This - no one cares that you're a runner outside of Let's Run, especially considering you're not in any high school/club team.
This - no one cares that you're a runner outside of Let's Run, especially considering you're not in any high school/club team.
128k wrote:
This - no one cares that you're a runner outside of Let's Run, especially considering you're not in any high school/club team.
Except if I started in my freshman year, I could have gone to college for free and have stories about me in the local news.
david45 wrote:
And the question that nobody answers is how do I know if I have talent?
We don't know if you have running talent. But what we do know is that you have trolling talent.
A lot of it.
david45 wrote:
128k wrote:
This - no one cares that you're a runner outside of Let's Run, especially considering you're not in any high school/club team.
Except if I started in my freshman year, I could have gone to college for free and have stories about me in the local news.
You say garbage like this but you also say that you'll never be a fast runner. Getting off the couch 3 years earlier doesn't change the fact that you're a whiny ignorant entitled brat.
if any of you weren't already convinced that this guy is nothing more than a troll then surely this thread is all the evidence you need. why ask a question if you're only going to ignore the answers?
i doubt he's ever run a step in his life.
was worth reading for the quality HRE post though.
david45 wrote:
The Predictor wrote:
he's talking about himself
And the question that nobody answers is how do I know if I have talent?
Stop. You claimed that you were running 11 minute miles before, remember? You already know the answer, so why post the question? Shoes aren't going to give you talent and make you even average, so why post the question?
Ohioan33 wrote:
david45 wrote:
And the question that nobody answers is how do I know if I have talent?
Stop. You claimed that you were running 11 minute miles before, remember? You already know the answer, so why post the question? Shoes aren't going to give you talent and make you even average, so why post the question?
So you are implying I have no talent?
david45 wrote:
Ohioan33 wrote:
Stop. You claimed that you were running 11 minute miles before, remember? You already know the answer, so why post the question? Shoes aren't going to give you talent and make you even average, so why post the question?
So you are implying I have no talent?
What? Implying? You say you run 11 minute miles and you already know that you don't have talent and that you are a troll. Your one sentence responses give it away...not to mention the information that you provided in other posts. Keep laughing as you get response after response, that seems to be your sole purpose>>>>>that's trolling.
Ohioan33 wrote:
david45 wrote:
So you are implying I have no talent?
What? Implying? You say you run 11 minute miles and you already know that you don't have talent and that you are a troll. Your one sentence responses give it away...not to mention the information that you provided in other posts. Keep laughing as you get response after response, that seems to be your sole purpose>>>>>that's trolling.
I was being honest. I was not trolling.
I do think a 4:32 mile / 9:50 2 mile / 16:00 5K is possible for about 35-50% of men “if” they fully dedicate to all aspects of athleticism needed to run a good 3000m time.
However, it takes discipline in many areas of life and training to do it. The other 50% of men may be naturally built like a lineman... or have chronic injuries... or lack a robust endocrine system... or flaws with their nervous system.
4-3 Thirty wrote:
I do think a 4:32 mile / 9:50 2 mile / 16:00 5K is possible for about 35-50% of men “if” they fully dedicate to all aspects of athleticism needed to run a good 3000m time.
However, it takes discipline in many areas of life and training to do it. The other 50% of men may be naturally built like a lineman... or have chronic injuries... or lack a robust endocrine system... or flaws with their nervous system.
I personally do have problems with chronic injuries
david45 wrote:
4-3 Thirty wrote:
I do think a 4:32 mile / 9:50 2 mile / 16:00 5K is possible for about 35-50% of men “if” they fully dedicate to all aspects of athleticism needed to run a good 3000m time.
However, it takes discipline in many areas of life and training to do it. The other 50% of men may be naturally built like a lineman... or have chronic injuries... or lack a robust endocrine system... or flaws with their nervous system.
I personally do have problems with chronic injuries
I think that bigger problems are the lack of true interest in learning, lack of applying yourself, but fundamentally a lack of a love of running or any REALLY GOOD reason for running.
Corrector wrote:
david45 wrote:
I personally do have problems with chronic injuries
I think that bigger problems are the lack of true interest in learning, lack of applying yourself, but fundamentally a lack of a love of running or any REALLY GOOD reason for running.
