Do you just have "it" or not? (Page 4)

Once again, no one is denying that hard work is what is needed to reach your potential. In my thoughts, however, the limit of that potential is what "it" is. In Rick's case, for example, he worked hard and smart in his BQ marathon, but why didn't he run a 2:30 instead of a 3:12. I'll wager I can find someone who did run a 2:30 on less training than he, and I know for a fact there are guys out there training just as hard and smart to break four hours.

I think it's human nature (and disingenuous at best) to think that those faster ("better" than us are there via genetics, and those slower just don't work as hard. Just as Rick, given his gifted perspective, feels that every man can run a low 6m/m pace, I'm sure there are those who feel that sub4:30m/m is possible for everyone.

Still looking for that objective evidence.

I've been around enough people who have been training long, hard, and smart toward that goal to know that this isn't so. Again, if you have objective eidence to suport that statement, I'd love to see it.

Long, hard, and smart by who's standards?  Maybe their training isn't smart for them.  Maybe they need to train more, or in a different fashion. 

I think "it" is a package that includes not just genetics/natural ability, but also the mind set to train at the required levels (which is more than most of us), a competitve spirit, and the guts to overcome the pain. Don't discount the guts.

Consider Lance's training habits. While most cyclists were taking their winter hiatus, he was already putting 6-8 hrs on the road. Read The Miracle Mile about the quest to break the 4 min mile. These guys trained more, harder, faster than their competitors. When they raced, they were in agony. Most of us (me included) would probably ease up or stop at that level of pain. They keep going. They push harder.

Obviously, we can't control the genetics/natural ability part of the package. So, that part of "it' shouldn't even be a part of our training and racing vocabulary. Why worry about what you can't control?

The other parts, however, are completely within in our control.

We allocate our training time based on our own family, work, life priorities. If achieving certain levels in our sport become important enough to us, then we'll shift our priorities and put in the time required. That we might not, because we do have these other priorities, doesn't mean we can't. It just means we've made a different decision. Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

If we mentally decide that we're not going to be competitive then we probably won't be because we probably won't try and catch that guy in front of us. There's nothing wrong with that, either. The physical and mental benefits of doing our sport far outweigh "winning" or achieving age group greatness. On the other hand, if you want to "win" you have to WANT to win.

And then, there's guts. I don't know about you, but I find that I achieve some of my biggest gains when I finally get guts. When I finally figure out that I can hurt big time and feel like I'm going to explode, and still keep going, it's as if I cross a threshold of performance. Don't get me wrong, I think triathletes are some of the toughest nuts around. But we've all been there, haven't we? "My nutrion was off, I was afraid I was going to bonk, my legs were cramping, my heart rate was soaring, [insert reason here], so I eased up a little to make sure I could finish." Remember Tim DeBoom running with the kidney stone? If that wasn't a display of guts, I don't know what is. And every year at the Tour de France, one or more cyclists seem to be riding with a broken something. I'm just not sure I could pull that off. Truly, in my heart of hearts, more than genetics, this is what I think separates the greats from the rest of us.

Primarily Pfitzinger and Douglas. Some of them have been personally coached by qualified individuals.

But I'm not the one making the generalization. Can you support your statement?

Perhaps Pfitzinger and Douglas weren't the best options for those people.  There are other training plans, and coaches, and advice.

Bear, I know what you're saying.  And for some it's more of a struggle.  So that would be quite the argument that no matter what level of training and dedication you have, if you don't have the physical attributes necessary, then you are where you are, and that's it.

Exactly what I'm saying. You and Rick have a "gifted" perspective, and can arbitrarily throw out statements like a low 6m/m pace or a BQ is available to anyone, but it is nothing more than a skewed view of things. Again, there are folks out there that would laugh at your paltry efforts and say you aren't working hard or smart enough, or not training with the best plan for you.

I think the fallacy in saying that "anyone can qualify for Boston" is exposed if you substitute "the Olympics" for "Boston."  Logically, if we are all genetically equal and the only barrier to reaching goals like Kona/Boston/the Olympics is the level and quality of training, then in theory, everyone ought to be able to qualify for anything.

