Login

Forums  > General Running  > Hypothetical maximum - what do you think?


Hypothetical maximum - what do you think? (Read 951 times)
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 6/3/2008 at 7:23 PM
modified: 6/3/2008 at 7:24 PM
Quote from Mr R on 6/3/2008 at 7:01 PM:
Actually, basketball (and other skill sports) are less limited by athleticism than running. There are no limits to how skilled you can become in a sport (or art, for that matter). With non-skill sports, the limitations of your body are a factor. Weights, sprints, running--they all involve genetic limits imposed by your body.


This depends on how you define athleticism, but have you watched an NBA or NFL game recently? Those sports, although they have some very specific skill sets, are all about athletes and athleticism. In basketball terms, it's speed, jumping ability, quickness, eye-hand coordination, etc.. And I would argue that although you can do some things to improve each of these, a lot of it is what you're born with. There are limits to how skilled you can become in a skill sport.

In fact, it's much more common to see raw, young athletically talented athletes who later develop the particular skills. Although I would argue that the lack of sound fundamental skills hurts young NBA players these days, the fact is that there is far more upside to a very athletic player than an unathletic player with highly developed skills.

I think in a lot of ways, it's the complete opposite of what you're saying. You can work and work at weights, and work like hell at running and do amazing things. Most people aren't limited by genetics so much as they are limited by their capacity to do the work to reach their genetic potential. On the other hand, it doesn't matter how hard I work on my 3-pointer or my deep out pass -- I never did, could never, and will never have the physical attributes to play in the NBA or NFL, no matter how hard I work/worked on the respective skills of those sports.
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
Marcus L S
Monkey Scratch
 posted: 6/3/2008 at 7:29 PM
What Globule wrote. I didn't want to take the time to write it.

The display of athleticism and skill during the NBA playoffs has been quite a thing to watch.
all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be

Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.
Mr R
posted: 6/3/2008 at 8:40 PM
I agree completely. What I wrote was that the skill component is basically unlimited. In basketball and football, you have highly developed athleticism combined with finely tuned skills. In running, it's basically just highly developed athleticism.

It's clear that we're not on the same page in this argument. I'm presupposing that we're talking about athletes who are training to reach their potential. It seems that others here are presupposing that we're talking about athletes who do not train as much or as hard as they can.
What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heart-rending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottoms of his training shoes. The Trial of Miles, Miles of Trials. How could they be expected to understand that? -John Parker
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 6/3/2008 at 9:03 PM
modified: 6/3/2008 at 9:04 PM
Quote from Mr R on 6/3/2008 at 8:40 PM:
I agree completely. What I wrote was that the skill component is basically unlimited. In basketball and football, you have highly developed athleticism combined with finely tuned skills. In running, it's basically just highly developed athleticism.


While I don't agree that the skill component is (basically) unlimited, I like the statement of yours underlined above.

It sounds you and I interpret the term "athleticism" differently. I suppose when I say athleticism, in my mind I'm thinking all-around athleticism (running jumping throwing). I know distance running is an athletic endeavor, but when I go to a road race, I don't look around and think, wow what a great looking bunch of athletes. So when you say running is "highly developed athleticism", I interpret that much differently than I think your intending it.
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
slowgino
posted: 6/4/2008 at 2:13 AM
Quote from Jeff on 6/3/2008 at 2:42 PM:
You're telling me that you have done the sort of training that it takes a gifted athlete to run sub 2:20? I would like to hear about that.


Well, I actually said 2:25 (and "probably" 2:20...)

Ok, first, I modeled my training after "Hard/Easy", but I did "Medium/Easy". I assume my cousin would have done Hard/Easy

Training was, e.g.
7 miles easy, 15 miles medium, 7 miles easy, 15 miles medium, 7 miles easy, 21+ miles long (either Sat or Sun, one day off per week.)

Tues and Thur were tempo or pace runs, sometimes intervals on Tues. Paces maybe Best Mile Time + 25% for a nice 12-15 mile run. 21 mile runs can be run at Marathon Pace + 15% to 20% or even a bit slower if you have to. 25-28 mile long runs just whatever feels easy. 40 mile training run pace can be as slow as Best Mile Time + 50%, for example.

