What are some indicators that a person is untalented, talented and a potential elite?

For male freshman high school runners, it might look something like this by the end of the first season of track (assuming no middle school running)--

Low talent: >6:00 for 1600m

Talented: <5:10 for 1600m

Potential elite: <4:35 for 1600m

Meb Keflezighi ran ~10 flat for 3200m in his very first race. Michael Stember went from nobody to 4:20 in his first season. Abdi Abdirahman didn't start running until college and won his first cross country meet. Jim Ryun ran 5:20 in his first mile but was down to ~4:10 by the end of that year. Joaquim Cruz ran the 1,500 in 4:02.3 in his first season (age 14).

Sure, some kids over 6:00/mile after a season of running might end up great, but that would definitely be the exception. And, yes, there's a big intentional donut hole here between 5:10 and 6:00. For kids in that range, it's just too hard too know. But a kid who runs under 5:10 his first season has a really good shot at going under 4:30 by his junior/senior year, maybe substantially under.

And I based on my analysis on a full season of training because response to training is a key component of talent.

Hobby jogger threads for hobby joggers.

Disagree. It's pretty important, actually, for anyone doing coaching.

I disagree.

50% of 18 old males of normal weight cannot even complete a 5k, not to mention break 25 off the couch.

Many hobbyjoggers training for park runs and road races of 5k and much longer do 5k specific workouts as well as 100km weeks (think some marathoners and ultra runners) and will never break 20min for 5k simply because they do not adapt to training. Not only does everyone have individual ability but also limits on adaptability to training.

If 20 out of 60-70 runners do summer running (and are that dedicated and potentially talented) and the others have not run since May (3 months) but have run in May and before that, of course many will still be able to break 25min, especially those who want to run track or cross country (and will usually have above average ability).

Of course there are some talented individuals who do not want to do the training, and if their adaptability is high, of course they could go far if they were to dedicate themselves to it. But for most people no amount of training (even if athletic, lean and strong, e.g. many short sprinters) are not going to break 20 off the couch. If they are very active already with aerobic capacity gained from other sports, hobbies, that does not qualify as off the couch.

And no amount of training and adaptability will help someone run a 13 minute 5k no matter what they do. Usually people who deny genetics and physiology are decisive are those who either do not understand how these work or they already have the right combos and also lacking understanding (or have anecdotal evidence for exceptions) see those who cannot do what they do as simply lazy, training wrongly or the like.

Perhaps the following question will help: In all your 15 years of experience, how many sub sub 14 minute 5k runners have you produced among highly motivated and well trained individuals? Also, ask the sprint coach how many outstanding specialist 100m runners (who do not make the team in the 200m) would break 20 for 5k off the couch?)

I didn't provide an opinion. I merely provided stats. You can't disagree with facts.

But I agree with your later points. Talent has way more impact on times than training. Our XC record is 15:10 and track records 4:09/9:05. I think the fastest graduate ran about 13:35 in college.

no, actually, there was some kid on LR who started HS running mid 20s, by the end of HS was a state level XC runner, ran for UT, then represented some other country in the paris olympic marathon.

my point is if you have natural but hidden talent, never played sports or only K-league, it might take 1-2 years of workouts and races just to get you up to solid varsity kid, before they then would take off. people forget they took years as a kid to build up to running even a 5 minute mile, to get your lungs and legs right, to learn how to compete in some tough race. you're then grabbing some kid from PE and saying, become "This" overnight.

if they have that knack and it's immediately obvious, they are probably on some other sports' varsity team, talented at that, and just figured out to try that at running alone. that is not off the couch.

no, i am talking pull some kid off video games, or the kid from some honors bio class just gets an itch and comes out.

i mean, i took a couple years off of sports in elementary with a broken leg. when i came back, i was fast, but out of shape, and about 2 years behind on how to play the game. it took a year and a half for soccer IQ to catch up to pure speed. it was about 7th grade before i was dominating, about 3 years after i started back up.

anyone who starts new in HS is years behind the kids who did club track or have been running since 7th grade.

and we don't admit a big chunk of TF and XC kids are ones who were the fastest in their elementaries, dominant in junior high, and if they finish 30th now, that's against half the city. even the kid doing 25 mins is faster than most of the school -- just not up to the level of the kids who have been winning races in quick times since age 5.

to put a name to my theory, Yaseen Abdalla. started running soph year HS in austin and did a 24:24 5k. 2 years later he was 3rd in texas running sub 16. walked on at UT, got a DM indoor gold at nationals. represented sudan in the olympic marathon in paris. so we're talking from 24:24 in '16-17 to olympics in 8 years.

that 5k time is slower than anyone who tried out for XC at my HS and finished a race. and at a lot of "standards" schools some kid who shows up like that gets cut for not showing immediate promise. but if he just started in HS that time is not exactly his fault.

to me you have to get someone into athletic condition with most of the rust removed before you know what you have.

we had a hurdler who couldn't regularly get meets in junior high, spent 3 years on JV, senior year suddenly gets fit and athletic, progressed towards state. particularly with subvarsity teams and meets i have no idea what the urge is to cut cut cut. you stick em on JV and let them figure it out. the limited room on a varsity XC team or TF entry sheet takes care of integrity and seriousness itself. southlake carroll is so good in bulk they have kids running sub 17 who run 4 years subvarsity.