These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
Hmm, I'd say this10.721.949.001:533:509:0014:1030:002:20
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
If a second were defined slightly differently and 28:59.9 converted to 29:19, would you then say that the 10k cutoff for ability would still be 28:59.9? Why these particular time cutoffs?
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
So you have no ability?
10.5.... No way is that potential for average genetics without a very long training history and plenty of drugs. You should realize that Ben Johnson, on drugs, ran 10.22 in 1984 Olympic 100m final and it isn't uncommon for 10.0 sprinters to run 10.3-10.4 early in the season.
The sprint times are just way off. On top of that, most of the guys with the natural ability to go 10.5 aren't going to be able to run a 2:10 marathon ever (without drugs) even if they trained their entire lives.
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
Bravo! The unrealistic running times posts never fail to hook a few.
*golf clap*
lulz wrote:
10.5.... No way is that potential for average genetics without a very long training history and plenty of drugs. You should realize that Ben Johnson, on drugs, ran 10.22 in 1984 Olympic 100m final and it isn't uncommon for 10.0 sprinters to run 10.3-10.4 early in the season.
The sprint times are just way off. On top of that, most of the guys with the natural ability to go 10.5 aren't going to be able to run a 2:10 marathon ever (without drugs) even if they trained their entire lives.
Specificity has something to do with it. If you are focused on 100m training and can't come close to 10.5, sorry you have NO TALENT. Same can be said for all other events. Can't break 1:50/3:50/14:00, You have NO TALENT. Take a seat in the stands and watch the meet.
I've been around track for decades. I've seen athletes work hard to achieve those times. I've also seen talented athletes roll out of bed and hit those times. It takes continuous long term training/development to break through barriers. Most who can't come close aren't training hard/smart enough. Most who can't touch those times will say it's genetics or doping. Sorry, you're just lazy and full of excuses.
"The harder I work the more talent I have"
Naturally Talented wrote:
lulz wrote:10.5.... No way is that potential for average genetics without a very long training history and plenty of drugs. You should realize that Ben Johnson, on drugs, ran 10.22 in 1984 Olympic 100m final and it isn't uncommon for 10.0 sprinters to run 10.3-10.4 early in the season.
The sprint times are just way off. On top of that, most of the guys with the natural ability to go 10.5 aren't going to be able to run a 2:10 marathon ever (without drugs) even if they trained their entire lives.
Specificity has something to do with it. If you are focused on 100m training and can't come close to 10.5, sorry you have NO TALENT. Same can be said for all other events. Can't break 1:50/3:50/14:00, You have NO TALENT. Take a seat in the stands and watch the meet.
I've been around track for decades. I've seen athletes work hard to achieve those times. I've also seen talented athletes roll out of bed and hit those times. It takes continuous long term training/development to break through barriers. Most who can't come close aren't training hard/smart enough. Most who can't touch those times will say it's genetics or doping. Sorry, you're just lazy and full of excuses.
"The harder I work the more talent I have"
Cool so the UK has only ever had 200 talented sprinters ever.
Nice to know.
So you are saying your basic, dime a dozen average white guy should be able to hit all of these times with proper training?
Naturally Talented wrote:
lulz wrote:10.5.... No way is that potential for average genetics without a very long training history and plenty of drugs. You should realize that Ben Johnson, on drugs, ran 10.22 in 1984 Olympic 100m final and it isn't uncommon for 10.0 sprinters to run 10.3-10.4 early in the season.
The sprint times are just way off. On top of that, most of the guys with the natural ability to go 10.5 aren't going to be able to run a 2:10 marathon ever (without drugs) even if they trained their entire lives.
Specificity has something to do with it. If you are focused on 100m training and can't come close to 10.5, sorry you have NO TALENT. Same can be said for all other events. Can't break 1:50/3:50/14:00, You have NO TALENT. Take a seat in the stands and watch the meet.