It is hard to love running when you are injury prone at 18
Except if I started in my freshman year, I could have gone to college for free and have stories about me in the local news.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...gasp...hahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahaha!!! You sweet summer child!
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
Except if I started in my freshman year, I could have gone to college for free and have stories about me in the local news.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...gasp...hahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahaha!!! You sweet summer child!
What is wrong?
HRE wrote:
I usually ignore your posts because I think you like the attention that comes with the "poor me" schtick but I'm going to make an exception here and think that maybe you want to see how "talented" you are.
No one can tell you if you're talented for running. No one even knows what you mean by talented but if you mean national team/shoe contract talented the odds are heavily against you. If you mean running times that would put you at or near the front of a lot of road races it's conceivable that you are talented enough because getting to that level is something an awful lot of us have.
In high school I thought I might have been the worst runner on earth. Someone had to be, right? I couldn't run under 6:00 pace for even a half mile. It took almost three years of running before I beat another runner who actually finished a race. But I began working like crazy for several years and got to where I could run a marathon at better than 6:00 pace, managed to win some very small time races, and turn in times that were once only fantasies.
And when I've told this story to many people like yourself, usually claiming I had no talent for running, they often tell me I had real talent. I find that hard to believe but you know what? None of us know what talent is. You can't measure it like you can muscle mass or body fat. You need to go on a quest to find it and as with any worthwhile quest, you don't know how it will turn out. You do the best you can with it. You'll have setbacks and failures and you try to learn from them and do better the next time. But no matter the results you will not have to wonder if.
It's hard. It's not certain. It's also a tremendous learning and growing experience. Nothing that I've ever seen you post here indicates that it's something you are suited for temperamentally but maybe I'm selling you short. But no matter how many posts you make here asking how to know if you have running talent only you can answer that and it will take time and real effort to do it.
This is really good stuff, you’ll never know what you can really do until you consistently put in the work to unlock it.
You must have a purpose for running and if it’s just times it will not hold up.
4-3 Thirty wrote:
I do think a 4:32 mile / 9:50 2 mile / 16:00 5K is possible for about 35-50% of men “if” they fully dedicate to all aspects of athleticism needed to run a good 3000m time.
However, it takes discipline in many areas of life and training to do it. The other 50% of men may be naturally built like a lineman... or have chronic injuries... or lack a robust endocrine system... or flaws with their nervous system.
No way.
35-50% of TRACK ATHLETES (and more) never get near those times.
weather_guy20439 wrote:
4-3 Thirty wrote:
I do think a 4:32 mile / 9:50 2 mile / 16:00 5K is possible for about 35-50% of men “if” they fully dedicate to all aspects of athleticism needed to run a good 3000m time.
However, it takes discipline in many areas of life and training to do it. The other 50% of men may be naturally built like a lineman... or have chronic injuries... or lack a robust endocrine system... or flaws with their nervous system.
No way.
35-50% of TRACK ATHLETES (and more) never get near those times.
Is that because the lack of talent or lack of hard work?
david45 wrote:
Viking21 wrote:
In excess of 99% of all current 18 year olds will never break 16:00 in a 5k, whether they train or sit on the couch. Don't get confused by all of the Let's Run superstars. You should not define yourself by how fast you can run. Quit obsessing over numbers. The Kenyans on my son's D1 team don't even own a watch when they get here. Get rid of yours. You'll know if you ever actually need one.
And how do you deal with not being talented?
This is why I really doubt your sincerity. Did you read Douglas Burke's post? Fantastic story and an absolute clinic on how he dealt with having no talent or at least being all but sure that was the case. If you did something like he did you would most likely find "talent" you cannot realistically conceive of having right now, maybe with not as dramatic results as he got but maybe even better. But you have to be willing to risk doing that kind of work and not getting the reward you'd hoped for. You really seem either unable or unwilling to grasp this idea which takes me back to thinking you're just into the attention that comes with the "Poor,Poor, Pitiful, Me" routine.
Thanks! Big time!