You're premise is all wrong. Its not talent vs work, its talent & work & mental persistence.
This is generally part of "work". Work would be defined as both the will to execute training and the act of executing it. It also includes the extra stuff be it focus exercises or gym work.
This is generally part of "work". Work would be defined as both the will to execute training and the act of executing it. It also includes the extra stuff be it focus exercises or gym work.
Chapter and verse?
You define it differently?
Talent to me is the body's ability to adapt to training. EG: 2 runners of similar age, training background, and prs do the same or similar training and supplemental activity in xc season, but one ends up 30 secs/mile than the other at the end of the season. Say 2 hs'ers run 1630 and 15 in xc. Its the adaptation to training due to genes. Of course there is more to it, like innate ability to hold good form, ability to stay injury free, etc. Training can compensate here a bit - like an injury prone guy can do tons of core work to stave off injury, but inevitably loses a season at some point - he falls behind the guy with perfect form, despite never having to work on his form, who never gets injured.
Another thing I've seen is talented individuals bounce back from injury quickly whereas those without may constantly reinjure themselves and/or have injuries that linger for ages.
Some people's talent is being able to endure rigorous training and staying injury free which allows them to improve a lot because they are able to put in more work than everyone else. Some people are naturally talented and do not need to put in as much work to run similar times. There are 5k runners who run 70mpw who get injured anytime they go higher and there are 5k runners running 120mpw who never get hurt, yet they share similar pr's.
Talent to me is the body's ability to adapt to training. EG: 2 runners of similar age, training background, and prs do the same or similar training and supplemental activity in xc season, but one ends up 30 secs/mile than the other at the end of the season. Say 2 hs'ers run 1630 and 15 in xc. Its the adaptation to training due to genes. Of course there is more to it, like innate ability to hold good form, ability to stay injury free, etc. Training can compensate here a bit - like an injury prone guy can do tons of core work to stave off injury, but inevitably loses a season at some point - he falls behind the guy with perfect form, despite never having to work on his form, who never gets injured.
Another thing I've seen is talented individuals bounce back from injury quickly whereas those without may constantly reinjure themselves and/or have injuries that linger for ages.
A 30 second difference per mile is almost always going to be from a significant difference in top-end speed and nothing to do with adapting (whatever that means) to training.
Some people's talent is being able to endure rigorous training and staying injury free which allows them to improve a lot because they are able to put in more work than everyone else. Some people are naturally talented and do not need to put in as much work to run similar times. There are 5k runners who run 70mpw who get injured anytime they go higher and there are 5k runners running 120mpw who never get hurt, yet they share similar pr's.
Training will beat talent when talent doesn't train.
Two of my proudest accomplishments in running were beating two different guys head to head in two different races when both of those guys had PR's of 13:35 for 5K. I had only broken 15 minutes once for a 5K. I beat both of them solidly.
The main thing they both had in common when I beat them is that they were both coming off injuries that had severely diminished their ability to train. Within a few months of those races these guys were back to obliterating me.
Training will beat talent when talent doesn't train. The guy running 100 mpw but with no talent, will beat the superstar training 30 mpw eventually. The superstar running 60 mpw will beat the guy running 100, 120, maybe even 140 nearly every time though. The superstar training 120+ is on the lists.
Your goal should be improve yourself- your times, because you can't control the rate at which others improve.
For myself as a no talent type, I beat a lot of people eventually by training significantly more than them, but there were just some guys I couldn't catch up to. I know a couple real talented guys who ran around 1430. One did at 90 mpw, the other did at 35 mpw - though every single run was moderate or hard.
"Talent" isn't easily defined. At it's simplest, running talent could just be your basic body composition. Do you have a thin athletic body vs a very large very muscular body, are you built like a football center, or a miler? A guy that's 6'4 250 isn't going to ever be much of a distance runner.
the world record for 40-45 is 13:38 (Bernard Lagat) so to say that 14:00 for somebody without any talent is possible is just stupid. 16:00 maybe. 17:00 more likely.
Most people over 40 can never run 17min 5k, no matter what they do.
Maybe you think "somebody without talent" means anyone not in the top 1%. But if we are talking about someone truly mediocre (50th percentile), the ceiling for 40-45 yr old male is more like 19-20 min.
You actually need four to succeed at the top whether in HS, College or Pros.
Speed (genetic)
Endurance (genetic and hard work)
Work ethic (hard work)
Durability (genetic mostly)
.....But hard work can get you far if you have durability!
To an extent speed can be trained. If you're not naturally fast, you can certainly improve your top speed and ability to stay relaxed at fast paces through plyometrics and lifting movement specific, high velocity, medium weights.
Durability can also be aided through a good injury prehab plan.
Both of those are elements of hard work and not talent. That being said, an athlete with less natural speed who trains really well will still not be as fast as an athlete who has more natural speed who trains at the same level. Same can be said for durability
Yared Nuguse was on the HS bowling team, and he just ran in Worlds. That's talent.
All you try hards can read every book by Daniles, memorize Lydiard, do double thresholds, do fartleks, do Igloi.. whatever.. but you will never ever ever be as good as a guy that was on his bowling team and had to be talked into running track.
Yared Nuguse was on the HS bowling team, and he just ran in Worlds. That's talent.
All you try hards can read every book by Daniles, memorize Lydiard, do double thresholds, do fartleks, do Igloi.. whatever.. but you will never ever ever be as good as a guy that was on his bowling team and had to be talked into running track.
THAT is talent.
And Edwin kurgat did no running and played field hockey until college. he won the D1 NCAA race
