What separates the best from the rest in HS track and xc

No Talent Hack wrote:

The question is about track and XC. These are not sports that require any special, talent. Any emotionally and physically healthy child can succeed if they are willing to do the work. What separates the best from the rest is the desire to do the work. Talent doesn't get you up at 6AM on a Sunday to do a long run. And... don't even start in about genetics, that's a bunch of BS. There is no genetic predisposition to being a good distance runner. Genetic lottery my backside.

Eat, sleep, train, run, recover. Not rocket science. How much of each and in what order is what keeps coaches employed.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

If that is then some former champions were average kids who simply trained hard - never mind that some they were beating were talented and trained hard. This is because "track and XC don't require talent". I'm picking you don't have a talent for anything.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If that is then some former champions were average kids who simply trained hard - never mind that some they were beating were talented and trained hard. This is because "track and XC don't require talent". I'm picking you don't have a talent for anything.

Only on letsrun is sub-10 minutes two mile not thought of highly. No one thinks much of a high jumper who cannot high jump at least seven feet. What do 9:55 to 10:10 runners do after high school? I am sure most young men in the 9:55 to 10:10 two mile range participate in at least college cross country and many participate in college track and field, usually d-2 or d-3. What happens to guys who high jump 6'3" in high school? Maybe a few 6'3" high school high jumpers participate in d-3 T&F. The high schoolers I know who high jumped 6'3" to 6'5" never jumped again. We can find I am sure many guys who ended up racing sub-2:12:30 Marathons who were in the 9:55 to 10:10 range in high school for two miles. See Frank Shorter and Dick Beardsley. No one attacked me for sub-11 100m which is interesting. Most N.F.L. running backs, defensive backs and receivers cannot sprint sub-11 100m. I am sure no Am. football team has ever had more than a dozen sub-11 100m guys at one time on team.

Hack Wilson wrote:

No Talent Hack wrote:

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$$.

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.

as in, the point seems to have been missed.

to be the best or be elite, an athlete needs to have both desire and genetics (for running).

initial post by NTH said he/she would take someone with desire over someone with genetics... obviously there's a sliding scale here and where the cross over would be is completely subjective... if you have zero in the way of genetics it's gonna be tough to be a great runner. however, the reverse holds true as well... you aren't going to be a great runner with zero desire.

Give 'Em Enough Rope wrote:

No Talent Hack wrote:

The question is about track and XC. These are not sports that require any special, talent. Any emotionally and physically healthy child can succeed if they are willing to do the work. What separates the best from the rest is the desire to do the work. Talent doesn't get you up at 6AM on a Sunday to do a long run. And... don't even start in about genetics, that's a bunch of BS. There is no genetic predisposition to being a good distance runner. Genetic lottery my backside.

Eat, sleep, train, run, recover. Not rocket science. How much of each and in what order is what keeps coaches employed.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Wow, this guy just posted the dumbest post ever on this forum. No words, just flat out clueless...

zcvxvxcz wrote:

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.

These are all big schools that have a larger pool to draw from. The larger your population, the more talented individuals within it. Furthermore, running is seen as a desirable sport so talented athletes select it compared with other schools where the most talented gravitate to other sports. Beyond these things coaching and an environment where athletes are serious about the sport play a little role. A great coach can take a subpar athlete to the level where he could be competitive at a d3 university, but he won't make him national class. A great coach can take a good athlete to the level he can be an impact at D1.

Solid coaching is almost everything. If your coach is bad, find a good one, or do lots of research and coach yourself. Discipline in nutrition/sleep/consistency are also important and so is talent.

It's a pretty simple formula actually:

1) Genetics;

2) Desire;

3) See #1 above.

Seriously tho - #1 trumps all and you will know whether you have it or not. That's our reality for everything we want to achieve success in. Then it's just a matter of getting in a good block of training - both pre and in season - and getting in the right races. The rest works itself out quite nicely.

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.

- ghost rider. Although desire is certainly important, not at all true at the HS level. Different story if you line up 9 sub 4:15 milers @ the college level where desire, preparation and most importantly, racing ability/instincts are huge, but in HS, the range is too wide between the has and the has nots. The key here - they all have to have talent.

Ten HS'ers high jumped 7'0" or better last year. Hell, more high-schoolers broke 9:00 (24) than that. And you thinks 10:00 is as good??

Oh, three high school kids long jumped 25 feet or better in 2018.

You're Wasted! wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If that is then some former champions were average kids who simply trained hard - never mind that some they were beating were talented and trained hard. This is because "track and XC don't require talent". I'm picking you don't have a talent for anything.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSKpb-COEQW70TF-MkiRzwFrRCwSkAhLnaUyqqrQU1Aw18B7g9E

The curse of auto correct strikes again.

