grox wrote:
Since when is athletic talent defined as having explosive power?
Anyway, a data point: Stéphane Diagana, European record holder at 400mH turned to distance running after his professional career:
http://bases.athle.com/asp.net/athletes.aspx?base=bilans&seq=504949504653485146535148. Definitely world class at 200m, 400m and 400mH; way above average, but nowhere near world class at distance running. Between 2004 and 2005, he went from a 47.07 400m to a 1:21:26 half marathon. Not bad. That kind of half-marathon would be a pretty hard training session for me, but his 400m is so utterly unachievable it's not funny.
Most sports actually require explosive power.
Athletes that earn 100s of millions $ are talented in explosive power. Explosive power usually is also a good measure for how well one can balance and is also a good indicator of ball skills. Like it or not, the reason that these athletes can get million$ is that these skills are coveted by most.
If you dont have it, then you are deemed less athletic. Distance guys, save for 800 & 1500, don't have this athletic gift. They are good at endurance and their sport doesn't require balance at all, just perpetual forward motion.
Athletic in the sense of endurance but not needing other athletic skills.
Follow the $. That is where you will find athletic traits valued by our society.
Mo is the highest paid distance runner today.
He barely makes the league minimum NBA salary.
(BTW, did you guys know that at 7'1" and 300 lbs. Wilt Chamberlain had a 36" vertical, could bench press 500 pounds, squat 1000, and he ran sub 50 400s in college where he was mostly a 400 hurdler??
Oh, and he also slept with an average of 3 women per day for over 20 years!
Athleticism!