What is talent?

True, but some guys can run 4:15 off 30 mpw, in only 2 seasons of track and some run 80mpw for years to break 4:20. Some people never study, try or prepare for SAT's and bang out a 2300 first try. The difference is talent means you don't have to work as hard for the same success and you have a much higher cieling potential-wise.

True also, but if you can't run 4.15 off 30 mpw in only 2 season of track, then maybe you aint trainin right?

This is the philosophy in Britain and it works, whilst in the USA generall, there is an obsession with mileage.

protean wrote:

True, but some guys can run 4:15 off 30 mpw, in only 2 seasons of track and some run 80mpw for years to break 4:20. Some people never study, try or prepare for SAT's and bang out a 2300 first try. The difference is talent means you don't have to work as hard for the same success and you have a much higher cieling potential-wise.

But I don't think the go who banged out the 2300 or the guy who ran 4:15 only a couple seasons can rightly attribute their accomplishments to natural talent. I think their are others factors that led to this. Like the miler probably was encouraged by someone to be active from a young age and maybe he build a big aerobic base and competitive appetite playing soccer for many years. This is what I meant by "related activities" And the 2300 guy probably had intellegent parents and developed a large vocab simply by listening to his parents conversations and or was sent to a good school and strongly encouraged academically. This is why I say people who accomplish these things are not freaks of NATURE rather they are freaks of NURTURE if anything. I think many more children put in their shows early on would have the same chance of success. Galen Rupp is a shining example. If he went to an inner city school and was coached by an ex Football player would he dominate NCAA competition? No. Its all 100% nurture.

I think the best runners enjoy the feeling of running fast more than their slower counterparts. Both fast and slow love running, it's like a drug to them, but whilst the fast runners thrive on speed endurance, the slower runners have a slightly different mindset.

weIInow wrote:

I think the best runners enjoy the feeling of running fast more than their slower counterparts. Both fast and slow love running, it's like a drug to them, but whilst the fast runners thrive on speed endurance, the slower runners have a slightly different mindset.

This is irrelevant to the argument. I'm directing my points at the question of why do so many people admire someone who runs time X rather than a runner who runs time Y when it is only a matter if time/mindset before the latter runner is just as good as the former.

Talent = Dean Karnazes

There are proven physical differences in the various cariovascular elements of the body among the truly talented and the 'normal' runner. That being said it is still true that those runners with the 'gifts' still have to train intensively to realize their goals. The 'average' runner, just like the gifted runner, rarely realizes their potential. But I do thing physical gifts do play a fairly large role on the elite level.

9.58

No. 9.58 does not = talent. 9.58 = talent + drugs

weIInow wrote:

True also, but if you can't run 4.15 off 30 mpw in only 2 season of track, then maybe you aint trainin right?

This is the philosophy in Britain and it works, whilst in the USA generall, there is an obsession with mileage.

Do you even have any runners in Britain? WTF are you even talking about? I have never even heard of a decent British runner.

philosopher wrote:Its all 100% nurture.

Nature vs. nurture. Not a new debate. Freaks are a combination of both. It is most certainly NOT 100% nuture. That would be akin to saying that anyone can become a world-record holder if they are properly trained from birth. Which, of course, is bullshit.

Put it this way: you can get to a reasonably high level in just about anything with a lot of talent or a lot of hard work. You don't get very far without either. And it takes both to reach the pinnacle of whatever you are doing.

A more interesting question is if the determination to put in hard work is as much of a talent as being blessed with unusually high mitochondria density is?

" I have never even heard of a decent British runner."

Ummmm....ever heard of Lionel Richie?

Paula Radcliffe, isn't she British?

Do you even have any runners in Britain? WTF are you even talking about? I have never even heard of a decent British runner.

Talent (T)= Results/work put in

Being able to ride a dick and suck a dick at the same time, while texting.

How do you know you weren't predestined to run fast or be smart? If you are predestined, there is really no reason to be proud either way. Rather, you should just thank God.

Talent is something that far too many people use as an excuse why they aren't running faster.

To be sure, talent isn't a myth, and it certainly does impact how fast one can run, but it's too often used as a limiting factor.

"Nature vs. nurture. Not a new debate."

This age old question was answered definitively in the Three Stooges shorts of the 30s and 40s. Nature wins out. Everyone reverts to our animal selves