I have always wondered where we draw the line on talent. You could argue that Bill Rodgers who "only" ran in the 4:30, 9:36 range in high school didn't have a whole lot of talent. You could also point to many others who ran comparable high school times yet went on to win many elite races. You could say that their talent didn't show through because of the lack in training, but wouldn't talent show through despite training? I would have to agree with something that Malmo has pointed to over and over again. The faster you run the more talented to become. So, I'll stick with my statement that you can still win many elite races while not being at the top of the talent scale with loads and loads of hard consistant training because there have been those whose talent did not show through in high school but got more talented as time went on. Alan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