Sometimes the Tues/Thur runs were 18 miles, sometimes the easy days were 9 miles, whatever.

This enabled me to do a marathon at a pace of PR Best Mile + 17.5%. For a decent athlete who could run a 4:30 mile that's about 5:17 or 5:18 pace for the marathon, which is 2:19:00 or better. Even if you want to say, well slowgino's PR marathon pace is 1 minute/mile slower than his PR best mile, just have the 4:30 miler run a 5:30 pace... that's still a 2:24:12.

That's why I say my cousin would have been under 2:25 if he had trained for the marathon. Remember, I was the guy who tied for being the slowest kid in his high school class (bottom 1%).

One last comment - when I ran my first marathon there was another competitor who I met later. He had quit smoking and wanted to get in shape so he started running a 2-3 years earlier, but he wasn't doing anywhere near as much as the above schedule (neither was I.) We finished in about the same time. He was a more gifted natural athlete, for sure. Just 2 years later he was in 1st place in the National AAU 50-mile championship just a couple miles from the finish... ok, he was passed and finished 2nd, but it's just another data point about what decent training can do for a somewhat gifted athlete.
Jeff
posted: 6/4/2008 at 2:23 AM
Quote from slowgino on 6/4/2008 at 2:13 AM:
This enabled me to do a marathon at a pace of PR Best Mile + 17.5%. For a decent athlete who could run a 4:30 mile that's about 5:17 or 5:18 pace for the marathon, which is 2:19:00 or better. Even if you want to say, well slowgino's PR marathon pace is 1 minute/mile slower than his PR best mile, just have the 4:30 miler run a 5:30 pace... that's still a 2:24:12.


There's a HUGE difference between being able to run a 4:30 mile and being able to run 2:19 or better. Trust me, I know. 4:30 miles are dime a dozen. 2:19 marathons are not.

I have no doubt that talent plays a role in pace and that there are lots of slower folks that train really hard. But saying that your track star cousin coulda, mighta, woulda, shoulda run a 2:19 marathon off of minimal training because he ran a 4:30 mile is, well...
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
Jim24315
posted: 6/4/2008 at 2:47 AM
Quote from Lank on 6/3/2008 at 3:43 PM:
Eh...I think it takes very little talent to run from point A to point B. Running from point A to point B faster and faster isn't about talent, it's about training. Now, you might convince me that the talent of a gifted runner lies in his/her love for running and love of training but I don't think that's what you're saying.

But that's the beauty of the sport. It's simple and rewards a long-term, intelligent, consistent approach and it's the approach that, more often than not, gets confused for talent.


Lank,

This isn't that difficult. Talent and training are both key parts of the formula. To say that talent doesn't matter is just as ridiculous as saying that training doesn't matter.

From Daniels’ Running Formula, Second Edition, Jack Daniels, PhD:

“I believe there are four kinds of distance runners:

1.Those who have inherent ability and the motivation to use that ability
2.Those who have the ability to do well, but aren’t motivated to use their ability
3.Those who lack much ability but have great motivation to achieve success
4.Those who lack ability and aren’t motivated

The first group is made up of champions—they almost always perform well. The second group contributes significantly to coach frustration. The coach sees the potential, but there is little or no desire on the part of the athlete to use it. “If you wanted it enough, you could be a champion,” you hear the coach lament. Runners who fall into the third group satisfy the coach but frustrate themselves. These runners have the will it takes to be a champion, but they lack the genetic makeup. They do exactly what their coach says; they try every workout imaginable and run as much mileage as they can fit into a day. These are candidates for overtraining and for being beaten by type-2 runners. You’ve probably seen these two types in action—the “natural” athlete, who seldom trains, eats or sleeps right but who still manages to beat the highly motivated, nongifted, frustrated runner. It’s sad to see, but it happens all the time.”
Masters PR's:
40's - 5k 16:39; 10k 33:48, 10m 56:25, HM 1:15:27, Marathon 2:43:12
50's - couch potato
60's - 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
Lank
posted: 6/4/2008 at 3:08 AM
Quote from Jim24315 on 6/4/2008 at 2:47 AM:
Lank,

This isn't that difficult. Talent and training are both key parts of the formula. To say that talent doesn't matter is just as ridiculous as saying that training doesn't matter.


