Do you consider running a talent?

talent = natural ability

Yeah, Ritz has no talent. His coaches do, though.

No explanation will fix your stupidity.

mangina wrote:

talent = natural ability

yeah I understand that's how people use it, but to me it doesn't mean the same thing with running as with other "talents".

Like, if you say someone is a talented violin player, it doesn't mean they came out of the womb ready to play throw down with Devil. It means maybe they had some (mental?) propensity for tone/timing/whatever, but regardless they've tough themselves how to play the violin very well.

If a talented runner = a runner that was simply born with speed or endurance my point is I'm not sure I consider that talent, just luck.

If a talented runner = a runner that was simply born with speed or endurance my point is I'm not sure I consider that talent, just luck.[/quote]

By that definition, it would not be luck. It would be called genetics!

And a good genetic profile leads to talent.

talent = natural ability

Talent comes in a variety of forms, not just speed, but a resilience to stress/injury. Many successfuly runners work hard and develop, due to their ability to avoid injury.

I'm a sucker for a troll posts that have a grain of validity... It is true that some athletic gifts are not described as talents. For example being a good basketball player or high jumper because you are very tall. In this case we say "gifted". I would say the same goes for resiliance to injury in running. There is running talent though, which has to do with mental fortitude and having a good feel for race strategy. A lot of gifted runners lack this.

oat bag lady wrote:

To me talent is like playing the piano or naming the state capitals.

Any time I hear someone say "oh she's an incredibly talented runner" I think to myself "don't you just mean she's fast?" or is there some other aspect to running that constitutes talent? I guess for me talent needs to involve some decision making; a rock climber can be talented, a quarterback can be talented. Does being a talented runner mean being fast AND having good strategy during a race, enough that it will actually influence the outcome? Even then I think most of the time runners are just doing what their coaches tell them; so talented coach I can get behind, talented runner still seems like a strange term.

That's the oddest view of what talent means that I've ever heard, and just in case you aren't clear yet, you are wrong.

As has been said here, talent = natural ability. People are BORN with talent for certain things. Talent is a sliding scale, and EVERYONE has a level of running talent...some of them have NO talent, some have exceptional talent, some have a little bit of talent. If you say that someone is "talented", that means they have a lot of talent in that area. ABILITY is what you are able to do with the talent, and ABILITY can change with practice or training. TALENT is static and never changes. A person with more talent can LOSE to someone with less talent who has more ability. If a person with lots of talent doesn't train and a person with slightly less talent trains a lot, the person with less talent will have greater ABILITY and thus can defeat the more talented runner. Put them both in a training regimen that is intended to get the most out of them, and the more talented runner will win.

echoing: talent = natural ability = genetics

if you just sit and watch any road race you'll have a much better understanding of what an untalented runner is, and hence more appreciation for talent

I always thought it was a running thing to call fast people talented. But apparently it is dictionary correct. I guess it is like calling beautiful women talented.

I want to call it ability and talent how you develop your ability. But it seems that I have got it backwards.

I think Flagpole summed it up well.

So, since I'm not entirely clear yet, you're saying if Bolt was separated at birth from his genetically-identical twin brother Fred who today weighs 350 and sits around all day watching Jamaican Oprah, you'd still call Fred a talented runner, just one without any ability? I guess in my thinking I wouldn't, and I would be willing to call someone who had, for instance, no natural musical ability (say, someone who's deaf or whose brain just doesn't 'do' music well) but worked to become a world-class pianist quite talented.

I'm not saying you're wrong outright like you said I was, I'm just saying I would call someone who squanders their natural ability categorically UNtalented (i.e. natural ability != talent) and someone who has no natural ability but very high derived ability categorically very talented. I guess my consideration of mental ability as a necessary part of talent was not really right, but I still don't think it's simple enough to say talent is just natural ability.

You are still wrong. First definition on my mac diction widget. Talent: natural aptitude or skill.

Bolt's twin brother Fred is just as talented as Usain. But we would never know that because he never developed his talent. There would be no evidence of his talent (other than his genetically equally brother) and thats why we don't call him talented.

And your example of the guy who doesn't do music well that became a world class pianist is impossible. In order to get world class you have to be talent. Sure he might not have been that talented at one aspect of music so he was a slow starter, but overall he music have been talented. Or maybe not as talented as another person, but he is way more talented than the average. The whole you can be whatever you want to be thing is not true, no matter how hard you work. Enough with the cynical, you can get pretty darn good at things, but I would question world class, with very little nature talent.

You see, talent and hard work are both necessary conditions for greatness but neither is sufficient on its own.

In many respects we can't measure talent so we guess by seeing greatness and the corresponding hard work.

where do i start? wrote:

No explanation will fix your stupidity.

a talented runner is the same as a talented musician. No one comes out of the womb ready to play carnigie hall. No one comes out ready to win olympic medals. But some people after a year of training are signifcantly better than some one with 10 years of training. But some people come out an do x amount of work and are world class. Other people do the same x amount of work and struggle to make their college teams. In track we sometimes simplify talent to something like I can only run a quarter in 51 so I am untalented while ignoring the fact that you can run 120mpw with 4 hard workouts due to good mechanics and quick recovery time. All those people like to think it is because they are hard workers. That is true. It is also true that a lot of other people try to work that hard and break down because they don't have the rest of the package.Or if you want you can just pretend their is no talent and the reason everyone isn't a 12:37 runner is because they are lazy.Even in sprinters (who we all consider pure talent),no one comes out with zero training and runs sub 10.

oat bag lady wrote:

mangina wrote:

talent = natural ability

yeah I understand that's how people use it, but to me it doesn't mean the same thing with running as with other "talents".

Like, if you say someone is a talented violin player, it doesn't mean they came out of the womb ready to play throw down with Devil. It means maybe they had some (mental?) propensity for tone/timing/whatever, but regardless they've tough themselves how to play the violin very well.

If a talented runner = a runner that was simply born with speed or endurance my point is I'm not sure I consider that talent, just luck.

your argument is pretty convenient in that as soon as someone gets good at something you say "well they had that natural talent all along!"... It must be nice to be one of the lucky ones to have been born with talent though, so when they're 90 and living in a wheel chair with an oxygen tank they can still say "I'm a talented runner"

And the apple diction[ary?] also lists ability and skill as synonyms for talent, both of which are things which can certainly be developed regardless of inborn characteristics. And regardless of dictionary definitions, I literally just heard someone say "they look like the most talented team this year" and no one in the conversation said "I don't understand what you're saying, talent is something you must be born with and a team is a completely contrived entity which obviously has no innate aptitudes" because everyone knew they meant talent as ability.

I would say natural ability and actual conditions/development both factor into current ability (aka talent, regardless of what the dictionary says), but both aren't necessary. I refuse to believe that there isn't a single skill that absolutely anyone could work hard at and become good at.

Being 5 foot 7 and 125 pounds is all that separates 'talented' runners from the rest.

running, as with any other sport or endeavor IMHO, has as much to do with effort as it does with talent.

of course, there are cases like me that, no matter how much effort I put, I'll never be like, say, Usain Bolt or sumsuch.