Why shouldn't a white American run as fast as the best Africans?

"talent is hard work" you have no possible way of defending yourself anymore.

Both Marius Bakken, an elite who has trained with and raced against africans, and Bob Schul, an olympic gold medalist, disagree with your statement that physical talent does not exist.

I guarantee that if you went to Iten, Kenya and witnessed 13 year old boys running in the low 1:50s for 800m with zero training year after year, you would agree.

Steel Reserve wrote: with thinner lower-legs, you save something like 10% more energy per mile - Comes out to 31% for a 5k.

I've no doubt thin calves are an asset. But if you're right about how the math works, these guys should all be running ten miles and up so they expend no energy whatsoever!

--------------------------------------------------------

That's very good Flagpole, no in fact it's an excellent summary, well done.

It's hard work being talented, but you make it look so effortless.

talent disbursement wrote:

Hall's brother is enjoying success too, and if he develops along the same lines it will show that hard work is a component. These guys are not carrying the genes of peoples who have lived at altitude for millenia.

Someone already responded to this, but I'll reiterate it: If Chad Hall has the same sort of success Ryan has, that just shows how much great genetics matter!

Perhaps if Dirk Nowitzki's brother was a great distance runner you'd have a bit more compelling case...

And the Halls do have similar genes as the people to whom you're referring. Those are the genes that make world class distance runners, and they are present in all populations, albeit at a higher rate among some, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians.

Bob, you were a great runner, and it's interesting to read you challenging the need for long reps in interval training, but your idea of a perfect physical specimen is Baloney. When Juantorena came along people said that with his huge frame, he was the perfect physical specimen for 800m. Then along came Coe and that stupid hypothesis was shredded.

Do you think Mottram is too big for 5000m running?

He said perfect specimen not that there aren't exceptions- Geez!

Obviously Mottram is not too big, but his size is rare in those distances. Its rae because its not optimum for efficiency

The 800 has always depended on speed and endurance combo. That ability can come in all sizes.

Lydiard and I were together on quite a few occasions but we never talked about training methods. However we knew what he was doing with his runners. I suppose it proves there are many ways to train an athlete as long as the work load builds the cardiovascular system. You must remember when his athletes were going into competitive mode, he did shorter speed intervals to bring their speed up.

I have wondered over the years what would have happened if the U.S. runners of the sixties would have not worked eight hours between their morning and evening workouts.

To answer the 43 year old runner who believes my perfect specimen is baloney, I give him his opinion as it is my opinion. there would have to be studies done on oxygen uptake with different individuals although I am sure there are many already there. Of course big men can run 5000 well. It has been the case since the 60's but I tried to point out that they are under some handicap.

When I was with Igloi, we had about twenty five athletes training. Even though we all trained very hard, only a few reached international level. I assume that proves those who did reach the high level had genetic talent. It is always the case that an inferior speciman will beat an athlete who is genetically superior because he had better training methods. (Yes, race tactics etc. is a factor)

pendejo wrote:

[quote]

I've no doubt thin calves are an asset. But if you're right about how the math works, these guys should all be running ten miles and up so they expend no energy whatsoever!

You don't know anything about math. The percentages saved are in comparison with typical runners with normal calves. You're right, in a 10 mile race, a kenyan would save 100%, meaning a typical runner would expend 2x the amount of energy. Take an algebra or statistics course.

By denying that physical talent exists, you are also denying that genes exist. Are you trying to say that your biological makeup is not inherited from your parents, but from "hard work?"

Your logic makes no sense.

If an asian couple conceived and gave birth to an african baby, would you say "wow, that baby must have put in some hard work!" ??? "it must have taken a lot of mental toughness for his hair to be curly like that!"

Steel Reserve wrote:

pendejo wrote:

[quote]

I've no doubt thin calves are an asset. But if you're right about how the math works, these guys should all be running ten miles and up so they expend no energy whatsoever!

You don't know anything about math. The percentages saved are in comparison with typical runners with normal calves. You're right, in a 10 mile race, a kenyan would save 100%, meaning a typical runner would expend 2x the amount of energy. Take an algebra or statistics course.

You are painfully stupid.

You know better than guys like Bakken and Schul? Jesus Christ, you´re suffering from severe megalomania!

While I agree with their (primarily Marius') posts, I don't think that just because someone is a great runner makes them an expert on the subject. Malmo and Hodgie-san would almost surely be on the other side of this debate and they were quite formidable runners. There's probably some posters here who've done a Phd in genetics, I'd venture they shouldn't be discounted just cause they're mediocre athletes.

Although it is nice to see someone like Marius acknowledge that they are quite talented. I don't think it's pretentious at all.

kartelite wrote:Malmo and Hodgie-san would almost surely be on the other side of this debate and they were quite formidable runners.

Can't speak for Hodgie-san, so I'll speak for myself. Which side of which debate am I supposed to be on?

talent is hard work wrote:

Talent is not hard work. Not at all. The two aren't even connected in any way whatsoever.

