Running requires no skill

Having a heart twice the normal size IS talent.

Having a heart 2X normal size is as much talent as a two headed snake is talent.

It's called genetics. Not talent.

He said skill, not talent, he's correct, there is very little in terms of technique to master to be a runner.

And for the record, the Grinch grew his heart two sizes using a mixture of running on pure hate and Christmas spirit.

Unskilled Migrant Workers take American Jobs wrote:

He said skill, not talent, he's correct, there is very little in terms of technique to master to be a runner.

And for the record, the Grinch grew his heart two sizes using a mixture of running on pure hate and Christmas spirit.

Bowling requires a lot more skill than running.

Nope wrote:

Having a heart 2X normal size is as much talent as a two headed snake is talent.

It's called genetics. Not talent.

Talent is the expression of some genetics. Including a giant heart.

Truly wondering wrote:

Isn't running the one sport that requires the least amount of skill? I can't think of any other sports that require less skill than flat out running. At least a steeple chaser has to time their jumps. But runners... one foot in front of the other.

Aside from discipline, hard work, consistency, and if you're lucky god-given running genes, there is nothing to it. Being able to train high altitude, doesn't hurt either I suppose.

Look at Secretariat...what made him great? Skill? Talent? NO. Upon autopsy, they found his hearts was 2X normal thoroughbred size.

I love running, precisely because of this. There is no skill. No talent. It's just a war of wills in a way.

Secretariat's running skill was powered by a giant pump. He had it all.

There have been horses with giant hearts and bad running action.

I don't think I agree that running requires NO skill, but the skill floor to be a decent runner is a lot lower than other endurance sports like cycling, swimming, and XC skiing, let alone team sports like football and basketball.

Racing, for example, is a skill, or a set of skills. Technical stuff like adjustments to your stride, arm carriage, etc. also falls in the bucket of skill/technique. Fueling, if you run marathons and ultras.

Strongly disagree. A more accurate observation would be that there is no barrier to entry for running. Everyone naturally knows how to run. To be able to run a 15 min 5k or a 2:30 marathon takes skill. That skill includes the ability to train properly, push through the discomfort and properly pace yourself at races. If you go up to a group of reasonably fit HS kids and get them to race each other in a 5k, the same thing happens every time. They go out at 5:15 pace and are down to a 7 min mi at the end of the race. They have not learned how to pace. That is a skill. Take those HS kids and tell them to do some training to get faster. Half will end up with runners knee or shin splints within 6 weeks because they hammer it all the time and do not get proper rest. And of those who start training, more than half will quit after a year because they get frustrated and do not have the patience. Only a few will stick with it long enough to develop into a quality distance runner. Training is a skill. Without these skills, you will not run fast.

Yes, it is the sport that requires the least amount of skill

Skill =/= talent.

Is proper pacing, timing a kick, and tactics not considered skill? those things take time/practice to learn. how many unskilled high schoolers do you see go out painfully too fast and die? I see alot of carnage.

It is easy to take the developed skills for granted.

Wait until the swim team does a track workout. It is amazing how skilled track runners look after that.

Kind of a meaningless thread. If true, the implication is that all distance runners are bad athletes which isn't true. I had teammates in HS that were all-stars in Little League and others that started for the basketball team during the winter. I heard that Frank Shorter was a power hitter in LL.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Kind of a meaningless thread. If true, the implication is that all distance runners are bad athletes which isn't true. I had teammates in HS that were all-stars in Little League and others that started for the basketball team during the winter. I heard that Frank Shorter was a power hitter in LL.

Seriously? What kind of logic is that?

Just because running might require less skills than other sports doesn't mean that runners don't have skills, it just means that those talents aren't being used in running. When football players run track, they still are skilled at football - but they're not using those skills while they are running.

Take a NFL guy who runs a 4.5 40 in the combine and compare him to a random "good" D2 sprinter. They could probably run about the same 60m time as each other, yet one has added (football) skills that will net him millions of dollars.

There's a lot of skill involved in technique and countless hours improving it. However, to the untrained eye it looks unskilled.

You could make the same argument for figure skating, saying all they do is skate around in circles. But, they've put in 1000's of hours improving technical aspects of their stride.

Running is for people that have no skill or talent to make it in other sports. Therefore they sink to the lowest common denominator of most sports which is running. There is very little technique in running. There is very little skill needed. Yes, the training is hard and requires a lot of dedication but that is not a skill or talent it is willpower. Stop trying to make running a "skill sport", it's not.

Not good enough to play a "real" sport wrote:

Running is for people that have no skill or talent to make it in other sports. Therefore they sink to the lowest common denominator of most sports which is running. There is very little technique in running. There is very little skill needed. Yes, the training is hard and requires a lot of dedication but that is not a skill or talent it is willpower. Stop trying to make running a "skill sport", it's not.

Doesn’t it hurt your knees?