how to see natural talent??????

also, can you usually tell someone's natural talent while they're in h.s.?

(sorry for the end of that last post - my computer went crazy and posted against my will)

What does it matter?

runs fast with minimal training = talented

what's considered minimal training as far as mileage?

Untrained runner with very fast natural speed(52 or better for 400m), light frame, and good mechanics.

Train him aerobically for a couple of years and you got a world beater.

What does it mean to be talented? What it means to be talented is to be like the kid on my team who as a junior ran 7 miles over the summer, and placed 7th at state running 15:50's anytime he wanted for 5k, and a 52 400 on the track w/ no training. Too bad he hated running and was "forced into it" by the coach.

Kevin Soon2Be in Flag wrote:

What does it mean to be talented? What it means to be talented is to be like the kid on my team who as a junior ran 7 miles over the summer, and placed 7th at state running 15:50's anytime he wanted for 5k, and a 52 400 on the track w/ no training. Too bad he hated running and was "forced into it" by the coach.

so are the people who don't have that talent doomed to a fairly mediocre career? Are the people on top always the people who have that insane natural ability? (Please don't give smart ass responses, I'm actually interested in this.)

Think of it like this...

You have no talent at all, but you absolutely work your butt off for your whole entire life, and make it to the olympics. You say to yourself there's no way no one can beat you cuz of how hard you've worked. Well, you get to the line, and are standing next to someoen who's worked just as hard as you, but he was gifted with tons of talent. Unless he has a horrible day, I think you get what I'm trying to say.

I personally thinkg it goes in levels...

1) being high school, those non talents can compete just as well with the talents if they're worked long enough.

2) the chances of the non talents get slimer, because those with the talent have had a good amount of time to develop their ability and talent, so the non talents start to decrease.

3) the elite level, where non talented people are close to non existant, because the talented ones have had plenty of time to develop.

That's just my opinion, no need to get mad at me. trust me, i'm not talented.

woops, the 2) was talking about college.

good analysis. of course there's a huge range - instead of talent or no talent, but I agree with you on the levels.

That's one thing for a high schooler to go run 15:50 off no training. That's insane talent. People mentioned fast 400m speed off no training. That's talent - natural speed. What about someone who runs 4:20 off of 50mpw in their first serious season. Would you call that talent? Of course there's no line you can draw, I'm just wondering how people define it.

a mesomorph, with a light frame, that moves like a ballerina, and has a natural hematocrit of 54% is what you might call "natural talent"

Didn't Abdi Abdirahman run like low 15's with no training?

I don't get why this matters. If you're talented, you work your butt off to get better. If you're not talented you work your butt off to get better. Whatever the start, the method to get to the end result are the same.

15:20 as I recall in cowboy boots (for real) 2 days after he started running with his junior college team.

Here's something interesting:

Many would think Kenyans are natural born gazelles. But, you could also argue that they didn't have talent, but all that running back and forth as kids helped develop them into good runners. After all, do you really think 100s of Keyans are natural born talents? No, maybe half or more probably didn't have much talent but as I said before, that running back and forth as kids for many miles helped make them into excellent runners, with or without talent.

(No EPO help)

So, my point is lack of natural talent can be overcome by extraordinary workethic/altitude training/high mileage/etc... It worked for a certain Boston Marathon Winning Kenyan, who was a "chubby" person that wanted to make something of himself(through hard work) prior to becoming a world class runner. BTW, I got this info from race commentators while watching the Boston Marathon couple years back.

What were everyone's times for their 1st 5K in HS, their HS PR, college PR, and current PR??

I know this leaves out a lot of externalities like dedication to training, quality of coaching, etc., but I'd be interested to see people's progressions.

If you want to include other distances besides 5K, that's good too.

I'll go first:

1st HS: 21:56

HS PR: 17:59

CollegePR: 15:40

CurrentPR: 14:52

1st 5k : 26:12

HS PR: 17:30

Current PR: 16:24 (sucks to be always injured)

first HS: 18:55(time trial), 17:17 (first actual race) something weird clicked in a matter of a couple weeks there.

HS PR: 15:19

College (current): 14:54 mid-season (was in about 14:35 shape before getting a stress fracture)