I'm confused with your name and your message! :)

HENRRRRRRAAAAAAYYYYYYY??? Please join in. I love Henry's point of view on this.

White Americans can do it all....we just have to get over some serious roadblocks, such as the ones Lancelot uses...The lists are not proof of genetic superiority, Lancelot. But we've been here before.

Fascinating discussion though...

Bob,I find it so interesting how you and the rest of the guys under Igloi trained. I have read books that would dictate that you would have 0 aerobic capacity, or that within a year or two you would be burned out. I guess that's not the case at all. Is there a way to compromise hard interval sessions with long distance? And what about highschoolers, is there an age where it is too young to start hard track work? thanks for posting, it's great stuff.

malmo wrote:

kartelite wrote:Malmo and Hodgie-san would almost surely be on the other side of this debate and they were quite formidable runners.

Can't speak for Hodgie-san, so I'll speak for myself. Which side of which debate am I supposed to be on?

I'm not saying it's a black and white issue, but you've quoted his statement, "The harder I worked the more talented I became," and from what you've posted on various threads you seem to imply that natural born ability is not a huge factor in success. If that's wrong let me know.

I think everyone agrees that you need years of hard, smart training, but I don't think most people have the ability to run sub 13 even with "perfect" training--in fact I would say sub 16 is a stretch for most.

kartelite wrote:

I'm not saying it's a black and white issue, but you've quoted his statement, "The harder I worked the more talented I became," and from what you've posted on various threads you seem to imply that natural born ability is not a huge factor in success. If that's wrong let me know.

I think everyone agrees that you need years of hard, smart training, but I don't think most people have the ability to run sub 13 even with "perfect" training--in fact I would say sub 16 is a stretch for most.

Long term commitment, determination and hard work are the most important determinants to success at anything, especially running. Your ultimate level of success will depend upon your circumstances of birth and phenotype. "You can't teach small," I've said many times before. Very few people ever come anywhere near that level that would be their ultimate success. Everyone is born with the physical tools that will allow it. Few use them.

The goal of all athletes is the same; to prepare in a manner that will allow you to maximize your talent. The harder you work, the more talented you will become.

From a fortune cookie decades ago: "The greatest thrill in life is doing what others say cannot be done."

Darius Zorn wrote:

... It's likely there are a lot of guys in Europe capable of beating your PR, but they either play soccer or XBox. Same in the US. Around most of the US, the kids are not that serious in XC or track. The reason the same schools do well year after year is that they are among the few with good programs, the very few. You have no idea what an afterthought XC and track are at most of the HS in the US.

Some say Marius is trying to look special. Could be.

I think there's a lot of undeveloped talent out there. But I know the Africans still have a higher percentage of people with talent. That's the way things are.

0 aerobic capacity. That would mean I could hardly get out of bed in the morning. Who and why would someone write something so fallacious.

When you think about all the people Igloi trained in the U>S> who held American and world records it is an impressive list. He must have been doing something right. Beatty, Grelle, Larrieu, Tracy Smith did very well. Remember the Los Angeles Club held all the American records from 1500 meters to 10,000 meters at one time except for the steeple. His runners in Hungary held all the world records for the same events at one time.

When I told you about my training I want to make it plain it was my training. In 1966 when I trained Eamon O'Reilly and he ran his first marathon in 2:16 which was an American record, he did long runs in the morning and three afternoons a week. He injured himself before the 1968 Games or I believe he would have medalled. Therefore we trained under what I call the effort-interval system four afternoons a week. Mon.,Tues, Thur., Saturday. I did the same thing with the Air Force runners in the late 70's and early 80's and most progressed to run internationally.

My method does not mean you run hard with all intervals as somethimes the purpose is to keep the heart rate high (70% of max) for as long as possible. Therefore a speed which accomplishes that is used. I have had runners train two and a half to three hours in the afternoon and of course they did their morning run. That does not mean they keep it at 70% the entire time as that would not be possible.

I have trained high school athletes and it all depends how mature they are. However I do not like to push them to extremes since I believe they will tire of the sport and "retire" early. There is a time for hard training and it is a little later in life. (before anyone screams, there are always exceptions.) Jim Ryun joined me in a session in 1964 along with Dellinger and Young. Of course it was obvious he was a talent.Ryun and Lindgren were exceptions at the time and they will continue I am sure.

I don't think any of us were burned out by the training. Most of us were tired of the life style which meant training twice a day with eight hours of work in between.There is no doubt if we were getting paid to run we would have continued but with zero dollars it was mentally difficult. Of course injuries took it toll and without modern surguries and doctors who understood runners, it was a do it yourself routine.

You have to remember, we couldn't wear the flats in training as they were too stiff. the spikes were sprinters spikes only and I was the first person to place a heel on the spike to protect my achilles which were always sore. It was a different time and we ran because it was a challenge.