. Why? You know why. Bradley only was among the first to introduce a more comprehensive training that would include strength and conditioning…athletes were better prepared and one could notice greater improvement during this initial period…then as they’ve achieved PBs they also achieved stagnation and were not in a position to improve further.)