t-and-f: Re: How much talent/genetics do you need?
One problem with this thesis: you assume that if ones talent is slow to emerge except with hard training equates with not being at the top of the talent scale. That's a huge assumption, not testable, and therefore specious. The very definition of talent is that it is there. I believe you confuse innate capacity with innate ability. There is NO SUCH THING AS INNATE ABILITY. Those who emerge through hard work have innate ability, which they unlocked through hard work (understanding that tapping talent is different with different people and body types). Without such innate capacity, all the hard work in the world would come to naught. No matter how hard Donovan Bailey may train, he will NEVER become an elite marathoner. Never. Ever. On 5/26/01 3:43 PM, alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com
t-and-f: Re: How much talent/genetics do you need?
Interesting Jon. I'll give you one thing, you sure do make people think and bring up interesting conversations. You bring up something interesting. Just how testable is talent/genetics? If a high school runner runs extremely well off of limited training (Kennedy) one would assume that runner is blessed with talent. But, if a high school runner does not run extremely well in high school but goes on to bigger and better things even after taking a significant amount of time off (Rodgers) you would have us believe that the reason his talent surfaced is because of genetics. What would make more sense is that his training over the years is the reason why he could take time off, then come back very strong, even stronger than before. So by your account someone who runs relatively mediocre in high school then goes on to be a very good runner becomes a very good runner because his genetic talent took longer to show itself. But, by the time his genetic talent showed itself the runner would have already put in years of training, training that affects his ability to perform well. How then are we to know that his sudden rise in performance after years of somewhat mediocrity are because of his talent or his training? You can test elite distance runners and you'll find that they are skinny, have a high % of slow twitch fibers, have a high Vo2max, and have this that and the other, but how are we to know that this is mostly from genetics and not from hard work and training? The only true way to test genetic potential would be to test distance runners in high school before they begin any training because any training at all will affect what talent they show. I still agree with you that you need some genetic talent, a sprinter with a high % of fast twitch fibers will not become a good distance runenr, but am not convinced that you need a lot of it to become successful and win a lot of elite races and make a decent living and standing in the elite community. I will agree with you that the best of the best need everything, including genetic talent. But, there have been many runners who have went on to perform extremely well after having relatively mediocre performances in high school and college. You can not say that the genetic talent of these runners was slow to emerge because the training they have done over the years has already affected them and improved them so how can we prove it was the emerging genetic talent or the hard work and training? Test them? But, testing would show the affects of training. I think the main thing genetic talent does is shorten the time needed to become a very good runner. Some only require a couple years to become very good, while others may wait an entire career before they reach the same level. Same level, different timespan in reaching it. Just food for thought. Interesting conversations Jon. Alan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Re: How much talent/genetics do you need?
On 5/26/01 7:08 PM, alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting Jon. I'll give you one thing, you sure do make people think and bring up interesting conversations. You bring up something interesting. Just how testable is talent/genetics? If a high school runner runs extremely well off of limited training (Kennedy) one would assume that runner is blessed with talent. But, if a high school runner does not run extremely well in high school but goes on to bigger and better things even after taking a significant amount of time off (Rodgers) you would have us believe that the reason his talent surfaced is because of genetics. I must not have been clear then. I believe his talent surfaced because of his hard work. But if he didn't have endowed talent, all the hard work in the world would not have brought it to the surface. What would make more sense is that his training over the years is the reason why he could take time off, then come back very strong, even stronger than before. So by your account someone who runs relatively mediocre in high school then goes on to be a very good runner becomes a very good runner because his genetic talent took longer to show itself. Again, talent, by which I guess you mean ability or performance, does not naturally show itself except in the rarest of situations. It almost always takes discipline, hard work, etc. But, by the time his genetic talent showed itself the runner would have already put in years of training, training that affects his ability to perform well. How then are we to know that his sudden rise in performance after years of somewhat mediocrity are because of his talent or his training? To some degree we can't of course. But we do have some physiological parameters and over time, we will develop more. We are also developing some genetic markers, and within a decade or a little longer, it is within reason that we will have basic parameters for potentially great runners at various distances. These will not be so specific as to render obsolete the X factors -- training, nutrition, luck, etc. But it will help us understand human CAPACITY. You can test elite distance runners and you'll find that they are skinny, have a high % of slow twitch fibers, have a high Vo2max, and have this that and the other, but how are we to know that this is mostly from genetics and not from hard work and training? The only true way to test genetic potential would be to test distance runners in high school before they begin any training because any training at all will affect what talent they show. I still agree with you that you need some genetic talent, a sprinter with a high % of fast twitch fibers will not become a good distance runenr, but am not convinced that you need a lot of it to become successful and win a lot of elite races and make a decent living and standing in the elite community. I will agree with you that the best of the best need everything, including genetic talent. But, there have been many runners who have went on to perform extremely well after having relatively mediocre performances in high school and college. You can not say that the genetic talent of these runners was slow to emerge because the training they have done over the years has already affected them and improved them so how can we prove it was the emerging genetic talent or the hard work and training? Test them? But, testing would show the affects of training. I think the main thing genetic talent does is shorten the time needed to become a very good runner. Some only require a couple years to become very good, while others may wait an entire career before they reach the same level. Same level, different timespan in reaching it. Just food for thought. Interesting conversations Jon. Hey, I love discussing this stuff. I'm working on a book now on male/female differences!! Alan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com
