ah okay, single lapped then, my memories of that day are growing hazy already
I only remember everyone was PR-ing yet country record holders were being lapped which may have never happened to them before in their professional lives
and possibly the most bonkers race I've seen in a long long time still
Ran 5:14 for the mile in HS, got down to 15:24 for 5k in 4 years of college.
It's all relative but one of the best indicators are what they ran in high school. For example, an "average" high schooler runs 2:00, 4:30, 10:00. Then it depends on how hard they trained to get to those times. For those that didn't train hard, they have a higher curve in improvement. I like to think 90mpw is what collegiate runners should be running. Anything over 100mpw is for the professionals.
I propose the less trained HS runners can improve to a 1:54, 3:53, 8:30 in college. Those that trained hard in HS can improve to a 1:57, 4:00, 8:50. Anyone past those times had untapped potential in HS or are have talent. This has been my experience.
What do you think the Olympic Qualifying standards are?
Hundreds of sport scientists get together every 4 years to determine what a normal person should be able to achieve in each event. That becomes the qualifying standard for each Olympics.
Huddle did not close in 64. She was a good six seconds from being lapped. That 64 seconds could very well be the difference that doping control makes. Probably more.
Huddle up wrote:
look at Molly Huddle compared to the elite east-africans, certainly no-one is going to call Molly Huddle a slacker or talentless as the AR holder for distance, but she can be lapped, repeatedly, by someone with even more superior genetics
Huddle is quite a bit closer to the top level of talent. 30:13 versus 29:17 is not multiple laps.[/quote]
"How successful at modelling can a person without good looks become?"You obviously don't know anything about modelling or the fashion industry in general, which questions how much you know about other things as well."Good looks" have nothing to do with modelling at all. I am a photographer and former scout who has booked many women, some for large European shows. The first thing I look for is height, then I want to know their measurements and their age. Their looks are irrelevant. There's place for "good looks" and bad looks in modelling. You can be pretty weird looking and be a very desirable editorial and runway model.Why do you think Mick Jagger didn't fix his kid's teeth and why Kristen McMenamy's daughter is doing very well?
Askerman wrote:
How successful at modelling can a person without good looks become?
How high can a person who can't jump learn to jump?
How tall can a short person become?
How intelligent can a dumb thread be made into? If it tried really hard? Like all day and night? With a perfect diet and lots of sleep and it lived with a personal masseuse/PT?
Talentless wrote:
Say you have a commited runner who can put in all the time that a pro athlete does into training, diet, recovery ect...The only variable that makes them different from other high caliber runners is that this particular runner lacks superior running genetics or in otherwords is "talent-less". Is it possible to reach a high level in running? Or is there simply a ceiling on which a talentless runner can't break after he reaches a certain point?
I've heard of being talentless as an excuse on several occasions, is it a legitimate excuse? Is it true that even the most commited runner with high aspirations and flawless training will fall short of greatness simply due to his genetic makeup?
Just take a look at Emma Coburn. Puts all her time into training, but still gets 4th at Pre Classic because Cellophane Cesspool came out of nowhere. That's what I call a depressing lack of talent.
Obese America wrote:
4:42 mile in high school is very average. No discernible talent. Despite his lack of natural talent, Matt Elliott worked hard to achieve 3:41.
It's a good example.
Your point that Elliott put in a tremendous amount of work to go from 4:42 --> 3:41 is definitely true, but your claim that a 4:42 mile is average for a high schooler isn't.
Per athletic.net, this outdoor season a 4:42.00 1600 ties you at the 8326th fastest high school performance in the US. Out of 75968 individuals who have raced the mile this outdoor season.
For reference, that means a 4:42 miler is in the top 11% of all male high school milers. I don't think you have any understanding of what "no talent" means. There are kids that train for four years and don't come close to breaking 5 for the mile, kids that don't crack 20 for the 5k, kids who can't go sub 70 in the quarter, etc. A 4:42 mile in no way displays an elite or even particularly uncommon amount of talent in a high schooler (which makes the 4:42 --> 3:41 all the more impressive), but claiming there's no discernible talent there is patently false.
See, you don't get it... wrote:
"How successful at modelling can a person without good looks become?"
You obviously don't know anything about modelling or the fashion industry in general, which questions how much you know about other things as well.
"Good looks" have nothing to do with modelling at all. I am a photographer and former scout who has booked many women, some for large European shows. The first thing I look for is height, then I want to know their measurements and their age. Their looks are irrelevant. There's place for "good looks" and bad looks in modelling. You can be pretty weird looking and be a very desirable editorial and runway model.
Why do you think Mick Jagger didn't fix his kid's teeth and why Kristen McMenamy's daughter is doing very well?
Askerman wrote:How successful at modelling can a person without good looks become?
How high can a person who can't jump learn to jump?
How tall can a short person become?
How intelligent can a dumb thread be made into? If it tried really hard? Like all day and night? With a perfect diet and lots of sleep and it lived with a personal masseuse/PT?
That's still a genetic thing. Moran.
Poor Ema wrote:
Just take a look at Emma Coburn. Puts all her time into training, but still gets 4th at Pre Classic because Cellophane Cesspool came out of nowhere. That's what I call a depressing lack of talent.
The subject is about talent-less runners. Are you really that clueless to think a person with little to no talent would even be allowed to compete at the Pre Classic?
cold timer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6CeZAm6p04
I stopped watching that video after they showed the dude run his 13th repeat 400 in 72 while still a bit overweight and trying to get in shape. Sorry that's not talentless. It's an interesting story to see if he could make the Brit oly standard in the marathon, but in no way is it a story about someone who is starting "talentless".
