The three types of distance running talent

I didn't know that Ritz was known for his relatively low training volume!

agreed. i definitely fall in catagory #3

Pretty good analysis. Then you have guys like Geb who fall into all three categories (47 quarter speed, obvious ability to "respond to training," running 70+ mpw almost non-stop for the last 30 years). Put those three together and you get sub-12:40.

I like this. I was in the #1 category. Was plagued by injury my entire career. Definitely saw plenty of guys that fit the other two categories. The #3 guys never win any championships, but they are always in the mix. #2 guys are prone to having that 'miracle season' and run super fast if they can stay injury free. I think Ryan Hall is experiencing that right now.

I think I'm decent in all three but not exceptional. I can run a 53 second quarter, a 4:20 (1500) off of strength only, and although I've been injured plenty, I've never missed more than a week or so.

The #3 guys never win any championships

ummm brian sell won the 25k camps

I'm not sure I agree (that #3 guys don't win championships) but it's worth noting that a national 25k isn't exactly a premier event like the other poster was probably thinking about.

looks similar to my old HS coach's philosophy, except instead of simply identifying things you do well, it identifies the things you do poorly. According to his ideas, there are 5 basic pieces you need in order to be a championship runner.

1 - Natural talent. You've got it or you don't. If you don't, not much you can do. Only one you can't improve.

2 - Good coaching/training plan. Can't do much if you're doing shitty, pointless workouts and aren't getting any external feedback.

3 - Durability/Injury prevention. Can't reach your potential if you're always injured. In most cases can be overcome by specific lifting/drills/core work/etc

4 - Day-to-day motivation. Gotta get out the door everyday and do your stuff, and give the appropriate effort in workouts. Most of the people with this problem don't make it into collegiate running, but some do. Can't get very far in college without a good work ethic.

5 - Race strategy/desire to win. Pretty obvious. Could have all the pieces put together but if you can't race worth a damn you won't ever win anything important.

Once you identify which of these is your greatest barrier, you can attempt to deal with that first and foremost. Except with talent. If you're short on "talent" then you've just got to excell in everything else. e.g. Brian Sell. Ritz is a good example of the injury prone guy. Webb's WC race a few years ago is a fine example of the 5th, hopefully he's fixed that. The McClary's are good examples of #2, Sandoval (imo) is a good coach, but just wasn't working for the McClary's - as soon as they get to Ark they start blasting. Can't think of a national class guy with motivation problems, but I'm sure you've all encountered this guy before. Takes all 5 pieces to reach your potential.

800 dude wrote:

Ok, so here's my random theory:

Running talent falls into three basic categories.

1. Pure speed. Sure, you can get faster through hard training, but not by much. This is strongly correlated with 800/1500 meter times--you know early on if you're going to be competitive at these distances.

2. Ability to respond to training. This is the kind of talent you see in guys like Ritz or Herb Elliott. Off of a relatively small volume of training (by world class standards) they can still put up astounding performances.

3. Ability to avoid injury. Now I'm thinking of guys like Brian Sell. Because they've been able to stay so healthy, they've been able to train much more than most. So, while they may not get as much bang for their buck, they are able to compete because their training volume is so big.

Not sure I get your explanation of #2 though I know what you're talking about. You say "ability to respond to training", then imply that these guys run well off lesser than ideal amounts of training...

I would expand your list to 4 types:

1. Pure speed/talented (Webb)

2. Can run well off low training but may not improve with more (Marc Davis, though I'm not sure he ever tried high mileage).

3. Ability to respond to training (in my book this means the more you do the better you get, i.e Ryan Hall and his 160mpw, Lindgren).

4. Uninjured, consistent, patient (Brian Sell)

Herb Elliott didn\'t have low volume. Some weekends he would cover 50 Miles or more.

Most of his volume was quite low, if you look at his average weeks. He also set a world record in the 1500 when coming back from an injury.

1990 - 55 miles

1991 - 70 miles

1992 - 100 miles

1993 - 120 miles

1993 - 140 miles....

2004 - 170 miles

Injury resistance to high mileage can be self-made if a runner can maintain perfect consistency and careful buildup over several years (you have to accept that. As the body catches up with the demands you place upon it, you can handle more, but then you have to wait for the body to catch up again and so the cycle continues....

I guess Sell might force this list to be reconsidered, at least for a poster boy.

does hall really run 160mpw?

when did he run 47 seconds in the quarter?

You can never forget those with no talent, no speed, prone to injury and don't respond to training. They're out there too.

I am pretty much a combo of everything.

I ran a sub 6 mile in 5th grade when I looked like I was in 3rd grade

I have 50 second qtr speed

I have run 4:14 in the mile

I run 50-70mpw

I have never been injured

I am a senior in HS

but for some reason I am not a national champ...weird

Plenty of runners fit the OPs hypothesis.

I am a #2 type, in that I have poor basic speed but can run a 31-32 10k on 30mpw. The more I train the better I get. Susceptible to injuries, so I envy category 3 types.

i fit into 3 wrote:

I am pretty much a combo of everything.

I ran a sub 6 mile in 5th grade when I looked like I was in 3rd grade

I have 50 second qtr speed

I have run 4:14 in the mile

I run 50-70mpw

I have never been injured

I am a senior in HS

but for some reason I am not a national champ...weird

It's all relative though. To most runners you are very good at all three categories, which is why you are good. But if you look at national champions and others better than you, most of them are better than you at all three categories.