Talent v Hardwork Cut Off times

Naturally Talented wrote:

slow poke wrote:

So my natural times could become those with training? That is funny

100- 13ish?

200- 27

400- 61

800- 2:31

1600- 6:09

3200- 12:47

5000- 23:00

You create your own reality. Whether you believe you can or cant, you're right.

I doubt you're seriously training with those prs.

What's your event?

Naturally Talented wrote:

These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.

100m- 10.5

200m-21.5

400m-47.9

800m- 1:49.9

1500m-3:44.9

3kSC- 8:49.9

5000m- 13:49.9

10000- 28:59.9

Marathon- 2:09:59

I'm not an expert on the gay-ass concept of "trolling," but kinda assume that if someone put up something dumb just to get reactions, they wouldn't also defend it multiple times, so....I'll bite.

Does the OP - despite his "being around track for decades" - ACTUALLY not understand the meaning of "average"? Strictly speaking, it means someone in the 50th percentile. Speaking in ANY terms, it does NOT mean "everyone below the top 1 (or 5, or whatever small number) percentile," which it seems he might be thinking.

So, let's go with true average. A hundred untrained HS boys run a timed mile. The times would run from 5-something (low 6 in a bad school) to well over 10. What would the 50th time be? 8-something? Maybe even 9 something? You realize that what you're saying is that THIS guy could eventually run ALL of the ridiculous times you posted? So far from reality it's ridiculous.

Hint: In the future, if you want to make a point about talent vs. hard work, first, come to better understand the words "talent" and "average." And if you mean "not highly talented" (and probably also put an approximate percentile on it), say that, and NOT "average."

Geez.

Oh, and if the 50th percentile guy COULD run these times, then the WRs set by the 99th percentile guys would be WAY lower than they are.

Let's not be dumb just to make some point about hard work.

2/10 for getting past one page on this thread.

The equivalent would be saying that anyone make less than $1 million a year is poor, and IQ less than 140 is stupid. We do have a lot of geniuses at letsrun.

And OP, the marathon does not even line up with the other distances. More like 2:15.

Naturally Talented wrote:

These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.

100m- 10.5

200m-21.5

400m-47.9

800m- 1:49.9

1500m-3:44.9

3kSC- 8:49.9

5000m- 13:49.9

10000- 28:59.9

Marathon- 2:09:59

You are sexist. No way females can run those times. Are you saying we have no talent?

A lot of interesting responses.

To the one poster who mentioned untrained high school boys-

I know many runners who started slow and made MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS. One was a guy who ran 9:30 his first high school mile time trial. His last high school race he ran 9:30 for 2 miles! I know of another runner who ran a mile over 8 minutes and was also overweigt. By his senior year of college he ran low 14s 5000m!

There are also people who will say they work hard but arent close to those marks. They just aren't working hard enough over a long enough period of time.

The times listed are good, but they aren't even close to being globally elite. If you ask the athletes who have barely achieved those marks they will tell you it was because of hard work. They would also tell you they aren't gifted, they just try hard and enjoy the process.

Naturally Talented wrote:

A lot of interesting responses.

To the one poster who mentioned untrained high school boys-

I know many runners who started slow and made MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS. One was a guy who ran 9:30 his first high school mile time trial. His last high school race he ran 9:30 for 2 miles! I know of another runner who ran a mile over 8 minutes and was also overweigt. By his senior year of college he ran low 14s 5000m!

These times according to you though are still equivalent to no talent. So why bother mentioning them?

What's your event?