It seems like every time a runner is running extraordinary times at a young age they are labelled as just being more "talented," yet whenever you look into their past they always seem to have had a history of running youth track, working out in middle school, or participating in another sport rigorously.
I get that some people are more genetically gifted than others, that's obvious. Only so many people can be professional athletes. But if you were to take the average high school runner, go back in time to when they were in middle school, and have them start running or going to the gym for years prior to entering 9th grade, would they really be any slower than a Young, or a Sherry, or a Sahlman? Would people call that kid talented then, too?
An interesting post. As a coach, I have come to believe that high-level talent is much more common than most of us think. I see it all the time. What is extremely rare is the willingness to work hard to unlock that talent. That is extremely unusual, as most people aren’t willing to put themselves through the discomfort to unlock that talent.
And it’s not only that. The willingness to work hard has to be cultivated by coaching staff, teammates, and a team culture that is directed towards that end. That is a rare thing in the world.
According to Epstein, talent is largely genetic, but with a huge caveat: "Improvability" is also largely genetic... so some people will appear to work their way to the pinnacle of their sport, others will appear to be naturals, and others will appear to be a magic combination of both. We'll never know until we try.
In his book Range, Epstein espouses being a generalist over early specialization.
Yes, they would be slower. Talent is real. How could it not be? Why is there a kid in every elementary school who destroys the other kids in gym class and "field day" when it comes to running? Why is it that a whole team in middle school or high school can do the same workouts, and one kid is WAY better?
How is it that a TON of D1 runners train for 4-6 years, and then a small handful of them become professional runners afterwards?
Talent. In case you didn't get that...Talent. One more time...TALENT.
I knew a few o them kids with TALENT. They quit too young tho.
I know a few who didn't quit early and they did indeed make it to super elite.
So I guess not giving up is a special talent too?
There are lots of people with talent at many things who decide not to pursue that talent. That doesn't mean the talent isn't there. I know a guy who is an incredible guitarist. He's still in his 40s, but he started lessons young (child prodigy), went to college for it, toured in a couple of different moderately-successful bands, and when he turned 40, he said he just didn't want to play guitar anymore. So no, he rarely even plays guitar, and he doesn't do it for a living anymore.
The "few" in your story who made it to super elite have inherent talent. No amount of training and desire can get a person to "super elite" if they don't have talent.
There's no such thing as talent. Everyone in the world could run a sub 2hr marathon if they just followed the exact same training plan as Eliud Kipchoge.
Your post makes no sense. As a coach you see high level talent all the time? Do you coach at NAU? Do you coach at NP? Do you coach at BTC? Those are 3 programs at 3 levels that have high level talent. But just because their coaches are working with high level talent doe not prove that talent is abundant because those teams are significantly better than their peers.
You've picked talent as related to distance running with these examples.
Actual talent is better reflected looking at the events that the US is actually elite at.
The US is world beaters in Sprints, jumps hurdles mid d and throws, NOT Distance running. .....Talent in the US is easily seen in these events, while distance runner's toil somewhere between "talent" and lots and lots of training. ....The most talented athletes who could be distance runner's in the US have seldom stepped forward.
It seems like every time a runner is running extraordinary times at a young age they are labelled as just being more "talented," yet whenever you look into their past they always seem to have had a history of running youth track, working out in middle school, or participating in another sport rigorously.
I get that some people are more genetically gifted than others, that's obvious. Only so many people can be professional athletes. But if you were to take the average high school runner, go back in time to when they were in middle school, and have them start running or going to the gym for years prior to entering 9th grade, would they really be any slower than a Young, or a Sherry, or a Sahlman? Would people call that kid talented then, too?
You appear to acknowledge talent (“I get that some people are more genetically gifted.. that’s obvious”) but then in the same para go on to question whether talent really exists. What’s not obvious here?
It seems like every time a runner is running extraordinary times at a young age they are labelled as just being more "talented," yet whenever you look into their past they always seem to have had a history of running youth track, working out in middle school, or participating in another sport rigorously.
I get that some people are more genetically gifted than others, that's obvious. Only so many people can be professional athletes. But if you were to take the average high school runner, go back in time to when they were in middle school, and have them start running or going to the gym for years prior to entering 9th grade, would they really be any slower than a Young, or a Sherry, or a Sahlman? Would people call that kid talented then, too?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen said on a podcast that the concept of "talent" was created by jealous people as an excuse for why they were getting beat by people who had put in lots of work at younger ages and continued to build for a longer period of time.
It seems like every time a runner is running extraordinary times at a young age they are labelled as just being more "talented," yet whenever you look into their past they always seem to have had a history of running youth track, working out in middle school, or participating in another sport rigorously.