There is no genetic gift that some runners have and others don't, it doesn't exist. Studies have been done on identical twins and it's the training that matters. We all know of twins that run where one is significantly better than the other even though they are genetic carbon copies of each other. It's the training. I know everyone wants there to be some miracle gift that explains why some are better than your lazy ass, but there isn't any such thing. There are no peer reviewed papers that show any genetic advantage that a runner inherits. You don't genetically have more red blood cells, larger lungs or a resistance to injury. There have been studies on muscle fiber and the difference between slow twitch and fast twitch, but knowing what you were blessed with merely directs you to which event you are more suited for, it doesn't give you any advantage over any other distance runner than has more slow twitch than fast twitch.

To those that keep repeating this BS myth, please tell me what this advantage is. What genetic advantage does Katelyn Tuohy have that other HS girls don't have and where did she get it from? Where is the science on this? Why do you all believe anything you hear without any proof? Show me PROOF!

https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/genes-and-running-performance

Same with the 25 foot long jump. It’s pretty rare to have even a half dozen high school boys jump over 7 feet in the high jump or 25 feet in the long jump in a season. In an average year at least 100 boys will break 50 in the 400 and an equal number of girls will break 60.

Hard work beats Talent 90% of the time. It's those darned talented, hard working types that are tough to get past.

As far as making a champion goes....been fortunate to have been there many times. I've helped a #1 ranked US HS athlete qualify for the Trials to having probably the slowest HS XC runner in the state hands down and everything in between.

One factor that only those that have been around awhile and had a lot of success understands well is there are a lot of close calls that nobody will remember.

Examples include: Having a XC team that would have won 10 years before and 10 years after but just came up against 2 other great teams in the same year. I've also had kids win their events with pretty slow times but on that day and in those conditions, they were better. Even had a kid beat several other milers from other states who were 8-10 seconds better. Kind of a Centrowitz situation but a gold medal is better than a record any day to a lot of people.

Or losing two straight state track meets by a total of 7 points due to an injury and illness then coming back to win a title by over 25 points a couple years later. Would have loved to have a few of those points in a couple other years.

Or having a 7:30 4 x 800 if it weren't for having 3 different 1:50-1:53 kids 3 years in a row rather than all in the same year. Etc...Etc....

Point is, the poster who doesn't think someone could coach a hard worker to become a champion over the more talented but with less heart, drive, desire etc... just doesn't understand that a little luck goes a long ways. Being in the right place at the right time. Champions make coaches look good. But some of my best memories are of the unexpected performances that either won or surprised everyone by beating most. Won 3 state titles in 400 out of lane 8. Coast to Coast baby! Never saw the competition. Imagine what was going through the favored athletes heads with 50 meters to go. That takes a little neck-up prep.

No guarantees. All anyone can do is be the best they can be when it's their time and hopefully get to the starting line healthy and happy to just have a chance.... Winning isn't easy or everybody would be doing it.

If your argument holds true, that it is only training and not talent that matters, then the most successful - like the world's best - simply train harder than the rest. Show us the proof. Actually, don't bother.

There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of athletes that could have been world class distance runners. They are the perfect candidates because they work their asses off, they just are unwilling to do so for a sport that doesn't have any payoff at the end. Football players, soccer players, tennis players, and anyone that reaches an elite level in sports that actually pay something could have been world class runners had they made the choice to do so at an earlier age. All of these athletes train like beasts to reach the highest levels. How come no one says there is a tennis gene, or a football gene? What about a soccer gene?

Any healthy child, of average BMI , with no underlying medical conditions that would prohibit them from rigorous training, can be trained to run at an elite HS level if they could do exactly what was asked of them from a QUALIFIED coach.

Your argument is naive. I have competed in a variety of sports over the years, including track and xc - I was ok - and I trained solidly. But I was never going to be world class at any of my chosen sports. There was a ceiling to what I was able to achieve. Yet there is another activity I engage in that I am aware only a few others on the planet are able to do to the same level. I learned it faster than others, it was easy for me when others found it difficult, and hard work has presented no ceiling on how well I am able to do it. The difference is giftedness. It applies to virtually every kind of human activity. If you don't have it you won't know the difference it makes - until you come up against or see someone who does. Innate ability is crucial at every level of achievement, whether it is at high school or on the world stage.

Where's the PROOF? wrote:

Any healthy child, of average BMI , with no underlying medical conditions that would prohibit them from rigorous training, can be trained to run at an elite HS level if they could do exactly what was asked of them from a QUALIFIED coach.

This would be true if we took an average boy, trained him optimally, and then had him compete as a girl. That is the ONLY way an average person can EVER compete at an elite HS level. You'll probably end up with times like a 12.2-12.3 100, 55-56 400, 2:10-2:12 800, and a 4:50-4:55 mile. Good enough to be an elite HS girl, but that person would get lapped in a 3200 by an elite HS boy.