Remember Dathan Ritzenhein?

Sir Lance-alot. You forgot that the most unfortunate part.

One of the brightest running talents in American history is sponsored by the best athletic company in American history. This athletic company will even make custom shoes for him to correct the slightest issues with his mechanics.

YET, rather then use the resources available to him from Nike scientists... rather then build a shoe with the best materials... the "brilliant" coach Salazar (mind you, who overlooks NO detail... right down to thumb placement) cuts a hole in his star pupil's shoe and tapes it up with duct tape.

Say what?

It boggles my mind how someone who is so "thorough" as Salazar could be so careless. It makes ZER0 sense.

Not only that... but how about Ritz's own stupidity with running however many hard miles it was on the indoor track about a month after the NYC marathon AFTER NOT BEING ON AN INDOOR TRACK FOR YEARS!

So many avoidable mistakes.

People talk about Ritz's durability as being his Achilles heal... but is it really? If I started running 100 mpw in Vibrams tomorrow and got injured, would you question my "durability" or would you say "your stupid".

I think we all know the answer to that one. It seems to me that Ritz's issues since the World Half mostly could have been avoided with a little bit of common sense.

I hope he comes back. He's one of my favorite runners and that's why I am so frustrated by his injuries, and more importantly, by the reasons for his injuries. I still think Ritz could be a force at the 10k (26:45)... but he doesn't have more then a year or 2 to show that. If he stays healthy from here on out... and focused on the 10k... he'll be very good for WC 2013. Don't know if he can make back what he has lost to be a medal contender for 2012, though.

How sick would a 10k team be of Rupp, Ritz and Solinsky? Unbelievable.

Conto wrote:

If I started running 100 mpw in Vibrams tomorrow and got injured, would you question my "durability" or would you say "your stupid".

Well, I certainly wouldn't say, "your stupid".

IMO the discussion over talent is somewhat ridiculous. Everyone who has ever run for a college team knows what is meant (in the running community) as "talent" - it is getting more for less. (Obviously, there are many different types of talent - but IMO this is what "talent" is widely understood to mean in running.) "Talent" is the guy who runs 14 flat off of 60 miles a week, while some other poor sap in the same college program runs the race of the life to hit 14:10 off of twice the training load.

The second question - why are talented runners (apparently) injury prone - is more interesting. I believe that the answer is - they are not. That is to say - conditioned on being very talented, a runner is not more or less likely to be capable of withstanding very high volumes of intense training. (And vice versa.) However, both of these "abilities" - so-called "talent" and resilience to high training load, are rare. (Perhaps even exceedingly so.) Thus, they are only found together with very low probability - and then, only in the best of the best (Lagat, Geb, Bekele, etc.).

This would also fully explain the apparent pattern of talented runners seeming to be more injury prone.

Runner X achieves 13 min. for 5K seemingly effortlessly (i.e., he is "talented") and we speculate that he could run so much faster if he was also more resilient to a high training burden. In fact, this combination is so rare that most likely he is not and as he increases his training load, he becomes injured.

Runner Y, by contrast, achieves the same time off of a higher training burden (i.e., he is less talented) and we speculate either a) how fast he might run if more talented; or b) how fast runner X might have run if capable of training as runner Y. In fact, the probability of being both talented and resistant to the high training burden is exceedingly small.

Runner Z, of course, is the 99.99..99th percentile runner (e.g., Geb) who is both "talented" and can sustain a high training burden for a long career. This runner runs 12:40 for 5K and we have no reason to compare him to runners X or Y.

That is a study published that found certain genes are not expressed until after an individual takes on a training load. You can have all the great genes in the world but they may not be expressed until doing training for a while. For some, yes they may be, but for many they aren't. That doesn't make someone more or less talented.

A long thread talking about America's most talented distance runners and not one person has mentioned Ryan Hall? He strikes me as the most talented.* And relatively injury-free, as well.

*Just like a previous poster, I define "talent" as genetic potential.

Running 120 miles/week without getting injured, that's also talent.

And even if you compare the kids in your example, the one who runs 14:00 of 60/week has something close to 50-51 sec 400m speed; the one who runs 14:10 off of 120/week, still is no slouch with ~52 400m speed, 53 at worst.

We have to move past this archaic idea that mileage assures any massive success at all. It does not. In Ritz's situation, too mileage has been his downfall, and too much almost finished off Hall.

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Running 120 miles/week without getting injured, that's also talent.

And even if you compare the kids in your example, the one who runs 14:00 of 60/week has something close to 50-51 sec 400m speed; the one who runs 14:10 off of 120/week, still is no slouch with ~52 400m speed, 53 at worst.

We have to move past this archaic idea that mileage assures any massive success at all. It does not. In Ritz's situation, too mileage has been his downfall, and too much almost finished off Hall.

Sure. The details about the regime are unimportant to the general point.

I also agree that tolerating a high training volume or intensity without sustaining an injury is a talent - and indeed a rare one. However, I maintain that what is generally understood to be "talent" in running is the quality of achieving results with relative ease.

I laughed when I saw your estimated 400 times for the 14 min. & 14:10 5K runners. Although I know individuals in both categories that can/could run those times, I also know a former sub 14:10 5K runner that I never knew to break 57s for 400m.

Get A Clue Please wrote:

can not believe it wrote:

Why are our most talented runners so injury prone?

I think Webb and Ritz have more talent than Solinsky and Rupp but Rupp and Solinsky are now better because they stay healthy

Staying healthy is a big part of talent.

STAYING healthy is a big part of talent??

That comment just doesn't make sense. Talent has nothing to do with being healthy? I don't know anyone who is talented at their health. That just sounds weird.

In my opinion, a more physically talented runner will run faster then a less physically talented runner when both are optimally trained, and excluding any outside variables such as weather, competitiveness, INJURY, mental fortitude, etc.

Durability is not a talent. Its more an ability then a talent.

Optimally trained and excluding outside variables, I'm not sure who is more talented... Ritz or Rupp. Both are probably almost identically talented.

What makes one better then the other is what's between the ears and their ABILITY to stay healthy.

Running a 1:00:30 debut half marathon, even after falling down?

Wise Guy wrote:

can not believe it wrote:

Why are our most talented runners so injury prone?

I think Webb and Ritz have more talent than Solinsky and Rupp but Rupp and Solinsky are now better because they stay healthy

26:48 is some kind of talent.

Interesting. I don't really understand the argument separating durability and talent. What is durability? As it relates to running, I'd say it's having the musculature, skeletal strength, immune system, etc. to be able to handle a tough training load. Aren't all of those things as much genetic as, say, VO2 max?

In the end, who cares...you're as good a runner as your times say you are. Potential's great, but I'll take results.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

RE: Remember Dathan Ritzenhein?

Yes, I remember him. Wasn't he the guy who ran an AR 12:56, took a bronze in the world 1/2 marathon champs, and then his coach got the bright idea of "changing/improving" his stride after that success?

How'd that turn out by the way?

You've got a point there...

Update:

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/240321-USA-Olympic-Marathon-Trials-2012-Houston/video/509670-Dathan-Ritzenhein-and-training-for-2012-Olympic-Trials

Highlights (long video):

-Says he's in "Decent base shape"

-In Full training now

-May announce next race this week

Good Lord some people have the worst injury luck. And I complain about having to take a week or two off for an injury.

Good luck Ritz!