Is there such thing as talent?

This comes up on here time and time again and I always say no.

Talent means having a natural aptitude or skill which I don't believe fits in with running. What you can do is train a lot and condition yourself optimally but that is dedication not talent. Low pain threshold / the ability to withstand and cut through pain is another factor. What in itself you could argue that was a talent, it's not a direct part of the mechanics of running. So no, there is no such thing as running talent.

Yes.

if you have a genetic disposition to low weight; if you have the biomechanics that make running something that you can do efficiently, over long periods of time, without injury; if you have the right combination of slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers for your chosen event; if you have the mental attitude that will see you do lots and lots of very repetitive training over a long period of time to achieve a goal; if you are lucky enough to find an event or group of events that you both enjoy doing and are reasonably good at; if you are inspired by marginal gains and can see improvement in lots of little ways on a regular basis; if you are lucky enough to find someone, a coach, teacher, parent or other runner who can show you the fundamentals of training; if you are not predisposed to getting lots of niggling injuries. none of these things are in your direct control, but if you have them, then I think they are what folk refer to when they talk about talent.

cheers.

WhatDoYouThink wrote:

Is there such thing as talent within the running world?

If so, how do you distinguish between an untalented and a talented runner?

You've heard of Racehorses, Greyhounds and Pronghorn? Those are all talented runners.

You've heard of Clydesdales, Pugs and Elands? Those are less talented runners.

Humans follow those same rules.

.

WhatDoYouThink wrote:

Is there such thing as talent within the running world?

If so, how do you distinguish between an untalented and a talented runner? Assuming they have the same prior experience, and in this case none, how would you distinguish?

Could it be that what we would perceive as talent in one runner, by quickly improving, isn't the same as the long-term results of the other?

Too many kids/people don't take up the sport because they don't think they have the 'talent' to run, where it's more a product of time you dedicate.

Which famous 'hard-working' runners are known to have beaten famous 'talented' runners?

I think you likely have no talent but are a dreamer who believes hard work will create an Olympian.

Banana Beard wrote:

This comes up on here time and time again and I always say no.

Talent means having a natural aptitude or skill which I don't believe fits in with running. What you can do is train a lot and condition yourself optimally but that is dedication not talent. Low pain threshold / the ability to withstand and cut through pain is another factor. What in itself you could argue that was a talent, it's not a direct part of the mechanics of running. So no, there is no such thing as running talent.

Why would it apply to every part of human life, except running? You have it round the wrong way. Running will be more talent-determined than many other human activities, because it is more dependent on innate physiology than learned technique. Hard work may sometimes beat talent but it will not beat superior talent + hard work. That applies to anything. Indeed, those activities that require a high level of technical skill will still need giftedness to be the best, and yet it is true that amongst the highly talented, it will also take hard work to beat the best. The averagely talented, meanwhile, stand no chance at an elite level.

Send a bunch of untrained kids to the track to run a mile and there will be a few who will break 5, a few will break 6, a bunch will run 7, most will run 8-10 minutes, and some will have to walk. Do people think that Grant Fisher does different training to run 13 minutes than the D3 guy does to run 17 minutes? They all can do the same workouts but only a few will break 14 minutes while some will only run 18 minutes. This argument grows tiring. Talent is everything.

Some people love running but don't seem to love running fast. You never see these people run fast even though they are surely physically capable of it in a fight or flight situation.

I find that strange don't you?

You're talking genetics here though aren't you. That isn't the same thing as "talent".

You could take a thousand runners, train them all in exactly the same way, mileage drills, etc and yeah someone will come out on top. But that doesn't make that person the most talented. It makes them, on a matched level of fitness, the one most genetically predisposed to run quickly.

The definition of talent is “natural aptitude”. That means genetics.

different mindsets wrote:

Some people love running but don't seem to love running fast. You never see these people run fast even though they are surely physically capable of it in a fight or flight situation.

I find that strange don't you?

No, they are not physically capable in a fight or flight situation either.

Think about it wrote:

You're talking genetics here though aren't you. That isn't the same thing as "talent".

You could take a thousand runners, train them all in exactly the same way, mileage drills, etc and yeah someone will come out on top. But that doesn't make that person the most talented. It makes them, on a matched level of fitness, the one most genetically predisposed to run quickly.

Um, it is very much the same thing as talent. Of course you couldn't train 1000 runners exactly the same way because of talent differences as well, but still.

I knew a guy in high school who placed top 10 in the nation while running maybe 25 miles a week. That's what I'd consider talent.

Life ain't fair, some people are born with gifts that others don't have. This is not a bad thing, it just is what it is.

Let's say everyone has a maximum distance running potential. Let's also say that no one truly does every single thing in their life to fully hit that. Now if person A has a much lower potential than person B, I believe that if person A does a significant amount more in reaching their potential than person B, then person A can beat person B... Now if the amount of effort a group of people puts in is all equal, the more talented person will win.

Banana Beard wrote:

This comes up on here time and time again and I always say no.

Talent means having a natural aptitude or skill which I don't believe fits in with running. What you can do is train a lot and condition yourself optimally but that is dedication not talent. Low pain threshold / the ability to withstand and cut through pain is another factor. What in itself you could argue that was a talent, it's not a direct part of the mechanics of running. So no, there is no such thing as running talent.

It's a myth that the more successful runners can push themselves harder. Once you get to a certain level everyone runs to their limits and when they reach oxygen debt they slow down.

Is there such a thing as intelligence?

Maximum Potential wrote:

Let's say everyone has a maximum distance running potential. Let's also say that no one truly does every single thing in their life to fully hit that. Now if person A has a much lower potential than person B, I believe that if person A does a significant amount more in reaching their potential than person B, then person A can beat person B... Now if the amount of effort a group of people puts in is all equal, the more talented person will win.

Irrelevant because there will always be a bunch more B runners who are working to their potential.

People always want to present running as some sort of match race between two people. It ain't like that.

Here are some examples of talent:

2 runners with no previous experience. One looks silky smooth when he runs, the other bounds and twists with each stride. One will practice and reinforce great form with every step, the other will either reinforce inefficient form or will need to constantly practice to correct it. For the 2nd runner, either will consume more energy than the 1st runner must expend for the same gains.

2 runners start running in HS with no previous experience. One runs 4:26 for the mile his first year, the other runs 4:53 doing the same workouts day after day together.

2 HS runners doing the same training for several years. One can run his last 200m of the mile in 27, the other can only muster a 33.

2 college runners doing the same training. One is able to put in 100mi weeks, the other struggles to stay healthy when he gets to 80mi weeks.

These are not made up scenarios. They happen all the time and we have all experienced similar.

These examples do not even scratch the surface of body build, muscle fiber percentages, mitochondria density. Just as with the obvious physical difference of height which can vary by 20%, these other factors can also vary wildly and can determine what sport, if any, an athlete may excel.

Here is a TED talk worth watching by David Epstein, author of "The Sports Gene" and a journalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

"Yeah but what if you work REALLY hard for a long time and eat clean?"