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

Here's my plan:

5k PR

21 13:48

22 13:43

23 13:38

24 13:33

25 13:28

26 13:23

27 13:18

28 13:13

29 13:08

30 13:03

No problem. It's only five seconds per year.

a couple thoughts

talent is simply the innate capacity for an individual to achieve x. As it is innate it is therefore genetically determined.

it is patently false to claim that all people have the same measure of talent; ie the same genetic makeup.

but it is absurd to claim that talent -- genetics -- should govern the amount of effort one expends to acheive a goal. If you don't see improvement going to 80 from 50, then go to 100. Then 110. Don't blame lack of 'talent' for 'success'; for both success and talent are ultimately relative. What's not relative is how hard one works to realize his potential.

talent, ie innate capacity, exists on a continuum: individuals have varying degrees of capacity to acheive a goal, whether a 2:10, or 2:30 or 3:30 marathon. Not everyone can run a 2:10 - for some it is in fact genetically impossible. There is no threshold at which one is considered talented. I have a 2:34 pr. I one who has a 3:34 says that I am talented, then I can claim that a 2:14 guy is talented as well.

but this does not absolve me of the responsibility of maximising the effort to acheive the best I am capable of.

person A is faster than person B. Person A say person B needs to run more, which is true. Person B say person A has more talent, which may also be true. But it's doesn't mean person B shouldn't run more and train harder, longer and faster.

Reminds me of the george carlin quotation in which everyone who drives slower than you is an asshole while everyone who drives faster is a maniac. Talent is like that: relative. Effort is absolute: work your hardest and you can be satisfied with the outcome.

trackhead wrote:

Here's an annual mileage progression for you:

1000 14

1500 15

2000 16

2500 17

2750 18

3000 19

3250 20

3500 21

3750 22

4000 23

4000 24

4250 25

So what you are saying is that by the year 4250, I should be up to 25 miles a week? A bit cautious, but considering my fragility, I would say it sounds just about right for me. Now if I can only live that long.... :-)

[in all seriousness, I see your point(and others) Trackhead. I can gradually add mileage. I need to be more patient than most. Yes, it is true. But I've been patience and run slowly. It still did not add up to much improvement, and eventually I broke down. I bet you Hodgie and Malmo threw caution the wind a lot more than I did. They survived that and thrived off of it. But Trackhead, you do often generalize, as in: high mileage is virtually always necessary to be a great miler, lifetime mileage is always the key to great performances, etc etc. But everyone does that sometimes (there is a generalization, right?). Anyway, the quote was to Hodgie. He generalizes AND he likes little aphorisms that are not 100% true. So I dropped one on him from the same poet. Touché!]

A lot of factors go into how much training you can handle. Some guys are built like tanks and can handle justa bout anything you throw at them.

Others have naturally inflexible muscles and ligaments and are much more prone to injury.

I was able to make 500mi/yr jumps without too many problems. Other guys might only be able to increase at half that rate, esp. above 3000miles. But I think if done appropriately and with proper planning that you (everyone) can get up to those training volumes.

Just say no,

You do not understand the quote.

It is pointless to worry about whether you have "talent" if you have never done what is required to find out.

Most people have not.

malmo wrote:

I am not a "high mileage advocate". Never have been, never will. I'm a "right mileage advocate.

I've run in the 150-180 range many times. 5:30-6:00 is easy.

Sounds like a conflict between doing/did, saying, remembering, expressing.

What conflict?

Just say no wrote:

But Trackhead, you do often generalize, as in: high mileage is virtually always necessary to be a great miler, lifetime mileage is always the key to great performances, etc etc. But everyone does that sometimes (there is a generalization, right?). Anyway, the quote was to Hodgie. He generalizes AND he likes little aphorisms that are not 100% true. So I dropped one on him from the same poet. Touché!]

Just say no, since when are generalizations supposed to be 100 percent true? They're not, that's why they are called - GENERALIZATIONS. Ya think?

As a generaization, this missing element of most young runners is that they are not running enough to fulfill their true potential. A simple but true statement.

