Talent is not important as most people think it is

the self-made poster wrote:

half the field dropped out. wrote:

Yeah, he had no talent and got lucky on a hot day.

Yeah, all of the training he did to prepare for the heat made him lucky.

No, the heat training that everyone else didn't do made them dumb and unlucky.

Hard work always and i mean always shows itself. We all have some talent but the hard work in practice always shows itself on race days. Aerobic conditioning and speed work always come through on race days...if you are aerobically conditioned on race day it will show on race day.. A lot of runners don't understand any race beyond 800 or 1500 is all

About aerobic conditioning. If you don't put in the miles it show on race day. No excuses ..

So I can fulfill my dream of being an offensive lineman for the Minnesota Vikings if I just outwork those guys? Cool.

An update:

To those of you asking of my improvement curve, i ran a 23 minute 5K after a YEAR of consistent 10 miles per week. So i am not a very good responder to training. As for my PRs, it's 2:23, and that is from 110 mpw right after uni. Now i have a bit more time and bumped the mileage up to 130 i believe i have a shot.

And for those who was asking why i couldn't break 2:05, read the thread name. Talent is not important 'as most people think it is'. Talent matters, i agree, but is not more important than hard work unless you are going for a major marathon podium finish or a running in the olympics.

Haha. It took 4 pages for the people to actually 'get' the thread name.

Talent that trains is untouchable. Your 2:20 is nothing. No One will even remember it.

Whatever you say, 2;20 is still way faster than you would've ever be.

Hobby jogger alert wrote:

Whatever you say, 2;20 is still way faster than you would've ever be.

Ima be.

This is sort of the old nature versus nurture argument. It creeps up in a lot of contexts.

Here's the thing though, that I think people don't quite get. The difference between the studs that are All-America, Trials Qualifiers, etc. and other committed runners is really just talent and nothing more.

I knew a kid on my D3 team that was super dedicated and worked up to 90-100 miles a week. He ran just under 32 minutes in the 10K. A solid time and a result of a lot of work. I'd say the difference between him and a D1 All-America is nothing beyond talent, as he would work as hard and smart as anybody.

To the OP ... I think what you have actually done is find a way to train and maximize the talent you have. Sincere congratulations, as I don't think too many runners actually are able to do that.

Didn't run in high school, as an intern in college my first race was a corporate cup 10k and I was determined to break 50 minutes to get in the timed corral next year. I did that, and a 22 minute 5k after some training. Fast forward a while and I'm a 2:28 marathoner. I wouldn't say I don't have talent but I don't know one way or another, not a lot of people decide to start running 100mpw in their late 20s.

BS, it's everything

While I agree with you that talent does not account for 99% of success, I think it may be more important than you think.

If you want to talk about maximizing an athlete's potential your statement holds true all day long but you're throwing out numbers inferring that with hard work anyone who has trouble breaking a 6 minute mile in gym class can work their way down to 2:20 for a marathon.

Right now we have an athlete on our team who is a nationally ranked runner who works about as hard as his unknown teammates. I'd say talent is fairly important for him.

At the other end of the spectrum I've had athletes that even with hard work had trouble breaking 2 minutes in a 600 meter race. Maximizing an athlete's potential at this level is still an accomplishment but the hard reality is that some will never really be competitive in this sport no matter what they do.

I wish you luck with your progression and believe that someone with your ability but without your tenacity would probably running 10 minutes slower right now so you're right that hard work does matter but you need to (and maybe you are) look at it in terms of maximizing one's potential. Your potential might very well be 2:15 or better. Someone else might be 3:00. Does this surprise you or we on the same page?

Talent does not hurt. But it is overrated.

I recall Al Salazar could run a quarter in about 57 in his junior year in high school.

And he did just that in the first quarter of the high school mile at the Boston College relays. He slowed down and ran (I think) 4:18, getting 2nd to Billy Martin from Catholic Memorial. Boy was Salazar pissed to finish 2nd!

Me, I wasn't too upset to finish 8th out of a field of 8, running a PR of 4:31.8. FYI, my best quarter at the time was 54, run in a mile relay. My better speed didn't help me too much against Alberto that day...

Big Red wrote:

Talent does not hurt. But it is overrated.

My better speed didn't help me too much against Alberto that day...

Neither did your untalented aerobic system.

Talent is everything. Hard work means nothing without talent.

Oh yes the ol talent vs hard work debate, probably one of THE go to topics on LR for years and years and years.

Talent wins- always. Everyone is not equal in their abilities, no amount of hard work will turn some of you into Olympic runners.

Noah Ngeny ran 3:32.91 for 1500m as a junior after less than a year of running. Richard Chelimo went straight from being a shepherd to running world class times in a few months. He ran 27 minutes 11.18 as a junior. Paul Tergat never ran to school because he lived near the school.

If they didn't have talent would they have succeeded in such a short span of time?

I agree with you. I ran with an olympian starting in 6th grade. When we both started (from nothing mind you) I was fairly close to him. By the end of the season, doing the exact same workouts, he was gone. Not even close to me. He continued to pull further and further away. He was able to increase his mileage seemingly at will with no injuries. My body, running significantly slower blew up on me at half the training volume he had gotten to by high school. I have over the years tried to increase my volume. I have been very conservative on pace, no speed work, strength training to help my core and legs, very conservative mileage build up and without fail I get injured if I try and creep above 60 miles per week for too long. There is genetics in that.

I would encourage the OP to research the HERITAGE study. Trainability is a talent. Sure, you started slow. Others may not see the same gains from training as you. That is an inherent talent.

Durability is partly genetic. You were born durable. While calling it a talent might be a stretch, it is partly out of your control.

You work hard. You deserve credit for that.

But don't discredit the other part of the equation... nice genes.

This site needs more positive posts like this.