/shrug

I guess we'll just disagree but inferring that I'm wrong because I'm stupid is certainly an interesting tactic. I'll say it again, define talent however you want, pick any "talented" runner, and I'm very positive that the runner is being defined as talented because he's focused, consistent, and dedicated to his training and not because of some genetic biology.

If people want to blame a lack of talent for poor performance than more power to them. I still truly believe that people beat me in a race not because I don't have the talent but because I haven't put in the work.

And I've addressed the Jack Welch quadrant diagram that Daniel's stole in a prior post in this thread. I'm not positive it says what you think it says however. I'm pretty sure runners in group 1 and 3 consistently outperform people in group 2 all the time.
"Good-looking people have no spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter." - Lester Bangs
slowgino
posted: 6/4/2008 at 5:33 AM
Quote from Jeff on 6/4/2008 at 2:23 AM:
... shoulda run a 2:19 marathon off of minimal training because he ran a 4:30 mile is, well...


I hope I didn't indicate "minimal" training...
75 mpw to 85 mpw with pace runs at under 5 min/mile and routine 21+ mile training runs at under 6 min/mile does not strike me as minimal. Not to mention the 40-mile training run at maybe 6:45 m/m (jogging) pace.

Also, I said under 2:25 (and just "probably" under 2:20... that means 100% dedicated training.) I'll look up some stuff from a book by Marty Liquori and see what he has to say about what different "classes" of runners with different native talent should be able to do...

Anyway, I'm absolutely convinced that any "real" distance runner with talent could run a marathon at a pace 1:15 per mile faster than I did. With the proper intensive training, of course.
In Liquori's book, I found that I had to use training loads like an "A" or "elite" runner just to end up with results for someone between a "C" and "B" class runner. That's how untalented I am.
mikeymike
posted: 6/4/2008 at 11:51 AM
75 to 85 miles per week would certainly be considered minimal training for a 2:25 marathoner. There are probably a few 4:30 milers out there who could do it. Not many.

And am I reading that right that you think a high school track star who probably worked pretty hard to become the best miler he could be should be able to run a marathon at the same percentage of his mile PR as a self described non-athlete?

Here's one thing I'm absolutely convinced of. Very few people on this planet could run a 2:25 in their 40's off of 75-80 mpw. I'm pretty sure I could have been a 4:30 miler in high school if I'd worked at the mile--I ran 2:03 for the 800. I know for damn certain I won't run a 2:25 in my 40's off of 75-80 mpw.

And whatever Marty Liquori (a miler by the way) has to say about what a gifted athlete "should" be able to do at the marathon will not settle that argument.
meaghanchan
posted: 6/4/2008 at 12:22 PM
Quote from Lank on 6/3/2008 at 6:14 PM:
Nice post. I'll admit there is gender bias so if I run a 20 minute 5k, a woman running a 20 minute 5k has a more impressive performance. I'm sure there's some chart that someone has for equivalent performances so my comment that you referenced was overly general. Can you apply the same theory to height? To foot size? To another physical attribute? I don't think so.

I thought the comparison to art was a good one but bringing basketball into it was where you lost me. It takes much more athleticism to play basketball and while training in basketball will certainly make you better it's nowhere near the correlation that training yields for running. The level of athleticism you need to run around a track or through a neighborhood is very small.

And I'm a cynic so Jack Daniels giving the standard four quandrant approach to categorize runners is designed to (i) sell books and (ii) give people excuses.

But this is an interesting discussion and your post made me think.