I've been around track for decades. I've seen athletes work hard to achieve those times. I've also seen talented athletes roll out of bed and hit those times. It takes continuous long term training/development to break through barriers. Most who can't come close aren't training hard/smart enough. Most who can't touch those times will say it's genetics or doping. Sorry, you're just lazy and full of excuses.
"The harder I work the more talent I have"
So you don't work hard either.
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
Marathon- 2:09:59
Imagine the humiliation the guy who ran a 2:10 in that race feels. Loser!
Naturally Talented wrote:
Specificity has something to do with it. If you are focused on 100m training and can't come close to 10.5, sorry you have NO TALENT. Same can be said for all other events. Can't break 1:50/3:50/14:00, You have NO TALENT. Take a seat in the stands and watch the meet.
I've been around track for decades. I've seen athletes work hard to achieve those times. I've also seen talented athletes roll out of bed and hit those times. It takes continuous long term training/development to break through barriers. Most who can't come close aren't training hard/smart enough. Most who can't touch those times will say it's genetics or doping. Sorry, you're just lazy and full of excuses.
"The harder I work the more talent I have"
A) What is the point of this?
B) At what point in their career are these times to be achieved
C) Saying someone who runs a 14:30 5k has 'no talent' is ridiculous. Stop watching elite runners and go to a local 5k and see how many people hit 14:30.
[quote]Boi wrote:
[quote]Naturally Talented wrote:[/b
A) What is the point of this?
-To define and help identify talent
B) At what point in their career are these times to be achieved
-any point
C) Saying someone who runs a 14:30 5k has 'no talent' is ridiculous. Stop watching elite runners and go to a local 5k and see how many people hit 14:30.
-the local 5k is equivalent to the local basketball pick up game.
Faster than the times listed takes talent. These times represent the PEAK that most average men have a shot at attaining. You don't need to be gifted to hit those times. You just need consistent training over a long period of time.
It's a little more stringent for marathon because people with no talent can put in tons and tons of work to build up huge endurance, but never have the speed to run faster than 5:10 pace.
Naturally Talented wrote:
You just need consistent training over a long period of time.
The days when people lived to be 1000 years old is long past.
Naturally Talented wrote:
[quote]Boi wrote:
[quote]Naturally Talented wrote:[/b
A) What is the point of this?
-To define and help identify talent
B) At what point in their career are these times to be achieved
-any point
C) Saying someone who runs a 14:30 5k has 'no talent' is ridiculous. Stop watching elite runners and go to a local 5k and see how many people hit 14:30.
-the local 5k is equivalent to the local basketball pick up game.
Faster than the times listed takes talent. These times represent the PEAK that most average men have a shot at attaining. You don't need to be gifted to hit those times. You just need consistent training over a long period of time.
What's your event?
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with training and average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
100m- 10.5
200m-21.5
400m-47.9
800m- 1:49.9
1500m-3:44.9
3kSC- 8:49.9
5000m- 13:49.9
10000- 28:59.9
Marathon- 2:09:59
I guarantee the average man can't hit any of these times with the necessary training. Especially the 800m and down. And to hit the longer times, you also are saying the average man will end up being about 145 pounds or less. It takes natural talent to hit these times. The average man probably runs a 100m in 12.5+ seconds and there is no way they drop 2 seconds just off training.
So my natural times could become those with training? That is funny
100- 13ish?
200- 27
400- 61
800- 2:31
1600- 6:09
3200- 12:47
5000- 23:00
slow poke wrote:
So my natural times could become those with training? That is funny
100- 13ish?
200- 27
400- 61
800- 2:31
1600- 6:09
3200- 12:47
5000- 23:00
You create your own reality. Whether you believe you can or cant, you're right.
I doubt you're seriously training with those prs.
Naturally Talented wrote:
These times can be hit with xxxxxxxxxx average ability. Any faster requires natural talent. Any slower means NO ABILITY.
Marathon- 2:09:59
Come on.
1/10