Talent is a huge factor, but of course it is pointless to worry about that because there is nothing anyone can do about talent. Either you have it or you don't. I must say though, that hard work and sacrifice does come into play when two people of similar talent face each other. Anyone who does not recognize that talent is most important does not see the obvious. Not everyone can be a Michael Jordan no matter how hard they try. It is true though that there are some Michael Jordan?s out there that have never realize their potential because they have never tried. So hard work is the mechanism to realizing a persons true potential yet the hardest worker does not always win the race.

An observation on talent: dig into the backround of almost any sub-4:00 miler and if they ran it in a race around the age of 16 for the first time,with little or no training they broke 5:00. Jim Ryun ran 4:32 his first time in a race (age 16), but that was with some training. (Snell ran 1:52 for 880y with mostly tennis playing as training).

A GENERALIZATION, I realize, but an instrumental one.

Sounds like a conflict saying you're not a high mileage advocate, then advocating high mileage.

I checked the link.

'Many times' looks like 9 times at 150 or above, 2 of those in the mid 160's and 2 in the mid 170's.

Perhaps it's a matter of sematics.

I'd consider anything 140 and above to be high mileage, though I know of two runners who trained together every day (long ago), one of them averaging 170 per week for two years, the other 190 per week for two years. They ran in the 29/10k 2:17-2:23 marathon range.

And another who ran 500 miles on his vacation week, then a 2:19 at the Boston marathon. I think his fastest 10k was 31 or 32 minutes.

Mine was 6:32 wrote:

Jim Ryun ran 4:32 his first time in a race (age 16), but that was with some training.

But his initial time trial was something like 5:35.

I did not find out how talented I was!For 15 years I ran up to 130 miles per week, mostly 70-90.Based on my results I figured that I had no talent. One day a few years back Malmo said to me, "Dina, you have never Trained before"! At the time I thought he was nuts! The more I think about it the more I think that he was right.If I had trained consistantly @ 100-130 mpw or more over a number of years, I know I would have run much faster. I suggest to anyone listening, don't waste good time. Get the volume up and keep it up. You may be pleasantly surprised with the results.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Just say no,

You do not understand the quote.

It is pointless to worry about whether you have "talent" if you have never done what is required to find out.

Most people have not.

dunes runner, read my lips, I have never advocated any mileage - execept right race appropriate mileage. I've said if you are not getting the job done, perhaps you need to run more. In general, I'm speaking to those who are running 60 miles a week and attempting to be competitive at XC. Usally I'll suggest to get it up to 100 or so, then work both ways from there and find out exactly where your sweet spot really is.. Which is hardly high milege. I realize you've come to the party late. don't try to put words in my mouth, please.

Two runners who averaged 170 and 190 for two years? Name em?

FYI, I have another week at 161, and one of my 151s was with a day and a half off with flu.

malmo,

I did notice you said you were a world class steeplechaser, which I didn't know and had never heard of you before coming to this message board. Also I've never lived in the east, so that could be it. I did see Hodge run at UCLA one time though.

kmh wrote:

Reminds me of the george carlin quotation in which everyone who drives slower than you is an asshole while everyone who drives faster is a maniac.

Or why the office is like a tree full of monkees? From the top all you see are smiling faces. For the bottom, all you see are assholes.

Mileage is just mileage, and speed is just speed. If you want to say you ran a 100 a week, and think that is enough,

you are wrong unless you are a miler.

I love it when the guys that set records say they have no

talent. Physically do you think there is any difference

between the early eighties and now.

If you get injured, you start over again.

dunes runner wrote:

malmo,

I did notice you said you were a world class steeplechaser, which I didn't know and had never heard of you before coming to this message board. Also I've never lived in the east, so that could be it. I did see Hodge run at UCLA one time though.

I set the AR at Drake Stadium right there in Westwood. Probably way before your time.

Malmo,

I have a question for you. I have been training 70-80 consistently with two morning runs a week. This is not by choice. My schedule is such that some nights I get home at 10 and have work at 6am. I could conceivably squeeze in more mileage and with some morning or afternoon runs. Did you find that incorporating more two-a-days helped out significantly. One thing I notice is that on the weekend my second runs and workouts seem to be of higher quality. at this point I am thinking about living an even more monk-like lifestyle so my running will improve. Any thoughts at how more morning runs/mileage helped out your career?

Mike