Who would you put on a "wasted talents" calendar?

While a high percentage of the nation-leading high schoolers from California, going back 40 years, could be put on this list; is that fair or....could it just be that they peaked early due to year round training since 8th grade?

Steve Prefontaine.

Myself.

Alistar Cragg

Granville and Magness are not wasted talents. If anything they were overachievers who happened to max out in high school. You might as well say that everyone who went to York (except for Bakken and Sage) and Saratoga were wasted talents.

why can't you say that York and Saratoga are a bunch of overachievers who maxed out in high school?

Seneca Lassiter

1. How can you judge who's got talent.

2. These people are certainly not wasted talents, as each of them achieved a lot at some point in their career.

facebook stocker wrote:

Granville and Magness are not wasted talents. If anything they were overachievers who happened to max out in high school. You might as well say that everyone who went to York (except for Bakken and Sage) and Saratoga were wasted talents.

You have to say that Sage was a wasted talent. 4 flat in high school and very little since. And the past few weeks news in the 5k should tell you something about Bakken. He had all the talent in the world, but he was on the pseudo science diet, like Magness, and on top of that believed, like most Europeans and a lot of Americans, in African physical superiority. He was psyched out before ever getting on the track. 13:06 could have been 12:56 with a little belief, and maybe some better training partners.

Allen Webb

not a york fan wrote: why can't you say that York and Saratoga are a bunch of overachievers who maxed out in high school?

I agree; they totally are, but overachieving is a good thing. I have massive respect for Magness, Granville, and the runners from York and Saratoga who did nothing after graduating high school. I believe that they came closer to their absolute potential than 99% of college scholarship runners.

of course, I am hesitant to say that any of these runners had 'wasted talent' since their careers destroy mine, but for me, I am primarily asking the question, "under ideal circumstances, could they have run much faster than their actual PRs?"

So for people like Granville, Magness, the Dettmans, Lindsay Ferguson, Zoe Nelson, etc., the answer for me is no. They have pretty much run nearly as fast as I would ever expect them to run.

This is in contrast to some of the people on the threadstarter's list like Caitlin Chock, Yong-Sung Leal, and Amber Trotter who I believe still have the potential to run much faster if suitably motivated.

Deer Adam Goucher,

Shannon Butler. Huge talent completely wasted. NCAA champion and US National 10,000 champion then he became a complete drunk. Tried to get back into the game but never got back to top form. Oh and lets not forget how he ruined Vicki Huber's career as well.

What if someone decides to focus on talents other than running, should they be categorized in group that wasted talent?

Is Danielle Tauro up to much these days?

Let me tell you something - Vicki was no angel either. It takes 2 to f*** up 2.

Shutterfly wrote:

Is Danielle Tauro up to much these days?

I ran 4:18/2:08 last year.

All-American indoors on the DMR; led off and ran 3:23 on that leg.

Won the Michigan Open yesterday.

Mr. Conundrum wrote:

What if someone decides to focus on talents other than running, should they be categorized in group that wasted talent?

Yes, of course. They would have wasted their running talent. If you don't develop an innate talent, you're wasting it, doesn't matter how many other, better talents you maximize. For that one talent, you wasted it.