Genetics matter. Training less so. Zero to hero…no. Zero to maybe average…possibly.

Most of them ran like 4:15, one ran 4:12, the best one ran 4:03 of my class. Re ranking them I would have been second. I ran with a lot of guys on my team that ran 9:40 and 4:25 in high school off of similar training to you. They ran 15:10 in college and they all tried pretty hard. You are more talented than you think.

Your implication was that there weren’t levels of “talent” / ability in education / learning…when there clearly are.

And actually many children do “give up” when they intuitively realise that they are not as talented academically as others. Unfortunately schools are not extensive enough to offer too many alternatives for those children. If someone gives up on running, there are other activities / sports / forms of exercise to try.

This has become such a long thread that calling it any lower than a 7/10 troll wouldn't be fair or accurate. It's clear from OP's responses in the middle/later pages that this was (to those of us paying attention) a thinly disguised troll.

It's not purely or even primarily one or the other. For every successful hard working runner there is some degree of talent, and some degree of training, behind their success. (Though this matters too: It's almost impossible to find a successful top level runner that doesn't work hard or want to do what it takes. So I'll leave work ethic or character out of this discussion since it's mostly a given a successful runner has a significant degree of that.)

Our paradox is we vastly overestimate the role of talent, and we also vastly overestimate the role of training, in a runner's success. The truth is they needed a lot of both to get to where they are.

Thanks. And your times are very respectable. Unfortunately, neither of us would likely ever achieve national or world class status due to a lack of required talent.

Another example: Two runners I knew in HS. One ran 4:25 and trained is butt off 24/7/365. Another ran 4:25 and didn't run in the summer or on weekends. Which was more talented? Well, they both ran seriously in college. One ran 3:39 for 1500m. The other ran 4:00 1500 and didn't break 15:00 for 5k. Guess which is which.

So any decent coach could churn out droves of 13:20 5k runners, is that what you're implying? I expect that even someone you could do that with a bunch of average guys then?

Cantu has been at Newbury Park since the start of his freshman year. His Senior year was just the only time he was in their top 7.

I think maybe you meant…Christian Simone? He transferred to Great Oak junior year, then Great Oak senior year.

They also had some girls transfer in, like Golmon and Darley

But yeah he did live an hour away from NP I heard.

Nobody really cares about the specifics. The point is that talent is 10 tines more important than training. Brosnan had the talent.

Ooooookay….thanks for your input.
Funny though…there are a lot of posts, on this recent thread on letsrun about Keeley Hodgekinson that mirror the sentiment behind the question in my original post…why if your not getting money or glory from it? Not why running per se…it, by itself is a great mind clearing, stress relieving activity, which is good for health and fitness, in moderation. But why train like a pro, and obsess about it like a pro coach, when your genetics will limit you and in reality you will be nowhere near pro results? That was the premise.
But hey…I’m sure that you will hop onto that thread now, and label all those who have expressed a similar sentiment trolls. Won’t you?
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=13079630

Newbury Park senior year, not Great Oak

Seymour didn’t start racing in the NP jersey until after Sean left. BUT….I read somewhere that his senior year Sean was still writing the training plan for the varsity in order to keep themselves in position to win NXN

And the fact that he was writing the right training plan is saying something. The fact that he knows what he’s doing. Training plan is important for success