The Brutal truth about talent vs hard work.

Best post this week.

For some reason you are under the impression that I said the only element you need is the ability to work hard. Never said anything close to that.

I simply maintain that one of the elements of 'talent' that you are so fixated on is the ability to work hard. If you don't have that you will never be great (along with any number of other talents).

Talent is genetic, can’t be changed and is the case in every sport. Someone can improve fitness, but the more talented guy will always have a higher ceiling.

If you define talent as a higher ceiling, I'm not sure that has to be genetics. We almost all know someone who had a really high ceiling but hated to run and did nothing special. Is hating to run genetics or environment?

Your posts completely miss the point because you've chosen to redefine "talent" as including attitude. That isn't how others use the term here or how it is typically defined. It also means that you have conflated the distinction between natural physical ability and a preparedness to work hard. Removing your false redefinition of "talent" it then becomes apparent that hard work does not compensate for a relative lack of physical talent, as all the very best athletes are supremely physically gifted individuals. And all work hard. Talent is not enough by itself; but neither is hard work. The two must be combined to get to the top. The preparedness to work hard is not itself a talent; it is a choice, a commitment. "Talent" cannot be chosen or acquired, it is given.

Attitude isn't the same as physical attributes. You're pretty much stuck with what you're born with physically (genetically) but attitude (the choices we make) can be changed and changed dramatically.

here's the deal. there is some minimum level of fitness in order to compete near your talents. like a soccer player who needs to get in shape to run 90 minutes in a game and not need to be subbed. that is not "hard work." that is being fit enough to actually play at a reasonable fascimile of your talent level. otherwise your legs will be heavy to execute skills, you will make tired mental mistakes, and you will double over breathing heavy and ask for a sub. and in competitive soccer i may have sub rules, finite subs per half, or need to factor your fitness into selection.

this is baseline. this is not you work harder than the next guy. this is you show up in reasonable fitness you can do your job.

you're acting like the whole amount some runner does is "hard work." no. there is some amount, perhaps 20-25 miles a week, where a talented runner could turn that into sufficient fitness to approximate their talents and compete successfully and quickly.

if you do less than that, you will struggle to complete the distance correctly. everyone serious runs that practice mileage. you are not working hard doing minimum mileage.

thus the "hard work" arguments need to account for the first 20-25 miles being basic fitness to compete.

-----

also, as some have suggested, there are curves. you take a stud off the couch, he will be faster out of shape than a less talented sort. he might run 440 or so out of shape. other dude might be over 5. someone from the school PE might run a mile in 10. some old fart might not even finish a mile or run it in like 15-20.

if they do the baseline work, stud is down to 415-420, squadie is under 5, etc.

if they really work hard, stud gets down to 410, squadie chases 430, etc.

so each is moving along their varied talent arc. the squadie would have to be incredibly fit to match the stud lazy off the couch.

talent dominates and sets the curves. you might as well tell the squadie to work harder to try and keep anywhere near them.

----

this then speaks to my HS or college distance point. XC gives jobs to more people beyond the mere talented. if it was sprints, 5 or so guys would be it. the fastest guys in the school. hard work ain't fixing that. you're slower, you're not making varsity. period.

XC employs 7 guys HS and dozens college. so i can grab the speedy natural miler types, but there is also some room for workhorses. you might have 20-30 people rostered. you can have a 420-430 type on a roster with kids who run 4 flat.

----

that, and at a point, the sheer quality of competition, everyone needs an edge, and so you're trying to find anything left on your growth curve. maybe a few more miles does it. or maybe you've squeezed out the orange.

which, to me, it's mostly talent.

The guy who hates the training has a high ceiling, but he just cannot reach it. That shows you the ceiling is determined by genetics.

BTW, "the ability to work hard" is mostly genetic, if recent psychology studies are any indication.

i haven't redefined anything. No one here can say exactly what 'talent' is.... you come up with some broad definition that you say doesn't include the ability to work hard... I disagree.

you say natural physical ability... what exactly is that? I mean everything you think is included in that... that is unanswerable because it's not quantifiable.

I've run with and coached any number of people over the years who do not have the ability to work hard. they just are not able to do it. you think it's a choice, i'm suggesting it's also. a gift... just like mental toughness- some have it, most don't

And to your point about the very best... they have all of it... including the ability to work hard. you don't have that you aren't the very best.

The problem with expanding your definition of "talent" to include "psychology" means that everything ultimately is "genetic", which therefore means the distinction between physical attributes that you're born with and how you choose to think about things is lost. But they aren't the same. The former imposes limits while the latter (one's "psychology") can become almost anything - but it won't fundamentally change genetically-determined physical abilities. The proof of that is that all of the very best athletes train very hard and in a similar way but some remain faster than others. Some will continue to be beaten no matter how much they apply themselves. Attitude won't trump superior physical talent.

Talent in a sport like running is physical giftedness. Attitude isn't a talent like that and it can't compensate or overcome shortcomings in physical ability. It is misleading to use the same term to describe two very different features. Athletes can choose to work harder; they can't choose to have more physical abilities than those they are born with. Those are what they have to work with.

You carelessness with the English language is indicated in the way that industriousness, determination, or having a work ethic are not grouped amongst "talents" but as features of character. Character is important to success but it isn't the same as talent. It has to work with talent - or its relative lack.

that's your definition and it's your belief. doesn't make it true.

i believe the ability to work hard is a talent

But i'm cool with us not agreeing.

Your redefining "talent" to include "an ability to work hard" means we are discussing at cross purposes.

Here is an AI definition:

'Talent is a natural, innate ability or aptitude to perform a specific activity or skill exceptionally well, often without requiring extensive training. It represents a "gifted" capacity, distinct from acquired skills, and can also refer to people possessing such abilities, particularly in entertainment or business.'

A preparedness to work hard is a choice that anyone might make; it isn't an aptitude or a gift. It simply takes desire.

I believe that everyone has the ability to work hard your logic would allow everyone to be on the Government dole.

exactly. the ability to work hard fits right in that definition. someone has the aptitude to work hard or they don't. someone is mentally tough or they are not. naturally.

again, you are deciding that the ability to work hard doesn't fit that definition of talent. we simply disagree.

Is English not your first language? Ability without extensive training. Training is work. Youvare caught in a bizarre illogical loop.

in your mind, yes. totally fine if you want to disagree.

seen it too many times in my running and coaching life- many people just can't work hard... you think it's a choice, i think it's a talent. pretty simple really

Whether he trains hard or not, the talented guy still has a higher ceiling. Bill Rodgers didn’t train particularly hard in HS and college and a lot of guys trained harder and beat him, but when he finally got the fire in the belly two years after college, he finished 3rd in World XC and won Boston in 2:09:55. That higher ceiling is always there. Your little engine that could, might beat a given more talented runner, but there will be talented runners that do train hard that he will never beat.

That is where we disagree! Teachers should get paid a lot more. Politicians should get paid a ton less than they do! Those who build roads might get paid more than CEOs.