I get that some people are more genetically gifted than others, that's obvious. Only so many people can be professional athletes. But if you were to take the average high school runner, go back in time to when they were in middle school, and have them start running or going to the gym for years prior to entering 9th grade, would they really be any slower than a Young, or a Sherry, or a Sahlman? Would people call that kid talented then, too?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen said on a podcast that the concept of "talent" was created by jealous people as an excuse for why they were getting beat by people who had put in lots of work at younger ages and continued to build for a longer period of time.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen said on a podcast that the concept of "talent" was created by jealous people as an excuse for why they were getting beat by people who had put in lots of work at younger ages and continued to build for a longer period of time.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen made a moronic comment then.
Says the guy who can't even break 4:34 in the mile. Not sure why you still post here.
It seems like every time a runner is running extraordinary times at a young age they are labelled as just being more "talented," yet whenever you look into their past they always seem to have had a history of running youth track, working out in middle school, or participating in another sport rigorously.
I get that some people are more genetically gifted than others, that's obvious. Only so many people can be professional athletes. But if you were to take the average high school runner, go back in time to when they were in middle school, and have them start running or going to the gym for years prior to entering 9th grade, would they really be any slower than a Young, or a Sherry, or a Sahlman? Would people call that kid talented then, too?
not sure why this post is getting so many downvotes. I don't think it's that bad...
As you acknowledged, talent IS real, and I actually think that talent plays more of a factor in distance running than it does in other sports. You can learn coordination and skills, though you may need to work harder than others depending on where you start. You can even improve strength and flexibility. But Vo2? Fast twitch? Those are pretty hard to build on if its not innate within you.
I think the observation you are making is that some kids "appear" to have more talent than others because of their results. And you would be right. Did anyone read the book about F-M by Marc Bloom? Those kids (obviously) train like crazy, and they train like pros. They have a strong system there that's designed to get every ounce of ability out of kids. It looks like Newbury Park is the same with their month long altitude camps and training techniques. In high school, I was a good runner but not great. Reading the F-M book, my first thought was "am I a national class runner and I never knew it?"
The thing about programs like those is that they aren't recruiting kids...they are working with the ones they have. It has to be believed that the FM coaches could have created a nationally ranked program at any high school they ended up at so you have to consider that the average high school runners at those schools might have it in them to be a lot better with great coaching--it's not like they're just more "talented" in suburban Syracuse. My high school team was mediocre. We didn't have good coaching and I ran 30 miles a week usually alone, and did very little core and weights. Sometimes I think about those kids, and wonder what sort of runners they would have been under the F-M coaches. I saw flashes of ability. Could that ability have been honed under the right tutelage?
No F-M kids run professionally. It did appear that they hit their full potential in high school. We'll see about the two families at NPHS. It also appears that the kids who are truly talented, do win out--I can't think of a successful pro runner who ran on a nationally ranked team. They came from average high school programs, and still managed to run the times their F-M counterparts ran.
I can say from personal experience running in high school that talent exists. I finished my high school career with a 2:12 800m and a 18:31 5k in cross country, while consistently running 6 days per week, and never skipping workouts or taking time off in the summer.
Granted, I was probably somewhat overtrained as I would do 5-6 mile recoveries at around 7:30 pace, and often hit workout splits ahead of what I was supposed to because I was desperate to prove I could hang with faster guys. But regardless, I would have never been a sub-2 guy under any circumstance.
This is one of my favorite topics to discuss. I think the term "talent" is widely over used is western societies. I think the term talent instills a "fixed mindset" which can stifle athletes progression in sports. I think an individuals beliefs shape their reality. If they believe they have all the talent necessary to run with the best in the world if they put in the work, they will reach a much higher level than the athlete that believes they are limited by their genes. With that being said people are born at different starting levels in terms of physical ability. But who knows where the limits of ones potential is until that athlete fully dedicates themselves to the process of striving to reach their full potential. The athlete that seems like they are untalented at a young age might respond well to years and years of excellent training and end up being able to achieve a higher level of success in the long run compared to the seemingly young talented athlete who doesn't respond as well to training. We, through extremes, can alter our genetic expression. I believe our biggest limiter is not our genes, but our minds and our beliefs of what is/what is not possible.
Your post makes no sense. As a coach you see high level talent all the time? Do you coach at NAU? Do you coach at NP? Do you coach at BTC? Those are 3 programs at 3 levels that have high level talent. But just because their coaches are working with high level talent doe not prove that talent is abundant because those teams are significantly better than their peers.
No, I am a swim coach. When I say “high-level talent” what I mean is the ability to swim at a division one level, maybe even elite level division one. That kind of talent is not too terribly difficult to find. What is difficult to find is the ones to work for it.
That’s an incredible clip. I think that fellow went on to play halfback for the Redskins, right? I agree, for speed and power sports like American football, 85% is what you’re born with. I would argue that for long distance running, swimming, baseball, and other sports that depend on skill, or aerobic fitness built over time, instead of power, hard work can make up for some lack of talent. I say “some“, because the talent absolutely must be there.
I can;t sing but can dance, I have that rhythm, simply how it is. We all have our particular abilities, nothing you have to construct. Sure you can enhance those abilities but if you are slow you will never be fast.