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
