Why do most runners like to believe that....

Cleary you can't break a 20min 5k

Jealous Much? wrote:

Cleary you can't break a 20min 5k

Dude, I ran 17:22 in the very first 5k I ever ran, ran 15:48 in high school and then later 14:58. I just recognize that I was blessed with some talent. Most runners refuse to acknowledge that if they broke 20 minutes or 5:30 or whatever.

Probably because they see so many examples of people not training properly, not training hard or not giving a good effort in a race.

Refering to the other thread, I'm not talking about a "5:58 kid who kills himself to get that time".

I'm talking about people, friends, whoever, who run because they like running but they DON'T run to race. That's the difference. Their goal isn't to get a time.

If I race, I want to give it everything I've got. I don't do it for the 'experience', for a day out, because my friends are doing it, or to get fit. I do it to run a certain time.

The goals are different.

Why does running 14:58 make you talented?

This is so true. I ran for many years, trained pretty hard at times (up to 70mpw in singles, etc), and never broke 5:00 for the mile, for example. Hell I think my fastest open 400 was 68 seconds! Some people have it, some don't. Hopefully you can get the most of whatever talent you have.

I actually think that a lot of runners deny the existence of talent because they don't want to limit themselves. If you're shooting for trials, you don't want to admit to yourself that you might be blocked by talent, and it's natural to sometimes extend that to others who are slower than you are.

I like to admit to myself there's talent but I don't let myself ever get down about it; there's only one way to find out how talented you actually are, and that's to reach your full potential, so you might as well do it.

track chick wrote:

Probably because they see so many examples of people not training properly, not training hard or not giving a good effort in a race.

Refering to the other thread, I'm not talking about a "5:58 kid who kills himself to get that time".

I'm talking about people, friends, whoever, who run because they like running but they DON'T run to race. That's the difference. Their goal isn't to get a time.

If I race, I want to give it everything I've got. I don't do it for the 'experience', for a day out, because my friends are doing it, or to get fit. I do it to run a certain time.

The goals are different.

Ok, so do you believe (as was mentioned in another thread) that anyone (men) can break 20:00 for 5k if they just trained properly?

Also, the other thing people need to consider is that those who run just to run and not to race likely have discovered that they aren't all that talented. If you train and bust your butt and run as hard as you can and run 23:46 and you get beaten by a few 9 year old girls, that can put you in the mindset of running just to run awful fast.

jsjjs wrote:

Why does running 14:58 make you talented?

Even compared to ALL distance runners (leaving the general population out of it), that puts me well within the top 1%. You have to have some running talent to break 15 minutes (and I'll say even 20 minutes...just a little less talent) for 5,000 meters.

Flagpole wrote:

jsjjs wrote:

Why does running 14:58 make you talented?

Even compared to ALL distance runners (leaving the general population out of it), that puts me well within the top 1%. You have to have some running talent to break 15 minutes (and I'll say even 20 minutes...just a little less talent) for 5,000 meters.

That seems kind of random and arbitrary. Why does 1% make you talented? Is talent a statistical concept?

I don't think most runners actually think that. Most runners (who post here anyway) are just acting out because they don't feel they get adequate recognition for their talent, hard work, and accomplishments. That explains the vast majority of the stupidity that goes on here.

Ole Timer wrote:

This is so true. I ran for many years, trained pretty hard at times (up to 70mpw in singles, etc), and never broke 5:00 for the mile, for example. Hell I think my fastest open 400 was 68 seconds! Some people have it, some don't. Hopefully you can get the most of whatever talent you have.

CORRECT! And that's the right attitude too...even high school state champions might never amount to much after that...it's all about being the best you can be.

To show you how unfair it all is, when I was a freshman, I ran my very first 1600 ever...in 4:54. We hardly trained much back then too - about 15 miles a week.

xenonscreams wrote:

I actually think that a lot of runners deny the existence of talent because they don't want to limit themselves. If you're shooting for trials, you don't want to admit to yourself that you might be blocked by talent, and it's natural to sometimes extend that to others who are slower than you are.

I like to admit to myself there's talent but I don't let myself ever get down about it; there's only one way to find out how talented you actually are, and that's to reach your full potential, so you might as well do it.

Now THAT is an honest answer. If only runners wouldn't extend that to slow runners.

Ah, dude, jquire didn\\\'t believe my claims either until he went searching the newspapers from back in the 80s...go ask him...he\\\'ll tell you.

I\\\'ve got nothing to prove. This isn\\\'t about me and my times anyway...it\\\'s about this silly idea that many of you runners have that all that is needed to run decently fast is the proper training.

