UK's #1 paper asks: Is Josh Kerr Britain’s next Olympic hero? And Kerr declares: "I don’t think I have a huge amount of talent."

Be in no doubt or fear, Josh will get it done true to his words. He has the look of a warrior in his eyes, not so for Jakob who seems to be way too shy.

*insert photo of Matt Centrowitz yawning*

You should read the book 'The Art of War' translated into English. Understand that it's an IQ thing, a psychiatrialization, a brain thingy, not a weaponry or physical strength thingy.

Josh is way more brainy than Jakob in this respect of the Paris 1500m and hence will beat him.

he only has one world record

jakob mogs in a suit

jakob will win

He wasn't smart though. He showed that at Munich. Dumb race. Viren was much smarter.

Great article. Not sure how the editor missed the misuse of "millisecond" when "centisecond" was intended, three times in the first paragraph. Maybe just stick to decimals rather than writing out units of time to be cute.

So picking and choosing from the population?

Viren was probably in 13:10 shape that day and Pre wasn’t going to beat him in any scenario. Viren ran the same race anyway, and just had more left in the tank for the last lap.

Go and walk around Hampstead Heath in the summer, or a Russell Group university. Upper middle class British people are notably good looking.

Well this is where it all gets very nuanced doesn't it. "Mental strength" is in itself a talent of sorts - just not the obvious physical kind (which is what we all look to when judging athletes competing in the purest of physical endeavours).

I actually don't disagree with the essence of what Kerr is saying. Sure, you have to have a certain physical makeup in order to do this, but what he has (in this instance) - is it really so different to thousands of other humans out there? The biggest hurdle to overcome is arguably a) recognizing what talent you have b) knowing how to grow it and c) preserving at it. Those things are actually far tougher than the consensus believe - in fact the total inverse of what is generally believed which is why we love to default to the easy "well he/she was just born to do it". This is the easy mental gymnastic we do to put our own abilities and competencies in perspective. Easier to say "ahh I just wasn't born like him/her" (out of our control) vs "I just didn't commit and apply myself as feverishly" (totally our control).

Was Tiger Woods simply born to be the best golfer to ever play the game? Of course not. But he was watching his father hit golf balls from basically the moment he opened his eyes, was hitting balls the moment he could physically lift a club and was maniacally and obsessing over the game, dreaming and practicing probably more than any human on the face of the earth by the time he was a teenager. I don't know if that is a physical gift thing. He grew to 6'1, 185, great hand-eye co-ordination - is that so rare across the globe?

I just think those types of comments by athletes are always misconstrued. Clearly there is a physical prerequisite but it's meaningless without the intangibles which is the point I believe Kerr is making and giving himself some credit for (fairly enough).

An interesting phenomenon. Not knocking any athletes for this, but it falls into the Cartesian mind-body trap. Descartes argues that the “mind” is distinct from the body and, putatively, in control of it. Since “mind” is an abstraction referring to a physical organ, it’s a false binary. The reality is that a person’s mental state is determined by bodily experience.

Kerr doesn’t get mental toughness as a runner by being mediocre. Success breeds confidence. The mental exercises he engages in are certainly helping him, but anytime he’s envisioning success, he’s drawing on his lived experience crushing workouts and races.

The sentiment reminds me of Without Limits. Donald Sutherland’s version of Bill Bowerman chastises Pre for the arrogance of saying he doesn’t have talent—if running is just “mental” then you don’t have any limits. Bowerman instructs Pre to embrace his physical limits because they’re pretty close to our species’ upper boundaries. In short, minimizing one’s physical gifts might be a form of delusional hubris. Acknowledging talent (and thus one’s limits) doesn’t have to come at the expense of confidence unless you have a fragile ego.

I think some of your post has merit, but the Tiger Woods part doesn't. Tiger Woods wasn't born to be the best golfer, but he was basically raised to be it. This doesn't exist too much in middle-distance running except for athletes like Jakob let's say or East Africans who grow up running. But clearly the gap can be closed especially in a 1500 vs. say a marathon where the gap really, really matters in lifetime miles, altitude upbringing and so on.

For Kerr, I think what is a common athlete misconception is this aspect being mental toughness: "From the start, Kerr found he had an ability to push himself to victory, even when his opponents seemed to be stronger or better technically." When you are talking about 12 or 13 year olds, you are talking much more about physical maturity, talent or training. I really struggle to believe pre-teens and teenager races are decided by mental toughness. The list of high school or middle school phenoms who could always "push themselves" to victory but faded away at the high school, college or pro level is really long and isn't about mental toughness. I'm sure his brother is very mentally tough, but clearly running wasn't for him and the inverse for Kerr and Rugby. Their physical talent determined it. So to me Kerr has just kinda baked in his own idea there.

Kerr is really physically talented, most 17-year-olds are not getting NCAA scholarships or winning Track titles at age 19. I do think Kerr has high-end mental toughness in some ways — running as well as he did at Worlds in 2022 despite being lethargic, not taking his diet seriously and so on. Putting all that aside to run a good race is impressive. He also has been very determined and believed in himself within races or ahead of competitions to his credit. But again, all this mental toughness is pretty meaningless if you can't back it up with fitness and talent. Just kinda goes back to my Henry Wynne point.

You obviously didn't see the race. You were probably not born then.

You haven't heard of videos or the internet, obviously.

Okay so we are agreeing that Tiger Woods is a massive product of his environment right - I think anyone that watched the HBO documentary would agree on that. And sure - I used the most extreme example in terms of an athlete there has ever been.

We can totally agree to disagree on the part of especially teenage races being decided by mental toughness. Because by these ages the physical talent is rising to the top it is the ones that are harnessed the best in the face of a million different other things in life going on (school, sport choices, drinking, romances etc etc etc) that are your winners and this is not a physical thing. For me, being able to navigate all these things and be dedicated enough to physically evolve oneself to the level you are the best on race day (and hence "decide" the race) is a tangible that isn't physical.

Here is an interesting article...

thetimes.com

Josh Kerr: It is absolute war when Jake Wightman and I race

Rick Broadbent

Not long after the pulsating drama of Josh Kerr’s victory in the 1,500m at the World Athletics Championships, a photograph started doing the rounds. It showed t

Open link

Kerr’s innate steel was forged in Edinburgh by his father, a former professional rugby player, and mother Jill, a physio. “I just wanted to be the best in the world at something,” Kerr says. He wanted it to be rugby — his brother Jake has played for Scotland — but by the age of eight he was shedding other sports.

Couple of key takeaways - he dreamt/had aspirations of being the best in the world at something - which even though the age isn't given when these began it's not unusual for these dreams - no matter how lofty at the time, to start forming even as a pre-teen. And by the age of 8 was beginning to already "shed" other sports (presumably to focus more on what was likely his best sport at the time - track).

Fitness, which determines success in this sport comes from the ability to harness and maximize ones talent and the snowball effect of years doing so. The resiliency to keep at this is far beyond a set of lungs.

I don't know why this thread is making this so complicated. Kerr is effectively saying he doesn't necessarily have more natural talent than some of his competitors - who are also amongst the best in the world - but he knows how to maximise the talent he has. He has sporting intelligence. The best usually do.

He's already an inspiration. Talent-wise, Jakob is mile ahead (pun intended), but he's too complacent and never train as hard as he should. This is where hard work beats talent.

Also, just look at the Budapest final down the homestride, Kerr was grimacing hard while Jakob didn't even try hard to hold him off. He just lacked the killer's instinct like Kerr does and the will power between the two was self-evident.