After reading the thread on Justyn Knight, I have wondered what would be considered talented. For example, an athlete who hasn't done much running but they're quite quick, start of freshman year (I'm using this because most start running then) with a 5:00 and work very hard on 10 mpw, running all-out every session and they get down to a 4:39, or somebody who runs 17:57 for a 5k off 30 mpw in 9th grade? These were two kids on my team in HS that I would always try to beat and both were older than me. Both 16s guys who ran sub-16 a few times. The one that ran 4:39 went on to run 4:06 for 1600 and the other ran 14:19 for 5k and the 14:19 5k guy went to my college. I, however, dropped my freshman year from 19:20 in the 5k to 17:23, but I put in lots of 50 mile weeks during the summer and I averaged about 35 throughout the season. (50 mile weeks because I was training with fast local runners). My first few runs were pretty bad as I had been doing mostly easy running with strides, and repeats once or twice a week with almost no tempo runs (which is probably why I didn't do so well at first, started doing tempo runs every week that winter and never looked back). Who would you say had more talent?
Post college PRs:
4:06 guy:
400 - 49.x
800 - 1:49
1600 - 4:06 (HS)
1500 - 3:42 (college)
14:19 guy
800 - 1:58
1500 - 4:04
1600 - 4:15
3000 - 8:26
5k - 14:19
Me:
800 - 1:52
1500 - 3:52
1600 - 4:09
5k - 14:43
10k - 29:57