Have I got Talent?

Yes

I ran with men in college D3 who couldn’t break 2:10 in 800...

Yes some talent. Can possibly break 2 in the 800 while in HS which is pretty good.

Not bad, just be sure to stay away from boys and focus on your training!

Those are solid times for a 16 year old. Don't under sell yourself, most 16 year olds can't break 2:10. You seem to have a good speed and endurance foundation to build on for the next 3-4 years.

"talent" is a broad term and who will actually succeeds at running past HS is impossible to determine. I'm sure you've seen kids your age run 1:55 and faster. More often than not those kids have simply matured faster and don't have any promise of high level college performances.

Give yourself time to grow. Keep training regularly and focus on staying injury free, building good running mechanics, gaining some weight, and working on aerobic capacity. Don't worry about who has "the gift" of running fast. It isn't something you can change but you can always train better.

Also how the heck have you run 39.6 for 300m and 2:05 for 800m with your 400m time being so slow? Based on your other times, 54 or lower is a responsible expectation.

Thank you very much for your answer. And to answer your question, I’ve only run 3 400’s in my life (one being a 62 last year when my 800 PB was 2:19) , and this season (2:05 season) I ran a 57.4 and 57.0 . I’m just terrible at racing 400’s it seems, pacing wise. I go out in about 28 but it feels like 26 ish to me. Thank you!

lapsofanoval wrote:

Was having a debait with a friend, who said my leg shape meant I’d have no talent.

Led me to ask - Do I have talent based on these times?

16 years old, 126 pounds, (second track season:)

200: 25.00 (+1.3)

300: 39.63

400: 57.00

800: 2:05

Parkrun: 18:07 (this is quite unrepresentative, worth about 17:40 ish)

I see these times as quite average, and think many people could achieve these times in a few years if they wished. Or is talent required for these times?

These are really solid times for a sophomore(?) especially the 800. However, it depends on the amount of training you’ve done to attain these times. If someone runs a 20 minute 3 mile off of say a single 20 mile week that person is more talented than someone who can run a 19 minute 3 mile but off of say 3 months of 30 mpw.

Also, what does your friend mean by “leg shape”? I remember a few years back, this high school sprinter from Illinois had huge chunky legs and calves that took up a little over half his leg. Didn’t stop him from being one of the fastest 100/200 and 400 meter runners in the whole nation.

Provide height with weight; otherwise less useful.

You were certainly a hell of a lot faster than me when I was your age. You've good talent , you just need to train it.

You debait the hook but you debate your friend

I ran this in my second season of track, and I was doing about 20mpw that season of mostly quality (track sessions, hill sprints) and a long run of 6 miles.

100m wrote:

Provide height with weight; otherwise less useful.

I provided it haha maybe you missed it. 5”8, 126 pounds

lapsofanoval wrote:

Was having a debait with a friend, who said my leg shape meant I’d have no talent.

Led me to ask - Do I have talent based on these times?

16 years old, 126 pounds, (second track season:)

200: 25.00 (+1.3)

300: 39.63

400: 57.00

800: 2:05

Parkrun: 18:07 (this is quite unrepresentative, worth about 17:40 ish)

I see these times as quite average, and think many people could achieve these times in a few years if they wished. Or is talent required for these times?

I was wondering too about the height but in a later post you stated that you were 5'8" tall. Now the next question. Are you male or female? If male there is room for a lot of improvement. If female you should be getting a lot of recruitment offers from big D1 track schools. That 800 time will get you into the NCAA's!

Parkrun ... are you British? If American, which city?

Gender Identity wrote:

lapsofanoval wrote:

Was having a debait with a friend, who said my leg shape meant I’d have no talent.

Led me to ask - Do I have talent based on these times?

16 years old, 126 pounds, (second track season:)

200: 25.00 (+1.3)

300: 39.63

400: 57.00

800: 2:05

Parkrun: 18:07 (this is quite unrepresentative, worth about 17:40 ish)

I see these times as quite average, and think many people could achieve these times in a few years if they wished. Or is talent required for these times?

I was wondering too about the height but in a later post you stated that you were 5'8" tall. Now the next question. Are you male or female? If male there is room for a lot of improvement. If female you should be getting a lot of recruitment offers from big D1 track schools. That 800 time will get you into the NCAA's!

I’m a 5”8 guy. My predicted height is 5”11 .

And in reply to the other poster, yeah I’m british.

That's about what I was running at 16 off of no running other than soccer. I turned to running at 17, but due to laziness never really trained and ended up with a 1:55, and 3:55 PB at age 20.

The moral of this story? TRAIN. Talent without training is pretty useless. Don't fall into the trap of relying on talent and getting lazy.

lapsofanoval wrote:And in reply to the other poster, yeah I’m british.

They're about average, maybe a bit above average.

trackster3 wrote:

You debait the hook but you debate your friend

Beat me to it.

lapsofanoval wrote:

100m wrote:

Provide height with weight; otherwise less useful.

I provided it haha maybe you missed it. 5”8, 126 pounds

You did not provide height in your initial post. Now quit talking back unless you are on sure footing. As far as running, you sorely need soeedwork and lifting.