I've never got why speed Is always took as a parameter to measure talent while endurance Is always put on a lower level. If you're fast you're considered talented while if you're a pure endurance runner you're considered talentless.
because broadly speaking, endurance is trained and raw speed is much more reliant on genetics. work in HR zones 2-3 for 3 hours every day, and you will become an aerobic monster in a few years regardless of talent. do sprint training every day for a few years and you'll still probably not break 13-14 seconds for 100m.
What? Both speed and strength come from genetics and the best runners have a freakish combination of both. You haven’t heard of fast and slow-twitch muscles?
I would say Mohammed Farah is very talented and so is Eliud Kipchoge. One has more marathon talent than the other. A 2:04 marathoner whose track times don't compare to Farah's is more talented as a marathoner than Farah. It's pretty simple really.
It's pretty funny you chose Eliud Kipchoge, since one can't really say a man who beat Bekele and El Guerrouj on track is not very talented on track :D
Usually GOATs on track become GOATs on the marathon as well.
I didn't make my point clear. I picked the two because they are both exceptionally talented track runners, but at the marathon Kipchoge is much more talented, though Farah couldn't have run 2:05 without a great deal of talent. Kipchoge probably never could have run 3:28 for 1500m, but I figure you have to have a fair amount of talent to run 3:33. There is an overlap in their talents, which would probably mean they would have been fiercely competitive over 5000m and 10000m if their peaks had aligned, but Farah would have likely won every 1500 matchup, while Kipchoge would have won every marathon matchup.
That's generally the case. Marathoners are objectively less talented. What happens in marathoning is either you get too old and slow in track and you move on to the marathon or you realize fairly quickly you're a plodder and not going sub 13 any time soon and go to the marathon straight away
This attitude assumes that any elite 5000 meter runner can find success at the Marathon distance whenever they want to at an elite level and we know that is not always true.
Why do most runners move up in distance (and in particular I am talking about people who are highly competent)?
Often they feel they have maxed out at a distance, either in terms of speed/times or achievement, and want to translate what they can do to longer distances, in search of more success. Or, to put it another way, they have maxed out their talent at the shorter distances.
In this case, I think he simply believed he had maxed out at shorter distances ("lacked the talent") long before he really had, and with different coaching and training partners, he figured that out.
I think the term "talent" leads to some incorrect assumptions though. We could look at two high school teammates who run the event on the same training, and deem the faster one to be more "talented." (a 4:25 miler, compared to his 4:35 teammate, for example). We could then assume that faster runner will also be faster at longer and longer distances, and that simply is not necessarily true.
I suspect what he means, is that it takes much less talent to gain entry into a world-class field on the roads. Sure, any major will have a few people around 2:03 or under, but plenty of people around 2:10-2:20. If you are not in the top 20 or 30 people in the world in your track event, you will have extreme difficulty getting into a diamond league or something of that caliber. He is not saying people who run roads are talent-less, he is saying world class competition on the track requires much more talent to gain entry.
You need to have talent to be able to handle the high training volume needed for marathon success.
Distance runners claiming to have no talent always come off as extremely egotistical. If you have no talent, all your success is due to hard work. In reality, the genetic lottery and things that happened without any effort on your part during childhood (like whether you started with sports at a young age) place a soft ceiling on your performance that would prevent most people from ever breaking 3 hours in the marathon, much less 2:10.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
This Is what we are talking about: for many runners and run lovers speed=talent. For example running 5km in sub 13' is considered way more prestigious and talent-oriented rather than running a sub 2h05' marathon. Generally running fast is considered talented while running for long time and distances is considered talentless if compared.
You sure about that? How many people have gone sub-13 versus sub-2:05? With all due respect to Klecker and Kincaid, I'll be damned if either goes sub-2:10 should they pursue the marathon.
I've never got why speed Is always took as a parameter to measure talent while endurance Is always put on a lower level.
You've made this point several times in this thread. And yes, you're absolutely right that running a good half-marathon or marathon requires a specific talent (call it "endurance") that is distinct from the talents required to run a good mile. Anyone who's truly "talentless," as Nordas puts it, will run a terrible marathon, as will most people who have enormous talent at shorter distances.
If Nordas truly believes that it requires no talent to run a good marathon, then he's an idiot. But I suspect he's using the word talent differently than you are. As a would-be miler, he's talking about the talent needed to run a mile. Is it true, as you suggest, that most people value that sort of talent more highly than the ability to grind out a good marathon? Of course.
Let's be honest. Why does anyone run the 200m? Because they couldn't win the 100m. Why does anyone run the 400m? Because they couldn't win the 200m. And so on up the ladder. Physiologically, there may be no reason to value speed over endurance. But socioculturally, almost every kid would rather be the fastest one on the playground than the one who can keep going the longest.
