So much wasted talent

I don't think any of those guys are actually talented. It's not like they were running 4:0X for the mile 7 months after they started running. Talent has to include physical skill AND the desire to use it.

Look at it this way, many may have to run like crazy in HS, but still manage all those results. People ask crazy runners what they are going to do in college since they are already training like they are in college. They answer more of the same, they have proven they can do it and they like it.

The guys you list obviously don't like running or they don't have the confidence necessary. Further many guys who are above average with little training just don't have the durability to ever really use their talent. You are a long way from knowing if they are talented.

lol...why should they bust their asses running when they were not good enough to make a living at it?

If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about. Which means that you probably don't know how to train either. Training is your problem not talent.

[quote]get used to it. wrote:

lol...why should they bust their asses running when they were not good enough to make a living at it?

I know you're just trolling, but how about all the reasons all of us on this site run? For fun, to compete (for yourself or your school), exercise, health, etc.

iyuck wrote:

If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about. Which means that you probably don't know how to train either. Training is your problem not talent.

Are you serious, dude? You're telling me smoking is beneficial for your lungs and your running? Pleaseeee

Not trolling. Maybe it wasn't FUN for them. Maybe the didn't like competing? Maybe they had other activities they liked to do for fun (tennis, golf, soccer, etc.)

electron1661 wrote:

iyuck wrote:

If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about. Which means that you probably don't know how to train either. Training is your problem not talent.

Are you serious, dude? You're telling me smoking is beneficial for your lungs and your running? Pleaseeee

Thank you for proving my point. You just don't know what you're talking about in general (and can't read well). Nowhere did I say smoking weed was beneficial.

We have identified your running problem. You lack thinking ability and like many runners think that running performance is a meritocracy based on how hard you try and how many vices you say no to. It's not.

iyuck wrote:

electron1661 wrote:

Are you serious, dude? You're telling me smoking is beneficial for your lungs and your running? Pleaseeee

Thank you for proving my point. You just don't know what you're talking about in general (and can't read well). Nowhere did I say smoking weed was beneficial.

We have identified your running problem. You lack thinking ability and like many runners think that running performance is a meritocracy based on how hard you try and how many vices you say no to. It's not.

Actually, it appears you don't know what you're talking about. By saying 'If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about' you are thus insinuating that smoking weed is indeed beneficial.

If you consider smoking weed a vice, then I'm not suggesting saying no to it. But rather than smoking joints or blunts, use a vaporizer. Then no smoke is going into your lungs and there shouldn't be any ill effects to your lungs and thus your running.

electron1661 wrote:

iyuck wrote:

If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about. Which means that you probably don't know how to train either. Training is your problem not talent.

Are you serious, dude? You're telling me smoking is beneficial for your lungs and your running? Pleaseeee

Obviously it isn't beneficial, but every once in a while will do no harm. Personal experience. Smoked the night before an 8k and PR'd by 20 seconds (27:15) on a hard course. Granted I'm not fast by some terms but I felt absolutely no difference. If you do it weekly or every other, and you run the next days, it won't affect you.

AskYoMamaBoy wrote:

Smoked the night before an 8k and PR'd by 20 seconds (27:15)

...and that should tell you everything you need to know about the kinds of runners who smoke weed

qf,9dijengq wrote:

Talent has to include physical skill AND the desire to use it.

No. Talent, is by definition an innate ability. Whether one wants to use one's talents or not, is a different discussion.

Having or not having desire is certainly innate.

I have an innate desire to run. I do not have an innate desire to bike.

It's called envy. Get over it. I used to have the same problem. Now I just worry about me.

I had a friend from Peru. He was a swimmer. He finished third in the Pan Am games while in college. He didn't want to do it anymore and didn't want to go to the Olympics so he gave it up. He gave up his scholarship too. He just didn't want to do it anymore. It's his choice. I think life turned out OK for him.

aklmvi0 wrote:

Having or not having desire is certainly innate.

I have an innate desire to run. I do not have an innate desire to bike.

OK, if we want to use your examples, then you have a talent for wanting to run. Great.

The op seems to have been taking about people who have the talent to be able to run fast.

Then someone says that these people were not talented if they didn't also have desire. That is not true. Talent to run fast is independent of desire.

We don't use the term talent to describe hard workers. We don't say "she has a lot of talent to work hard".

Now, one can be talented AND work hard. They are not mutually exclusive, but the two are independent.

I went to school with a guy who ran sub 4:10 for the mile while in the 10th grade. He never bettered that time. He went to college, studied hard, and the last I heard --a few years ago-- was that he was the CEO of a Health Provider.

I am going to guess that he has made well between $300 to $500k per year going back to when he became CEO. He made the right choice: career over running. Of course, there was no guarantee he would become a CEO, but there was also no guarantee he would become a great distance runner.

electron1661 wrote:

Actually, it appears you don't know what you're talking about. By saying 'If you think smoking weed is bad for running then you probably don't know what you're talking about' you are thus insinuating that smoking weed is indeed beneficial.

No.

Because something isn't bad doesn't mean it's beneficial. There is a third option - irrelevancy. Good job showing us how stupid you are.

that jerk wrote:

AskYoMamaBoy wrote:

Smoked the night before an 8k and PR'd by 20 seconds (27:15)

...and that should tell you everything you need to know about the kinds of runners who smoke weed

I could mention I was toking with a guy who ran 24:43 the next week on a difficult course. Unplug your computer moron.

The running achievements in the OP's list do not show even physical talent to run actually fast.

The times are just not that good.

Being able to run faster than the OP by doing slightly less work than the OP, does not provide any information about if they can improve enough to run times fast enough to reach the outer edge of the human performance distribution that actually require physical talent.

Talent, in anything, is the complete package of abilities be able to get to the outer edges of the human performance distribution curve in something. In running, to get to those outer edges people use all sorts of different mixtures of natural skills, superior desire, coordination, superior mitocondria, durability, response to training, response to living at altitude and many more.

No one on the OP's list shows this complete package.

that jerk wrote:

AskYoMamaBoy wrote:

Smoked the night before an 8k and PR'd by 20 seconds (27:15)

...and that should tell you everything you need to know about the kinds of runners who smoke weed

Haha owned