To Malmo, Hodgie, and the other "greats: a few words about talent

Agreed.

All anybody needs to do to realize that there exists a baseline of extraordinary talent in top runners is to have themselves some kids and watch them grow up with other kids.

I have a 5 and a 6 year old that are active, outdoorsey kids. They started T-ball last spring and soccer this summer. When you throw 50 6-year-olds out into a field and watch them start running around, it is instantly apparent that there are a few who are gifted. They've done zero training at that age; they don't know what "drive" or "commitment" is. But, out of 50 kids, 10 can hardly run at all, 35 can run with varying degrees of coordination, but a few run like gazelles. They have an easy grace and simply glide up and down the field. You can't help but watch them and smile.

I've watched this phenomenon over the years while coaching and teaching at camps. The same kids that caught our eyes as 6 year olds are the stars on HS track and XC.

Perhaps the fast runners in the crowd out there forget 7th grade gym class when the crusty old fart had everybody run their first lap around the big field. Most of us slogged through it, but a few kids you never noticed before somehow flew around the field.

I agree with the originator of this post. Yes, none of us will reach our highest potential without an extreme degree of dedication, sacrafice and risk. But, the folks that make it to the top could use a dose of humble pie in realizing that they also received a gift at birth. As the old saying goes, "Just because you were born on third base doesn't mean you hit a triple."

There are two types of talent necessary for success in distance running: physical and mental. We don't generally think of the ability and willingness to work hard as "talents", but they are -- some people have them, some people don't. If you've ever coached, you know that there are some people so self-driven that you only need to point them in the right direction, and some who will forever frustrate you because they just don't want it badly enough.

Ya know, the more I ran, the more "talented" I became. Amazing.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Ya know, the more I ran, the more "talented" I became. Amazing.

How about, "The more you ran, the more talent you discovered you had."

true, but if you never try to push the envelope you'll never know if you can.

"just say no" - FYI: I was a 4:14 HS miler, a state champion, and had more speed than you ever did.

I'm not sure you know who reads and posts here.

Agree or not, I wonder if you've been in on the whole conversation, which has been going on for quite a while here.

Suspect the arguments here may be going in circles for a bit...

BUT, FWIW, I think that...

1) "Genetic talent" is less limiting for most folks than they believe.

2) Much "lack of talent" is in fact "hurdles" making the job more difficult that CAN still be overcome. E.g. "Biomechanical deficencies" that limit but CAN often be overcome by specific strengthening. Many do not have these hurdles, but perhaps the extra work can put some back on an even footing.

3) Aerobic conditioning is a great leveller. It may take some longer than others, but that gap is not as huge as some might think.

So, yes, some people can run 100mpw within a year of running, others break down at 50mpw. But if you are the latter, find out WHY you break down at 50, see what you can do about it and build up more slowly. Maybe you can catch up eventually, but maybe you have to be more patient and do more, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T do it.

And if you never do it, maybe you did not find the answer to get over your "hurdles", but that is not to say that if you had known more that you could not have done it.

Does "natural talent" make a difference? Sure. Just not as much as some credit.

?Don?t Fear Failure?

From: RUNNING TO THE TOP Anderson World Inc. 1980

Derek Clayton

?..So I decided to run the most solid record possible. I wanted to run a 2:07. With that as a target, I didn?t worry about winning races. I think that this happens too often to runners; they worry about their finish in the race. All I cared about was running a good time. I figured if I ran a really fast time I would win anyway.

I fell short more than once in my attempt to reach that incredible time. Ultimately I had to settle for a 2:08:34. But I didn?t fear failure. After all, success in running means LIVING ON THE EDGE OF FAILURE. You are going to fail sometimes. But if your personal goal is reasonable, you are ultimately going to attain it.

It is obsession that drives all marathoners, whether they are at the front of the field or the back. The first time they are obsessed with finishing the marathon; later they work on improving their times as their career progresses.

Without this drive the race has little challenge.

But I think that's the whole point of this thread. Those who give it their best but never have the chance to challenge their ultimate limits.

