The title of your post puts quotation marks around something that Nordas didn't say. That's a bit of cheap dishonesty. Debate talent all you want, debate what he meant all you want, but don't invent quotes.
Nordås "Track Is for people with talent, the talentless run marathons and half marathons.
Pro News/Info/Results
-
90
-
clomper wrote:
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
You're an imbecile.
42 -
it's obviously not true, but you typically don't find out if you are talented enough in the marathon, until you first figure out you are not talented enough in shorter distances.
For example, Eliud only found how talented he was in the marathon because he no longer had the ability to be at the top of the world on the track.
Generally, people will race the shortest distance they can have the most success with. In sprints, all the 400 men wish they were 100 men. In fact every person at every distance above 200 wishes they had the highest talent in the 100.
26 -
high school xc coach wrote:
it's obviously not true, but you typically don't find out if you are talented enough in the marathon, until you first figure out you are not talented enough in shorter distances.
For example, Eliud only found how talented he was in the marathon because he no longer had the ability to be at the top of the world on the track.
Generally, people will race the shortest distance they can have the most success with. In sprints, all the 400 men wish they were 100 men. In fact every person at every distance above 200 wishes they had the highest talent in the 100.
I’m not impressed with your N=1 survey.
32 -
it's not about the track or the talent; it's about the money. top 100m and marathon runners make more money than everything else in between. only a fool would rather be a top 1500m runner than a top marathon runner. lots of people often theorize about how fast usain bolt can run the 400m if he focused on it but i absolutely agree with usain bolt's decisions on the matter. who the hell wants to run 400m when you already make millions off of ez pz events such as 100/200? even if usain bolt had WR potential in the 400m, why bother putting up significantly more effort to train for that when the monetary benefits are absolutely minimal?
20 -
agree. same logic applies to ultras really.
00 -
Nick Kipleri wrote:
FangYouTang wrote:
I don't agree. I look at being talented as having the ability or potential to do something that the majority of people cannot do. This talent can apply to something very specific. The ability to develop great speed endurance is a talent. The ability to train hard and not get injured is a talent. Most 1500m runners could not run a top world class marathon no matter how much they prepared. 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.
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.
Probably because speed and explosiveness is a quality that is useful in pretty much every sport, whereas distance running isn't as useful or widely applicable. Plus being big/strong negatively correlates with aerobic ability, while being small/lean makes it generally easier to be stronger aerobically.
00 -
FangYouTang wrote:
I don't agree. I look at being talented as having the ability or potential to do something that the majority of people cannot do. This talent can apply to something very specific. The ability to develop great speed endurance is a talent. The ability to train hard and not get injured is a talent. Most 1500m runners could not run a top world class marathon no matter how much they prepared. 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.
good post. Too much is made of which events require talent, and which ones do not. Every event from 100m to marathon requires fantastic qualities to enable success which is beyond most of the population.
20 -
gfgdfgd wrote:
Nick Kipleri wrote:
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.
Most people on this planet will break down trying to work in zone 2-3 for hours every day.
20 -
First you need to objectively define "talent", if a great 1500 metre runner can break the world marathon record without training then objectively he is more talented than Kipchoge. if he can't then maybe his talent is talking.
10 -
The "a-with-a-circle" on it is not an English language character. Why intermingle languages?
If you were discussing a Russian, for example, you wouldn't type a bunch of cyrillic characters, you'd just convert it to the closest plausible English, right?
The English alphabet has 26 letters and we do not use whacky accent marks or other symbology atop our letters.
Thanks
06 -
grammar police 2023 wrote:
The "a-with-a-circle" on it is not an English language character. Why intermingle languages?
If you were discussing a Russian, for example, you wouldn't type a bunch of cyrillic characters, you'd just convert it to the closest plausible English, right?
The English alphabet has 26 letters and we do not use whacky accent marks or other symbology atop our letters.
Thanks
He didn't convert it - he typed it as is you moran. Will you crap your pants about Nordås' wikipedia page too?