I'm a huge marathon fan, and love watching the Kipchoges of the world do what they do. But it doesn't bother me when people use the world "talent" to refer preferentially to speed. That's just the way we live.
I suspect what he means, is that it takes much less talent to gain entry into a world-class field on the roads. Sure, any major will have a few people around 2:03 or under, but plenty of people around 2:10-2:20. If you are not in the top 20 or 30 people in the world in your track event, you will have extreme difficulty getting into a diamond league or something of that caliber. He is not saying people who run roads are talent-less, he is saying world class competition on the track requires much more talent to gain entry.
Don’t really think that is what he means. He repeatedly cited his lack of 400 and below speed as the reason for why he considered himself untalented. Later he got into his projected 800 speed to describe himself as “slow.” Again, that is a pretty oversimplistic view of the whole thing, but he still believes it it appears. His views on the 800 are even more naive as he’s completely surprised himself in the 1500 and doesn’t consider that would apply to the 800 if he ever raced it.
That's generally the case. Marathoners are objectively less talented. What happens in marathoning is either you get too old and slow in track and you move on to the marathon or you realize fairly quickly you're a plodder and not going sub 13 any time soon and go to the marathon straight away
This attitude assumes that any elite 5000 meter runner can find success at the Marathon distance whenever they want to at an elite level and we know that is not always true.
You are correct that an assumption that a 5K runner can find success at the marathon whenever they want is not always true.
However, it is true far more than the opposite, a marathoner moving down to 5K.
The fact that many can move up in distance successfully and far fewer can move down in distance successfully is why many see those running shorter distances as more talented.
Many, apparently including Nordas, see excelling on the track as an option of their choosing and those excelling in marathons as their only option in most cases.
Why do most runners move up in distance (and in particular I am talking about people who are highly competent)?
Often they feel they have maxed out at a distance, either in terms of speed/times or achievement, and want to translate what they can do to longer distances, in search of more success. Or, to put it another way, they have maxed out their talent at the shorter distances.
In this case, I think he simply believed he had maxed out at shorter distances ("lacked the talent") long before he really had, and with different coaching and training partners, he figured that out.
I think the term "talent" leads to some incorrect assumptions though. We could look at two high school teammates who run the event on the same training, and deem the faster one to be more "talented." (a 4:25 miler, compared to his 4:35 teammate, for example). We could then assume that faster runner will also be faster at longer and longer distances, and that simply is not necessarily true.
I doubt if they’re a single competitive distance runner or competent coach that doesn’t understand your 4:25 and 4:35 comparison. Just one interval workout or temp run will solve the mystery.
Is Nordas still an untalented turd because thousands of highschoolers could beat his best performance in the 100m any day of the week?
It was said as a joke but I had an old school coach who would reply to distance runners crying that the sprinters did little work, "We'd all be sprinters if we could." Maybe there is something to that.
He uses the word "talent" seven times in the interview. This is the most related to this thread:
"...it’s also correct that I started as a half marathon runner when I joined the group back in 2014, that was the main goal, just running half marathons locally. Maybe I would be going abroad just to run longer distances because I said to my coach that I’m not fast enough, I’m not talented enough, I have to run long distances because that’s the only thing talentless people can really do."
How he defines "talent" is important to consider.
To me, it sounds like he is talking about raw speed, and if you don't have it you have to keep going longer and longer until the speed that you do have is sufficient when combined with a lot of hard work, to yield results.
Later in the interview he equates talent in the 1500 as the ability to run 3:29 or faster.
Agree or disagree, but we should try to understand his point so we know what we are agreeing or disagreeing with.
Quite a way between this and what the tread starter claims he said.
He uses the word "talent" seven times in the interview. This is the most related to this thread:
"...it’s also correct that I started as a half marathon runner when I joined the group back in 2014, that was the main goal, just running half marathons locally. Maybe I would be going abroad just to run longer distances because I said to my coach that I’m not fast enough, I’m not talented enough, I have to run long distances because that’s the only thing talentless people can really do."
Quite a way between this and what the tread starter claims he said.
Yeah, at this point if someone starts a thread saying that anyone said anything interesting, I'm looking it up before I even think about having an opinion.
Another down side to not requiring registered names on here. You can't trust anyone to accurately portray anything.
there are always exceptions like your kiptums and kipchoges. but those with speed can always transition to longer distances in the future whereas the "talentless" will never be able to get that speed. the 15 hundo is the premier running (not sprinting) event, the perfect combo of speed and endurance. those sub 3:30 guys got the TALENT or the TALENT+PEDS who knows.