Which seems like nonsense to me... so I think that the original premise, that anyone can qualify for Boston, is false. 

On the other hand... going backwards... if you substitute "finish a 5K" for Boston above, that kind of blows my argument out of the water. 

Oh well... I think that everyone has their own "it," the level they could reach, and it is different for everyone. 

Again, those with some real "it" to challenge for top-10% regularly don't even realize they have "it" and unwittingly make my argument for me.  Dan, be proud of what you've accomplished and your hard hard work.  But, please correct me if I'm wrong, they don't just let any old hack walk into the cross country team in college, for x-sake.  Trust me, had I walked in they'd have offered me a clipboard and stop watch, at best.  Having the ability to be on a college cross country team is way outside the scope of wanna-be's like me.

edited to add:  I hope once again I am clear that "it" still needs hard work.  Daremo, Dan, Jeepfleeb and other competitive folks work d$mn hard and deserve what they accomplish.  They work harder than most.  But, I still argue they have talent and that is PART of the reason they can rise to the top, and I LIKELY won't, or it will be a slowww slow climb up the ladder.

Interesting to see the creator (on BT at least) of RIDE LOTS taking the con argument of this discussion.

Not at all contradictory. I have no doubt that hard work, starting with volume, is what is needed to reach your potential. Again, I define "it," in this context, as where exactly that potential lies. "It" is why you can run 200 miles per week and earn a 3:12 while someone else can run a 2:30 on a mere 90MPW.

Which is really a big part of the debate, isn't it?  Are we training in the most optimal way for ourselves, or not?  Are we really maximizing our abilities, or are we selling ourselves short?

I hardly call myself gifted in any sense.  I picked Boston because it is based on time, not as much on competition against others.  And I think that even with the proper training and right attitude, you can still have a bad race and not meet the goal.  There's a number of factors that go into it, and I think that's really the point.  I don't deny that genetics plays a part in ability.  I think that training, and mental ability do as well.

Qualifying for the Olympics would tend towards the elite level, and is based on time as well as placement against other runners.  Qualifying for Boston does not necessarily make you an elite runner, or even a top AGer.  It's also not based on your ability to beat other in your division, only a time goal.

Morey1,

Actually, I did walk onto the Cross Country team.  I wanted to get back in shape for ROTC so I asked the coach if I could train with them.  He said yes and then he gave me a uniform.  but I see your point.  I tried the same thing when I transferred to Ga Tech and they laughed at me.  So I played v-ball instead.

I was trying to compare the level that I was at in HS and College (high, but not top 10%) to now where I am generally top 10%.  The difference was hard work.  That's the comparison I was trying to make.  I wish I ran like I do now in HS or college.

I do thank you for saying I have talent.  But so do you, never forget that.

I think we all agree that reaching an elite level DOES requires talent/genetics/It or whatever we should call it + lots of hard work so it is pointless to bring that up to the discussion.

But in gist of the OP he was talking about top AGers and I think it is what JK, Daremo, etc and I are making reference; to the type of fitness required to bring you close to the top 10% of your AG. Those who believe to be doomed to be BOP will stay there IMO cuz they don’t want to do the work and/or have the time to make IT happen.

true... but there is some time that one would need to post to achieve that placement, so at the end of the day, it is still a time thing.  You just don't know what it is before the race.   

C'mon.  The Olympics have "elite" qualifying standards.  Boston has "mass" qualifying standards.  There's no comparison.  Look at the average pace you need to run to BQ.  Mine is 7:26/mi.  That's simply not fast by running standards.  It's not easy to do for many people.  But it doesn't require much natural talent.

To run a single mile at 7:26, I agree, doesn't require much natural talent. To have the running efficiency, biomechanics, fueling and aerobic capacity to hold that pace for 26 and 2 does.

Well, there's at least 20,348 highly talented runners out there, since that's the total number of finishers from this year.  The number of actual entrants was even higher.

I'm sorry, holding that pace for 3+hours is fast.  Using McMillian we could back that down to some amazing times in shorter races.  It would require a lot of natural talent to train injury free to the level required to sustain that pace.  You say "It's not easy" so I'm not disagreeing or arguing with you, but I think it's very fast by running standards.