30 -
The novelist is a failed poet.
20 -
Awsi Dooger wrote:
I never realized this was debated. All my life I've watched the marathon while appreciating it as B level talent. That was even more ingrained while attending Los Angeles 1984. I stood there alongside the starting line and looked at Rob de Castella, who was being touted as the favorite. He was making all these odd movements to keep his kit and nose in order. He looked nothing like an athlete, at least compared to everyone I had watched during the prior two weeks.
Kipchoge is an interesting story. I've never understood the commotion. He funneled into an event with lower standards and where his age would not be a negative. Once the roads become higher profile then naturally they will attract younger superior athletes. Kiptum is merely the first. Kipchoge fans already hate that guy. Save your energy. There will be more.
The end of the women's London Marathon was prime example. Remove Hassan and the announcers would have been raving about the sprint finish between the others. That's the marathon caliber they are accustomed to seeing. Hassan's presence was the difference between marathon caliber athletes and someone with extraordinary talent.
Hassan stopping multiple times was the equivalent of Jakob taking water breaks alongside the 5000 guys.
Very few people can sustain kipchoge's marathon pace for a kilometer. Even few of those posting here.
10 -
nerd stomper wrote:
grammar police 2023 wrote:
The "a-with-a-circle" on it is not an English language character. Why intermingle languages?
If you were discussing a Russian, for example, you wouldn't type a bunch of cyrillic characters, you'd just convert it to the closest plausible English, right?
The English alphabet has 26 letters and we do not use whacky accent marks or other symbology atop our letters.
Thanks
He didn't convert it - he typed it as is you moran. Will you crap your pants about Nordås' wikipedia page too?
So his name was typed in Norwegian (or whatever) and the rest of the post is in English? Is that what you're saying?
When people post about Eastern European athletes do they type out Cyrillic?
Has any Alexander ever been referred to as Александр in an otherwise English post?
03 -
seems like big talk from a Crayton Carozza impersonator
00 -
Most people believe talent is an innate ability to do something, in other words it is based on genetics.
The brojos like to say "talent doesn't go away" which supports this type of belief.
There is some evidence that the ability to sprint and run really fast is genetically based, due to a predominance of fast twitch muscle fibers, as opposed to the ability to maintain speeds and endure long distances which relies more on slow twitch muscle fibers.
While anyone can improve their speed and endurance through training, and there are many other factors involved, your ability ("talent") to sprint or run long distances well is genetically predetermined to a certain degree based upon the percentage of fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers you are born with.
Most events in track and field (all the sprints and field events) favor those with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers. You need fast twitch sprint talent to succeed at those.
But the longer distance races (including the 10k on the track) favor those with higher percentages of slow twitch fibers, and you need slow twitch distance talent to succeed at those.
Top sprinters have minimal distance talent, and top distance runners have minimal sprint talent.
00 -
this and this wrote:
Most people believe talent is an innate ability to do something, in other words it is based on genetics.
The brojos like to say "talent doesn't go away" which supports this type of belief.
There is some evidence that the ability to sprint and run really fast is genetically based, due to a predominance of fast twitch muscle fibers, as opposed to the ability to maintain speeds and endure long distances which relies more on slow twitch muscle fibers.
While anyone can improve their speed and endurance through training, and there are many other factors involved, your ability ("talent") to sprint or run long distances well is genetically predetermined to a certain degree based upon the percentage of fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers you are born with.
Most events in track and field (all the sprints and field events) favor those with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers. You need fast twitch sprint talent to succeed at those.
But the longer distance races (including the 10k on the track) favor those with higher percentages of slow twitch fibers, and you need slow twitch distance talent to succeed at those.
Top sprinters have minimal distance talent, and top distance runners have minimal sprint talent.
Yes i knew this of course. But what about middle distance runners? (From 1500m up to 5000m). You have to have both kind of fibers i guess.
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun