Columnist Admits That Track Is Harder Than It Looks

[bad hammy]

Re: Netizen alert

Isn't there some local variation of Godwin's Law that says the first person attempting to prove his point by quoting Calvin Coolidge loses?

I give malmo points for going to Silent Cal in the clutch. In all my years I do not believe I've ever had someone quote our 30th President to support his position.

[mojo]

I think I can sum this up:

1.Talent + Hard Work = Success ( The more talent the more success)
2.Equal Talent + Modest Work = Modest Success
3.Modest Talent + Hard Work - Modest Success
4.Less Talent + Hard Work = Average Success
5. No Talent + Hard Work = Minimum Success
6. No Talent + Minimum Work = Zilch

What did I leave out?

You left out the loads of talent + minimum work option.

But then again, the relative importance of talent vs work depends on the event. Sprints are more about talent than distance running or, say, PV.

I disagree about the PV. It does require talent- and a sense of fearlessness that many of us don't have. Actually I feel the only events where you might have a shot without an innate talent is anything over 1500m.

[tafnut]

Re: Netizen alert

[quote=bad hammy][quote="dr ngo":3nf1r11s]Isn't there some local variation of Godwin's Law that says the first person attempting to prove his point by quoting Calvin Coolidge loses?[/quote]
I give malmo points for going to Silent Cal in the clutch. In all my years I do not believe I've ever had someone quote our 30th President to support his position.[/quote:3nf1r11s]

He actually said lots of cool stuff.
[url="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/calvin_coolidge.html"]http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... lidge.html[/url]

My favorite: "I have never been hurt by what I have not said."

[bad hammy]

But then again, the relative importance of talent vs work depends on the event. Sprints are more about talent than distance running or, say, PV.

I disagree about the PV. It does require talent- and a sense of fearlessness that many of us don't have. Actually I feel the only events where you might have a shot without an innate talent is anything over 1500m.

I find statements that broadly categorize that some events take more or less talent to be somewhat narrow-minded. All events take immense talent to make it to national/world class. Sure, some events are more technically challenging than others, but to truly excel at an event, sprints, hurdles, jumps, throws or distance running, takes tons of talent.

[jazzcyclist]

Actually I feel the only events where you might have a shot without an innate talent is anything over 1500m.

But isn't VO2 Max a talent? I realize that it can be improved a lot through training but we all have a ceiling that can't be overcome with training. And that ceiling is different for everyone. For most of us, no amount of training will get us to the same VO2 Max as the Bekeles of the world when those athletes are in peak shape.

[tafnut]

Actually I feel the only events where you might have a shot without an innate talent is anything over 1500m.

Mojo, my 'proof' against that comes from our 8th grade gym class where everyone trains exactly the same for the fall and then has the physical finess test, which includes the Mile Run (note to hammy - it's really a 1600!!!). Inevitably one boy runs a 5:00 and one girl runs a 6:00 and gets recruited for Cross Country. Then the cross country team all trains exactly the same and yet some boys run 16:30 for 5K and some girl runs 19:30. Then some of the slower ones decide to run additional miles to supplement their training, but still don't beat the better ones who just do the 'regular' workouts. While I do know that when you take two nearly identically talented athletes and train them differently, obviously the one with the better training will do better, but my point is that once the talent differential approaches 30 seconds in the 8th Grade Mile Test, the slower athlete is at a HUGE disadvantage. Mr. Malley, I submit, was a sub-5:00 8GMTer (unless he was a late pubertizer), and that has made all the difference. Once it is obvious that you DO have the talent, then it's MUCH easier to put in the work necessary, cuz you know it's going to pay off.

[tandfman]

One of the reasons I never went out for track, even though I loved watching the sport, was that I knew I did not have any talent and that I could never be any better than mediocre as an athlete.

[EPelle]

Then some of the slower ones decide to run additional miles to supplement their training, but still don't beat the better ones who just do the 'regular' workouts...

Not disagreeing with you overall statement, but this part of it doesn:t lend to the fact that as these slower ones run extra km to supplement their training, they are going often doing so against the trainer:s rest and recovery model, thus rendering their extra workloads ineffective.

[SQUACKEE]

The talent to run 2 sub four minute miles without stopping is absolutley on par with the talent to vault 20 ft.

The fact that the 7:58 2 miler has to train hard is meaningless. Of course he has to train hard! So what.

Because Komen had to train hard negates his gift of incredible running ability? :roll:

[eldrick]

Then some of the slower ones decide to run additional miles to supplement their training, but still don't beat the better ones who just do the 'regular' workouts...

Not disagreeing with you overall statement, but this part of it doesn:t lend to the fact that as these slower ones run extra km to supplement their training, they are going often doing so against the trainer:s rest and recovery model, thus rendering their extra workloads ineffective.

exactly

they weren't training "smart"

[MJD]

A distance runner geek with marginal talent is going to get a lot further with hard work than a hard working pole vaulter with no strength, balance, speed, flexibility, coordination, etc.

[SQUACKEE]

Then some of the slower ones decide to run additional miles to supplement their training, but still don't beat the better ones who just do the 'regular' workouts...

Not disagreeing with you overall statement, but this part of it doesn:t lend to the fact that as these slower ones run extra km to supplement their training, they are going often doing so against the trainer:s rest and recovery model, thus rendering their extra workloads ineffective.

exactly

they weren't training "smart"

I always overtrained trying to keep up with and beat the runners who were better than me. We ran an 18 mile hill run every friday and that was the easy day of the week! The intervals were killers.It made me slower than my potential at times. It did not change the fact that the super stars on my team had more talent then me.

[SQUACKEE]

A distance runner geek with marginal talent is going to get a lot further with hard work than a hard working pole vaulter with no strength, balance, speed, flexibility, coordination, etc.

Im not sure why the polevaulter cant get stronger while the distance runner can but anyway your correct but this fact does not discount the massive talent of Komen.

[jazzcyclist]

A distance runner geek with marginal talent is going to get a lot further with hard work than a hard working pole vaulter with no strength, balance, speed, flexibility, coordination, etc.

Not if that distance runner geek lacks such things as lactate tolerance, recovery ability and, as mentioned earlier, VO2 Max. Like strength, balance, speed, etc., these things can be improved, but only to a point.

[EPelle]

Anybody in the CCS area ever hear of Torre Pena or Ian Champeny (San Jose Bellarmine High School) at the end of the cross country seasons? Two talented grade-9, grade-10, grade-11 and grade-12 (Pena won the local Postal competition his grade-12 season) athletes with loads of talent who worked too hard.

Another component: Talent + hard work = no better four years later than you were when you started off.