What if the world class Kenyans started saying anyone could break 14 minutes with the proper training...would that be believable?[/quote]

The 80\\\'s?????? you old prude. Get off you high horse mate you think you had some special talent that allowed you to run a 14.58 that other people didn\\\'t???? Typical arrogant distance runner. Im a sprinter and if anyone in our training had the attitude you had they would be kicked out of the training group so fast they would be cryin to there mama. proves what I already thought. Distance runners don\\\'t understand training properly.

Brother, the word "talented" is arbitrary to begin with. I don't know what to tell you...again, I'm EASILY within the top 1% of all runners with my 5,000 time. I've won more races than I can even remember (and that has nothing to do with my memory). With IQ, you are considered "gifted" if you're in the top 2%.You can decide within top 1% isn't talented if you want. Fine by me. Pretty much though, you tell me that anyone in anything is better than 99% of people who attempt it, and I'll say they are talented.

jsjjs wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Even compared to ALL distance runners (leaving the general population out of it), that puts me well within the top 1%. You have to have some running talent to break 15 minutes (and I'll say even 20 minutes...just a little less talent) for 5,000 meters.

That seems kind of random and arbitrary. Why does 1% make you talented? Is talent a statistical concept?

This subject is one the on going things on this site and I am always perplexed at the large group that tends to completely dismiss natural talent.

I dont know why? It seems like such a common sense thing. If you are a coach in HS cant you look through a gym class and ID the kids you'd recruit to run XC? I bet it's the not the guy built like a starting linebacker or basketball center.

Haven't these guys read any bios of great runners? Almost all had immediate BIG success at an early age. Having a natural gift or predisposition for something is not a slam, it's a great thing! When you layer hard work and maximize those natural gifts truly great things happen.

GeorgeC wrote:

Ah, dude, jquire didn\'t believe my claims either until he went searching the newspapers from back in the 80s...go ask him...he\'ll tell you.

I\'ve got nothing to prove. This isn\'t about me and my times anyway...it\'s about this silly idea that many of you runners have that all that is needed to run decently fast is the proper training.

What if the world class Kenyans started saying anyone could break 14 minutes with the proper training...would that be believable?

The 80\'s?????? you old prude. Get off you high horse mate you think you had some special talent that allowed you to run a 14.58 that other people didn\'t???? Typical arrogant distance runner. Im a sprinter and if anyone in our training had the attitude you had they would be kicked out of the training group so fast they would be cryin to there mama. proves what I already thought. Distance runners don\'t understand training properly.[/quote]

Brother, I'm 46 so I'm definitely not old, and based on what I did with your mother last night, I'm definitely not a prude! :) Ah, just kiddin' brother, but you left yourself open for that.

But, brother, saying that you have some talent if you ran 14:58 for 5,000 meters isn't arrogant...it's just a fact. In fact, I say it is the OPPOSITE of arrogance because I recognize I was blessed with the talent (that I had nothing to do with) to be able to do that...I don't think it was due to my great work ethic or anything like that (which actually, I didn't have the best work ethic nor the best training advice).

It's MUCH more arrogant to say that I ran such a time due to my hard work and toughness...something I have not said.

ataglance. wrote:

This subject is one the on going things on this site and I am always perplexed at the large group that tends to completely dismiss natural talent.

I dont know why? It seems like such a common sense thing. If you are a coach in HS cant you look through a gym class and ID the kids you'd recruit to run XC? I bet it's the not the guy built like a starting linebacker or basketball center.

Haven't these guys read any bios of great runners? Almost all had immediate BIG success at an early age. Having a natural gift or predisposition for something is not a slam, it's a great thing! When you layer hard work and maximize those natural gifts truly great things happen.

CORRECT! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees the truth.

jsjjs wrote:

That seems kind of random and arbitrary. Why does 1% make you talented? Is talent a statistical concept?

All words are arbitrary. There is no Platonic Form of Talent that includes some threshold of running speed.

I don't know where you'd draw the line, but I'd say that someone who is in the top 1% of serious runners meets any reasonable definition of talented.

Any, ANY able bodied man or woman can run sub-20 on decent training. Don't tell me you just aren't "genetically gifted" if you're way overweight, or only run 70k a week, or you drink every weekend, or you don't do workouts/speed work, or you don't do long runs, or you don't sleep more than 6 hours a night, etc.

If you do things as perfectly as possible, you will reap big benefits, and DEFINITELY be able to go sub 20 for a 5k.