You just mean genetics, right?
It's running a sub 17 min 5k with no training at all?
Or running a sub 2:15 800m with no training at all?
Or is talent being able to respond to training and stimulee?
I don't think I have natural talent, but I think I respond well to training.
Is this Spectator Sam?
Neither of those shows much talent, depending on age and sex.
LR has covered ad nauseam that responding to training is a key aspect of talent in the running world.
Good for you, work had, work smart; race hard, race smart.
I think there are a variety of attributes that can fall under the term talent for running. There are physical attributes like the talent of running fast untrained, or running XC better than track, having a good kick, or being injury resistant. But I also consider psychological attributes as talents which are equally as important as physical. These include things like being a good tactical racer, and training smart and consistently. You may disagree with me, but I've seen enough people who can't seem to be able to string together more than one consecutive season together to realize how important the mental game is. It doesn't matter how good or how fast a person is, if they are a basket case who can't put it together on race day or train consistently what's the point?
Everyone on LR mentions their PR's and training, but no one ever mentions the mental aspect.
It is just assumed that we all go to prestigious universities at the D1/D2 level and we all have our mental game in check?
There are intelligent people on this board, but what about psychos?
Maybe the person I'm trailing is actually crazy - they're fast, but they're also crazy.
I'm just wonderin' for myself.
With each isolateable trait there is a distribution of ability. With respect to running the relevant traits are as well defined as they are with respect to any activity. They are basically speed over a particular difference (with translates into some particular physiological characteristics), recovery, etc. One supposes roughly a normal distribution of talent in the human population. There is some considerable bias in terms of who has the chance to develop their talent (people from richer countries are more likely to do so, people from India less likely to do so). The world class talent is at the level of 6 or 7 or more standard deviations away from the mean - extremely rare - but in populations of 7 billion one sees the extremely rare. Running a sub 17 5k out of the box might be 3/4 standard deviations away from the mean - many high schools have someone that can do that - but it's nowhere near world class. In my high school XC team we had 10+ guys who ran sub 17 5k with training (there were 400 boys in the whole high school, so that's 2.5 % of the relevant population, and don't forget that some of the fast kids played football) and on our track team we you had to run sub 2min in the 800 to even compete for a spot. That's one small high school. So those times aren't that rare. They show talent vis-a-vis the general population, but they don't show what a professional would call talent.
Our Dutch toprunner (2.09 marathon) ran his first 5k in 17 minutes with no training.