How do I you figure out if someone had talent for it
How do I you figure out if someone had talent for it
*has
wear are u wrote:
How do I you figure out if someone had talent for it
Does that mean they just have a lot of potential?
You test their abilities in relation to their training.
A guy who runs a 4:30 mile off over 20mpw and limited interval work is more talented than a guy running 55mpw with consistent interval training.
Also depends on other factors. Durability is a talent as well. If 55 mpw guy can elevate his training stress to 120 mpw and continue to improve and 20 mpw guy gets hurt when he hits 50 mpw, then I'd argue that 55 may have more talent overall. Mental toughness is also a talent, as is adaptability. Some people improve more with training than others. Talent isn't measurable by any single metric or at any one time.
It is a combination of genetics and attitude. Genetics are simply a light frame and as AlSal put it, a strong running engine. Longer legs and shorter torso. Good mechanics and physical symmetry. Normal arch. Attitude is also a big issue. A talented running has to be able to balance the need to push to your limits in training and racing with managing recovery and the stimulus/response of good training.
Intrinsic motivation, body responds well to training, and injury resistance.
I'd say someone with real talent has some success with little training. As an example, a college teammate of mine was a two time xc state champion in high school. During practice, he and his teammates would run to a house two blocks away from school and play video games until it was time to go back. That's talent.
There's lots of levels
Durability- Being able to continue to run at a high level without injury. (Body not breaking down)
Speed- Being able to kick at the end to win, or down right just being fast.
Grace- Making running look easy( No one mentioned this yet) Ever see runners and are like.. "Wow! They make it look so easy"
Being able to train very little and still do very well.
You have them train hard for ten years and if they win medals, they have talent.
RationalActor wrote:
Also depends on other factors. Durability is a talent as well. If 55 mpw guy can elevate his training stress to 120 mpw and continue to improve and 20 mpw guy gets hurt when he hits 50 mpw, then I'd argue that 55 may have more talent overall.
"Durability" is not a talent. It is a matter of motivation and commitment. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle at least 100mpw. Some people run through pains and others don't. It's as simple as that.
Morphology
Muscle composition
Running efficiency
VO2 max
Lactate threshold
To find out if someone has it start with the below
1) Look at them. If they look like Chris Cristi, they probably don't have it.
2) Take them to the track have them run 200m hard. If they cant break 35, they probably dont have it
3) Watch them run from behind. You can tell a lot there
If they pass the above, start training them. You should know if they have talent after a year
The Way We Were wrote:
RationalActor wrote:Also depends on other factors. Durability is a talent as well. If 55 mpw guy can elevate his training stress to 120 mpw and continue to improve and 20 mpw guy gets hurt when he hits 50 mpw, then I'd argue that 55 may have more talent overall.
"Durability" is not a talent. It is a matter of motivation and commitment. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle at least 100mpw. Some people run through pains and others don't. It's as simple as that.
Hmm, i've never been above 55 mpw, high schooler here, but I wouldn't say that's fair, there are a lot of things that prevent people from 100 mpw (injuries) and i know good high schoolers who have a really tough time when they hit 70 mpw, so i think being able to hit 100 mpw and not get injured is something maybe 75 percent of people CAN do, but it wouldn't be the best thing for them
mateyoustink wrote:
The Way We Were wrote:"Durability" is not a talent. It is a matter of motivation and commitment. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle at least 100mpw. Some people run through pains and others don't. It's as simple as that.
Hmm, i've never been above 55 mpw, high schooler here, but I wouldn't say that's fair, there are a lot of things that prevent people from 100 mpw (injuries) and i know good high schoolers who have a really tough time when they hit 70 mpw, so i think being able to hit 100 mpw and not get injured is something maybe 75 percent of people CAN do, but it wouldn't be the best thing for them
It is like saying anyone can run a 12:40 5k. Just a matter of being able to run through pain. The only reason we aren't all olympic champs is that we are wimps.
Obviously that isn't remotely true. People tend to refer to talent as either speed (i.e. the distance guy who can drop a 48s 400m) or running fast on early on/low mileage. But that is too simplistic. Some people respond to training more than others. Some people recover faster (i.e. you can do more training). And some people are better fits (i.e. slight changes in muscle attachment points and bone structure can make you much lighter and more efficient) for distance running than others. And then to some extent after all that it will come down to desire, good coaching, and the like.
Seriously if you think the only difference between people is mental toughness and desire, you have never seen HS track. You have people doing the same training getting vastly different results. And it isn't always the hard workers who do the best.
The Way We Were wrote:
RationalActor wrote:Also depends on other factors. Durability is a talent as well. If 55 mpw guy can elevate his training stress to 120 mpw and continue to improve and 20 mpw guy gets hurt when he hits 50 mpw, then I'd argue that 55 may have more talent overall.
"Durability" is not a talent. It is a matter of motivation and commitment. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle at least 100mpw. Some people run through pains and others don't. It's as simple as that.
I assume this is a troll response, but very few people can handle 100mpw.
I have friends in other sports, even at high levels, who got injured trying to get to 30mpw. At over 1,000 steps per mile, even a small biomechanical flaw can wreak havoc pretty quickly.
You're biased because you're looking at a self-selected group of elite runners, and even among these, injuries are common, career limiting and have absolutely nothing to do with willpower. I watched Shalane battle through intense dehydration to qualify for the Olympics and no one would doubt her motivation, but she dropped out of Boston yesterday with a stress fracture in her back. No amount of motivation is going to heal her fracture.
Some frames are just inherently fragile and the very characteristics that make them fast make them vulnerable. Transcendent talents pair high initial ability with high adaptability, high training response and high durability. These are 1/1,000,000 level runners. The rest of us have some sub-optimal mix.
RationalActor wrote:
I have friends in other sports, even at high levels, who got injured trying to get to 30mpw.
Your friends might have high levels of dedication to other sports, but not to running. At least not at the same level. That's why they cannot handle 30mpw.
As for Flanagan, she got injured because she slipped on a snowy road, not because she ran too much. It was a freak accident, not overuse injury.
So that example is irrelevant.
For adults you can fairly well estimate their ceiling by having them first, run the mile, train seriously for at least three months and then run the mile again. You only have to compensate for weight.
For young runners it's much more difficult as they can develop very differently.