It's not gender bias that there are physiological differences between men and women; it's physiological differences. And to say that the difference between men and women 'counts' (ie if a woman runs a 20 minute 5k and a man runs a 20 minute 5k, the woman has the more impressive performance) but that the other physiological differences between individuals don't doesn't make any sense to me. Can you apply the same theory to height? Well, you tell me- although Paula Radcliffe is 5'8", most female wold-class marathoners are between 5' and 5'6". To shoe size? Probably not, but what about biomechanics? What about runners who overpronate? Ones who are knock-kneed or bowlegged? What about ones who have had medical (esp. heart or lung related) problems in the past? To say that everyone who beats you in a race trained harder than you might be true for you, personally, but it's not true for everyone on that course. If I'm a woman (and I am) there are a lot of people who will be beating me who have trained the exact same amount because of that one factor alone- assuming all else being equal. If I'm 75 (though I'm not) there are a lot of 25-year olds who are going to be beating me based on that factor, even if we trained the same amount.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to be training as hard as I think I can without risking injury, and if you're going to look at my log and say, 'oh, she's only running 30-35 miles a week and she's making excuses for being slow', well, no. I'm slow because I am not currently training at a level that maximizes my own abilities. And as long as I keep setting PRs, and increasing my training, I'll know that I have the potential to get better. And if one day I run a 5:00 mile, I'll start trying to run a 4:00 mile because I base my training off my past performances regardless of how much 'talent' I think I have, because the truth is, I know I have no idea until I start to maximize it.

As far as Jack Daniels- can you really look at Daniels Running Formula and say that anything in that book was written to sell books and give people excuses? There are books on running written to sell a lot of copies, but that's not one of them. Daniels was a coach, and worked with runners every day. If he can work with runners every day and come to the conclusion that, yeah, some of them have different levels of ability- well, I kind of tend to believe him.

Going to work now- a lot of other things in this conversation I want to respond to, but I'll have to leave that for later.
Jeff
posted: 6/4/2008 at 2:45 PM
I tend to believe that the success that I have is due to hard work and the success that other people have is due to their tremendous talent. On the other hand, when I fail it's because of my physiological limits, but when I run faster than others it's because I tried harder than them.

We ought not pretend when we approach these issues that we are objective scientists out looking for the scientific truth of the matter about physiological limits. The reason we care about the debate between talent and hard work is not because there's some absolute and independent truth out there about it that if we find it will satisfy our innate desire to know. It's because the stories that we tell ourselves about talent and hard work get us out the door working harder or help us put our setbacks behind us. Tell yourself what you want to tell yourself about the question of talent--as long as the answer you give gets you out the door training harder and smarter.
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
Teresadfp
posted: 6/4/2008 at 2:52 PM
Quote from mikeymike on 6/3/2008 at 6:09 PM:
Teresa, remind your son that Brian Sell's high school 2-mile PR was 10:06.


Thanks, I'll do that.
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 6/4/2008 at 3:04 PM
Quote from Teresadfp on 6/4/2008 at 2:52 PM:
Thanks, I'll do that.

And when you're upset with him, tell him that Globule's PR was 10:06.

Teresadfp: "You don't wanna turn out like HIM do you?"
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
Jim24315
posted: 6/4/2008 at 3:05 PM
Quote from Lank on 6/4/2008 at 3:08 AM:
/shrug

I guess we'll just disagree but inferring that I'm wrong because I'm stupid is certainly an interesting tactic. I'll say it again, define talent however you want, pick any "talented" runner, and I'm very positive that the runner is being defined as talented because he's focused, consistent, and dedicated to his training and not because of some genetic biology.

If people want to blame a lack of talent for poor performance than more power to them. I still truly believe that people beat me in a race not because I don't have the talent but because I haven't put in the work.

And I've addressed the Jack Welch quadrant diagram that Daniel's stole in a prior post in this thread. I'm not positive it says what you think it says however. I'm pretty sure runners in group 1 and 3 consistently outperform people in group 2 all the time.


> I guess we'll just disagree but inferring that I'm wrong because I'm stupid is certainly an interesting tactic.

And I guess what ticked me off is feeling somewhat under attack. You zeroed right in on the "talent matters" part and completely overlooked what I said here:

"I can't think of any sport that offers such a huge pay off for hard work and dedication as running. Without question it is possible for a less talented runner to out race a more talented one with good training"

And why does aknowleding that talent does have something to do with how successful a runner is going to be have to be interpretted as making excuses for not training hard enough? I don't get it.
Masters PR's:
40's - 5k 16:39; 10k 33:48, 10m 56:25, HM 1:15:27, Marathon 2:43:12
50's - couch potato
60's - 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33


Forums  > General Running  > Hypothetical maximum - what do you think?

Feedback  |  Help
© 2005 – 2009 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved.