If you think you have no talent, you are right. If you think you have lots of talent you are also right.

Nope wrote:

Belief wrote:

If you think you have no talent, you are right. If you think you have lots of talent you are also right.

Defeatism or self belief are both self-fulfilling prophecies.

Discuss.

Wrong, you can have varying levels of talent but talent has nothing to do with success.

Your hypothesis is that you will do better or worse based on your view of your own talent, and that may be correct, but that has nothing to do with talent. Talent is innate, it cannot be improved or destroyed (unless by mutilation or age).

Talent without any other factors has very little to do with success. Talent with hard work is success.

This is correct. OP is incorrect.

If you think talent isn't the single biggest factor in athletic performance, you're an idiot.

And for Dumb Wiggins' sake, "talent" refers to innate characteristics that are biologically fixed (i.e. not subject to change through training) and that determine one's fitness for a given task.

Talent is the fundamental issue in athletics. A person who does not understand the significance of talent is completely clueless and possess literally zero real knowledge about running or physical performance in general. Everything such a person "thinks" he knows is wrong.

So the why don't guys from Appalachia or Bolivia or Switzerland run 2:03?

Real Runners wrote:

And for Dumb Wiggins' sake

No better way to admit you've got nothing than to start out by talking shit.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Rift Valley Kenyans grow up hungry and working hard all the time at altitude. A very small percentage of them end up with willowy frames that can run 2:03 marathons, a predictable result of that kind of upbringing.

What about the ones that don't develop that frame?

Critical Thinking wrote:

So the why don't guys from Appalachia or Bolivia or Switzerland run 2:03?

American kids can be poor but not that hungry. If you raised an American kid as hungry as a Rift Valley Kenyan, you'd lose custody and probably be thrown in jail. One meal a day of corn mush and 10 hours of work on a farm? No way.

In Bolivia, they don't have a tradition of training and recruitment like the Kenyans do. Kenyan runners are recruited and paid by police, army etc, and they didn't reach marathon elite status until the late 1980's when this system was well-developed.

Look at the inflammatory responses I've already gotten - people don't want there to be a reason other than innate ability. It deeply offends them. They'd rather believe it's just fate and there's nothing they can do about it, which gives them an excuse.

Belief wrote:

If you think you have no talent, you are right. If you think you have lots of talent you are also right.

Defeatism or self belief are both self-fulfilling prophecies.

Discuss.

I'll tell you my story:

Freshman year with no summer running: 25:47 for the 5k

Sophomore Year, 15-20 mpw over the summer: 22:31

Junior year: Did 25-30 mpw over the summer, got injured, didn't run for 2 months.

Senior year: Did 30 - 40 mpw over the summer... 20:14.

If that is no talent, I don't know what is.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Critical Thinking wrote:

So the why don't guys from Appalachia or Bolivia or Switzerland run 2:03?

American kids can be poor but not that hungry. If you raised an American kid as hungry as a Rift Valley Kenyan, you'd lose custody and probably be thrown in jail. One meal a day of corn mush and 10 hours of work on a farm? No way.

"One meal a day of corn mush"? Is there a famine in Kenya that I am not aware of? I haven't heard anyone advocate that childhood malnutrition was good for future running success.

dirt roads, altitude, build, and especially running culture and motivation are all needed and then within the normal range of abilities, you will get your Kenyan-level runners. for 2:03 maybe one other ingredient is necessary.

Real Runners wrote:

If you think talent isn't the single biggest factor in athletic performance, you're an idiot.

Talent is just a word that people like you apply after someone wins a race.

These talent discussions are usually dominated by ignorant people like you trying to project your own lack of self esteem onto other people. And you just can't see it.

Your last paragraph sucks. Stop generalzing about starving Kenyans living at altitude. It's just hyperbole.

Such naivety to claim that mentality entirely comprises one's talent. What grounds is your hypothesis based on? My stance is based on what physiological experts have concluded.

Belief wrote:

Real Runners wrote:

If you think talent isn't the single biggest factor in athletic performance, you're an idiot.

Talent is just a word that people like you apply after someone wins a race.

These talent discussions are usually dominated by ignorant people like you trying to project your own lack of self esteem onto other people. And you just can't see it.

Real Runner speaks the truth. Belief is an idiot.

To deny that some people aren't better at some things is beyond foolish.

Shaquille O'Neal could never ever ever be even a good distance runner. Geb could never never ever be even a decent basketball player.

Being born 7 as opposed to 5'4 is part of what makes people different and yes, talented at certain things.

It might help to define "talent".

This is not a perfectly nuanced description, but what comes to mind right now.

Athletic Talent: The brain's ability to make the body mirror the natural laws of the universe. When one can move as the celestial bodies do, and as the atomic matter does, with such subconscious precision that there is no frontal lobe activity to be measured, they will be seen to have extraordinary natural athletic talent by those who had never before met them.

Belief wrote:

Real Runners wrote:

If you think talent isn't the single biggest factor in athletic performance, you're an idiot.

Talent is just a word that people like you apply after someone wins a race.

These talent discussions are usually dominated by ignorant people like you trying to project your own lack of self esteem onto other people. And you just can't see it.

Does this mean that you also believe that someone's height is entirely dependent on how they view their own height?

What about deformities from birth? Are those just because they view themselves in that light?

How about people with enlarged hearts or lungs?

Do you believe that intelligence is due to viewing yourself as intelligent as opposed to a slightly larger cranial capacity or a slightly differing wiring of the brain or that certain areas of the brain are larger than others?

If you think that talent doesn't exist, then you must think that all of those are byproducts of what you believe as well.

To believe what you claim you MUST believe that height has no genetic factor whatsoever, just as you MUST believe that all of those things I mentioned have no genetic factor.

Unfortunately for you, this view is incorrect. Horridly incorrect.

Not going to read the thread because the premise is just plain stupid. I don't know how this could be debated for 38 posts.

The correct and ONLY answer: the existence of talent is independent of your belief in it's existence.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Look at the inflammatory responses I've already gotten - people don't want there to be a reason other than innate ability. It deeply offends them. They'd rather believe it's just fate and there's nothing they can do about it, which gives them an excuse.

I really wanted to play offensive line in the NFL. I guess I have the talent, just didn't work hard enough. I used to think part of it was I am 5'10 175lbs. Now, thanks to the insight from BW, I know that isn't it.

Critical Thinking wrote:

So the why don't guys from Appalachia or Bolivia or Switzerland run 2:03?

Because they don't run.