I’ve been wondering if any of you have and pieces of advice that can help someone trying to be an elite track runner. Things that I could do at home aside from the regular things every distance runner does.
I’ve been wondering if any of you have and pieces of advice that can help someone trying to be an elite track runner. Things that I could do at home aside from the regular things every distance runner does.
There are no secret methods. Talent always wins.
“You don't become a runner by winning a morning workout. The only true way is to marshal the ferocity of your ambition over the course of many day, weeks, months, and (if you could finally come to accept it) years. The Trial of Miles; Miles of Trials.”
Do the best high school programs in the country like F-M, York, the Woodlands, Newbury Park, Great Oak, the Hunters' VA school, and so forth (going back some years for some of them) just get the best talent? Well, there are some transfers in there but the vast majority of their teams are comprised of regular guys with great coaching. Coaching and the willingness to follow their training programs will get you far more than talent alone at a bad program in most cases.
Decent coaching to get kids to their maximum but they start with way more talent. Smart white kids have more running talent than their peers and most of the elite distance programs are comprised of those types of kids.
1) how much you run
2) recovery rate
3) genes
Genetics plays a really big part. Hard work is important. Consistent running over the summer and winter when XC and T&F are out of season.
I am not going to bother to calculate if all these performances are equal. Here are my best from the rest performances:
males:
100m, sub-11.0
200m, sub-22.0
400m, sub-50
800m, sub-2:00
1600m/one mile, sub-4:30
3200m/two miles, sub-10:00
7 feet high jump
25 feet long jump
females:
100m, sub-13
200m, sub-26
400m, sub-60
800m, sub-2:15
1600m, sub-5:00
3200m, sub-11:00
h.s. best from the rest performance standards wrote:
I am not going to bother to calculate if all these performances are equal. Here are my best from the rest performances:
males:
100m, sub-11.0
200m, sub-22.0
400m, sub-50
800m, sub-2:00
1600m/one mile, sub-4:30
3200m/two miles, sub-10:00
7 feet high jump
25 feet long jump
females:
100m, sub-13
200m, sub-26
400m, sub-60
800m, sub-2:15
1600m, sub-5:00
3200m, sub-11:00
A 7 foot high jump is so much better than a 10:00 3200, I can’t even come up with a metaphor to describe the disparity between the two.
The key factor is desire. You can have all the talent in the world and the best coaching on the planet, but if you don't not only want to be the best, but be willing to do the things it takes to be the best, you won't be. The best remind themselves daily that all the pain, the effort and the missing school dances and events with friends is worth it.
Give me a kid with a little bit of talent and a mountain of desire over the opposite and I'll make them a champion.
It's hard to tell off the top of my head where to draw the line regarding high jump. High jump world record is over 8ft. It's an over 26 year old w.r. Do seven feet 17 or 18 year olds get full rides at D-1 universities? I'm guessing a seven feet high school high jumper gets usually a 1/2 athletic grant, maybe less. What is a sub-10 3200m equaled to? 6ft. 9" ? Your splitting hairs.
Holy sh!t you are off. If you can jump 7 feet in high school you are elite. If you run 10 flat in the 3200 you are losing to some elite females.
trackislife12 wrote:
Holy sh!t you are off. If you can jump 7 feet in high school you are elite. If you run 10 flat in the 3200 you are losing to some elite females.
I conceded maybe a 6'9" equals ten minutes two miles. Do you think 10 minutes two miles equals 6'3" high jump? I think a bunch of posters are stuck in 1970 when seven feet high jump would get someone ranked top 25 in the world.
h.s. best from the rest performance standards wrote:
trackislife12 wrote:
Holy sh!t you are off. If you can jump 7 feet in high school you are elite. If you run 10 flat in the 3200 you are losing to some elite females.
I conceded maybe a 6'9" equals ten minutes two miles. Do you think 10 minutes two miles equals 6'3" high jump? I think a bunch of posters are stuck in 1970 when seven feet high jump would get someone ranked top 25 in the world.
And 25 in the world over 2 miles in 1970 would be 8.30.
Big Lungs and high VO2max with a work ethic of Eliud Kipchoge.
No Talent Hack wrote:
The key factor is desire. You can have all the talent in the world and the best coaching on the planet, but if you don't not only want to be the best, but be willing to do the things it takes to be the best, you won't be. The best remind themselves daily that all the pain, the effort and the missing school dances and events with friends is worth it.
Give me a kid with a little bit of talent and a mountain of desire over the opposite and I'll make them a champion.
Pure poppyc*#k. You can take a kid with a "little bit of talent" and a mountain of desire and get him or her to maximize their potential, but you'll never make them into a "champion." That's because reality is not a binary situation (nor is it an "inspirational" Hallmark movie where perseverance and grit are rewarded) where the talented are all slackers and the less-talented are all tenacious grinders.
There are plenty of highly talented athletes out there who also "remind themselves daily that all the pain, the effort and the missing school dances and events with friends is worth it." Those are the ones who become champions.
The point is that you can overcome a lack of talent if they have the desire, it is impossible to overcome lack of desire no matter how much talent they have.
Stop being a nitpicky dumba$$.
1) Talent
You are not going anywhere without top talent, no matter what else.
2) Consistent miles.
Not slacking. Getting in enough to compete with anyone. Weight, summer mileage, staying injury-free, doing workouts as well as you can, actually caring.
3) Good coaching / support.
A team or family where you have goals and know what to do to reach the top REALLY matters. I have seen kids with great talent and consistent, sensible training on 50-60 miles per week do better than more talented runners on 80 mpw without knowing what they were doing in the sport.
h.s. best from the rest performance standards wrote:
I am not going to bother to calculate if all these performances are equal. Here are my best from the rest performances:
males:
100m, sub-11.0
200m, sub-22.0
400m, sub-50
800m, sub-2:00
1600m/one mile, sub-4:30
3200m/two miles, sub-10:00
7 feet high jump
25 feet long jump
females:
100m, sub-13
200m, sub-26
400m, sub-60
800m, sub-2:15
1600m, sub-5:00
3200m, sub-11:00
...I think you meant 6ft high jump, maybe? 7ft is an NCAA All American most years.
And your ladies times would get a girl recruited to a mid major. The boys distance times are more just above average HS varsity performances.
But I see what you are going for. Those boys distance marks are attainable (though most won't approach them) for many athletes who really apply themselves.
Run year round...work above 50 miles a week consistently...learn to race evenly and those times can be achieved. Those times do not require immense talent, just long term commitment.
Athletes with a lot of talent will surpass those marks as high school freshmen.
I am not picking nits, nor will I stoop to an ad hominem attack such as the one you made.
The point is that no one can overcome a lack of talent, no matter how much desire they have, when they come up against opposition with superior talent and at least equal desire. And there are plenty of athletes, in all sports, who are both freakishly talented and also willing to live the disciplined, monastic lifestyle necessary to maximize that talent.
Just "wanting it more" than the next guy isn't enough when that next guy has hit the genetic lottery. Life isn't fair that way.