One of my former teammates had so much talent that it just oozed out of him. He was one of the best in the nation in high school, was all chest and legs, had a tremendous stride and great natural turnover. As soon as he started at 50 miles a week or more he immediately got hurt - IT band problesm, knee problems, achilles problems.

He was fitted for orthotics, found shoes that worked better than others, spent countless hours with the trainer as they tried to diagnose his many ailments. (In hindsight, a better trainer would have problem gotten him on the mend sooner rather than later.) In short, he never had the chance to run 75-110 miles as the rest of us did and, while he had a solid college career, the injuries accumulated and he finally packed it in.

His injuries were a significant handicap that curtailed his otherwise extraordinary talent. Even though he tried to solve the problem, he never could. Certainly, he was dealt a bad card in the beginning and had to live with it.

For what it is worth...Hodgie-san, this is the best reply I have ever read on this board. It now hangs in big bold letters on my office door. As always, thanks for the great post and the infinite pearls of wisdom.Hoovis

Hodgie-san wrote:

Ya know, the more I ran, the more "talented" I became. Amazing.

Word!!!

Hoovis:

That ain't an original hodgie-ism, all my material is stollen, pretty much.

I believe malmo & others have said as much.

Anyway, glad you like it.

What and odd post to make "Just say no".

You've taken a comment of mine in another thread about whether or not 5:45-6:00 mile pace would be very difficult for Derek Clayton, and taken it to use as a soapbox to stand on to announce to the world why, despite a 4:14 mile HS mile, you never achieved.

A filibuster of the first degree. Bravo!

Sigh...

All the "talent" that posts here. All the "talent" that claims it is better and yet has not matched the feats of the "dumb old men" who offer wisdom gleaned from experience. All the "talent" who can't beat some Third World dirt farmers with their dangerous and stupid high mileage training regimens. All the "talent" that has bought into the "Runner's World" philosophy that any miles over 30-40 will most certainly render you crippled, impotent, or dead. All of the "talent" that electrifies us every four years and encourages kids to give up soccer and Playstation and become future "talent".

Yes. So much "talent" vexed by bad luck and a lack of sponsor dollars. In fact, there is so much "talent" in the USA that no one cares. They've become bored with the success of our natural "talent".

"The more I ran, the more talented I became." While true in every sense, was a modification of the classic "The harder I worked, the luckier I got."

whenever you make a bump in mileage illness is expected, injuries are possible.

but if you plan well and (to use a buzz word) proactive, there is not reason why you can't up your volume.

If you think those that run high mileage do so without injury you are sadly mistaken. Just look at Clayton and others. Clayton was not anything near injury free. I think he had something like 7 surgeries during his career. The difference is that he did not pack it in as one mentioned above. Running high mileage comes at a high price. In fact more often than not those running high mileage are dealing with some sort of problem or another while running high mileage. However, they refuse to give in so quickly. I think some people are more willing to accept the aches and pains and injuries that come with the high mileage. Others start up the high mileage path and turn back at the first sign of injury. Knee, ankle, hip, IT band problems etc... are part of the price high mileage runners pay. Don't get me wrong, if one is truly injured then they need to back off and try again later and slower. However, I think more oftne than not one can train through many of these typical problems to some degree. It may take some 3-4 years to build up to the 120 mile weeks and it may take others only a year. Some are just not willing or do not have the patience to take 3-4 years to get to the point that the can run 120 miles a week. Are their some out there that will never be able to run high mileage? Yes, but I would argue that is the exception not the rule. Most will probably think I am off my rocker but I think this is true for the most part. If our top runners out of high school and college were all running 120-140 miles a week for 3-4 years I think we would see more guys running sub 2:12 like we had in the early 80s.

trackhead, illness is NOT expected and injuries are possible at the level you are now.

"Injuries heal, slow times never will" - John Schiefer

roadrunner32, if you think you are offering a word of wisdom to Hodgiesan about mileage, then it's you who is mistaken. Hodgiesan has been around and trained with more runners in his lifetime than you will ever read about in books during yours.