As many people have said, talent is not a dichotomous thing. It's on a continuum. Also, there are so many threads here on LR that totally overestimate what "average" talent is. This thread is no exception. People here on this thread saying 4:30 or 4:42 for the 1600 in HS are average times are living in a bubble. A 4:30 mile is roughly top 5%, 4:42 roughly top 10% of all HS boys depending on the year. You might be able to double that % if some of the slackers with potential trained more/better.
As to the question: I think everyone can improve a lot no matter what their inherent talent is. But even that improvement amount depends on inherent components as well. Some people are super responders to aerobic exercise, others not so much.
kalenjins wrote:
On talent alone, as a 15 years old, I was able to run a mile in 5:50 and a 5k in 29:00. With a lot of continuous training during 20 years, I am now able to run a mile in a little less than 5min and a 5k in 16:44. I also ran a marathon in 2h38 and a 10k in 33:54, just telling because both are being than my mile or 5k PR. But to get those results from my very low talent base, I had to log 50 000 miles in training, doing 3 hard session every week for nearly my entire life, running once up to 150mpw but most of the time between 50 and 100 mpw. Did gym work, yoga, all the stuff, and became along the road a certified mid-d and distance coach for more talented runners,.
So, training like a pro for a quarter of a century made me cut 1 min for the mile and 12-13 min for the 5k.
I am, I think, a middle of the range responder to training, i.e. that for each unit of training I do I get something out of it, but nothing magic here. Some very good responders get very good with very poor training or nearly nothing at all, while very bad responders don't get any better wathever training or amount of training they do.
Alex Vero, from Britain, did a good documentary on his experience from couch potatoe to living like a pro runner. The guy ran 1h13 for the half after 2 years of hard work.
But I would prefer talk about Nate Jenkins. This guy had a limited talent in High School and with a so good of a training ethic got himself to run a 2h14 marathon and a sub-14 5k.
There are ranges of "talent" as well as "no talent". A naturally talented young miler will be obvious to an observer of the sport. She might be winning races in fast times off moderate training. Runners like Jenkins may have limited miler talent but they have less obvious talents which are useful for becoming an elite runner. Such as a talent for durability and persistence. Being able to put in 100+ miles a week for year after year. Such as a talent for a naturally higher than average VO2max. Vero got to 1:13 for the half but it's debatable how successful that is. Didn't 500 Japanese club runners run faster than 1:13 for some race in Japan?
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Such as a talent for durability and persistence. Being able to put in 100+ miles a week for year after year.
There is no such thing as talent for durability. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle 100+mpw. It's all about motivation and commitment.
The Way We Were wrote:
Another giver of +1 wrote:Such as a talent for durability and persistence. Being able to put in 100+ miles a week for year after year.
There is no such thing as talent for durability. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle 100+mpw. It's all about motivation and commitment.
What about people who can run 200 MPW? You are also a moran.
l
The Way We Were wrote:
There is no such thing as talent for durability. Anyone without serious disabilities can handle 100+mpw. It's all about motivation and commitment.
No, but there's a genetic component in having good biomechanics to handle 100+mpw without breaking down. Those that are biomechanically blessed can handle mega-mileage while those poor mechanics will have nothing but a laundry list of chronic injuries associated with running high mileage...no surprises there.
I really hope you're not a running coach or anything in that relm spewing out nonsense like that ðŸ™
Obese America wrote:
Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher
One of the most common quotes on LRC is Frank Shorter's, "I ran a 4:30 mile in school but everyone did that."
4:42 is not slow for someone who is casually trained and yet wins state titles! That does not indicate lack of talent but rather extreme talent.
6'0" 165 is not muscular. It is a very good height and weight for a miler!
Genetic? What gene determines biomechanics?
Like most things in life, running injuries would go away if you ignore them long enough. The best way to prevent future injuries is to ignore the current one.
If you get injured, just increase your mileage. You will get stronger.
Obese America wrote:
Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher
Elliot ran 50.x in a relay split 400 in HS. He had plenty of talent, but his distance ability was not trained properly.
The Way We Were wrote:
Genetic? What gene determines biomechanics?
Read it yourself:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3838326/The Way We Were wrote:
Like most things in life, running injuries would go away if you ignore them long enough. The best way to prevent future injuries is to ignore the current one.
Stupid...(someone's giving you the business on this one ðŸ˜)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3838326/The Way We Were wrote:
If you get injured, just increase your mileage. You will get stronger.
Yeah sure. Got a stress fracture...just increase your mileage and run through the pain. How about an Achilles strain, torn meniscus, ruptured PTT, hamstring strain...just increase your mileage, run through the pain and all is well and good. And I'm sure sports med docs will be ready to write out those pain med & NSAID Rx's like crazy 😄
Obese America wrote:
kartelite wrote:Ah yes, letsrun, where a 3:41 1500m means you are utterly without any talent for the sport of distance running amidst all the 6-minute clowns on here.
At my local Safeway they hire disabled kids to bag groceries. Super nice, but when you ask them please don't put eggs on the bottom of the bag it's like talking to a wall.
4:42 mile in high school is very average. No discernible talent. Despite his lack of natural talent, Matt Elliott worked hard to achieve 3:41.
It's a good example.
Name any other male pro runner that ran slower than a 4:15 mile in high school. The list is short.
This guy isn't talentless just cause he only ran 4:42 in high school. He most likely had an average coach, didn't train very hard and didn't yet grasp what an all-out effort was.