Talent is a funny and often misused word, particularly when it's employed in the "talent vs. hard work" paradigm to characterize athletes. Some athletes learn easily and excel quickly, even at new endeavors, so they are considered natural talents. Others excel despite lacking apparent natural genetic attributes because they practice intently and display an outstanding work ethic. The picture seems sensible, but it’s flawed. It’s essential to expand our perspective to grasp a firm understanding of the term talent.
Could it be that the most important and profound athletic talent is the talent to work hard and compete intently - to make the most of your genetic abilities? When I hear someone say, "That guy is so talented, he can still break 16 minutes even though he has poor lifestyle habits and work ethic," I don’t think, "Wow, what a talent!" It's more like, "Wow, what a punk. What a waste of natural genetic ability."
In my endurance career, I experienced a rapid improvement curve after my introduction to distance running in high school and later as a rookie professional triathlete. My VO2 Max value was 81.3 ml/kg, which is considered high enough to indicate that I had the talent and potential to be a top level professional. However, I also was saddled with a glaring weakness - a lack of resiliency for training. I could train hard for a couple days or weeks, then I would become tired and have to rest, while others carried on and on and on. Triathlon greats like Mike Pigg and Scott Molina worked long and hard virtually every single day. After Olympic distance events on the pro circuit, Pigg would typically fly home and then ride 100 miles on Mondays.
My day-after routine looked a little different: I would fly home, sleep in till 10 a.m., get a massage and then take a long nap. I was not ready for any significant training for several days. I had a lack of natural "talent" to train at the level established by the hardest workers on the circuit. This arguably counted for more than a superior VO2 Max test result.
Make no mistake - the genetic component of athletics is tremendously important. Special attributes like height, strength, speed and size are obvious prerequisites for success in the various sports at the elite level. In endurance athletics, the VO2 Max test (which measures your ability to efficiently utilize oxygen while factoring in body weight) is considered a reliable predictor of performance potential. Dr. Max Testa, one of the pioneers of VO2 Max testing, says that VO2 Max results are 88% genetically determined, and that the trainability component (your ability to get in shape and improve your VO2 Max) also has a strong genetic correlation. However, we often see the most genetically blessed athletes falling behind the performances of those with superior competitive spirit and work ethic.
The best definition of talent in athletics that I’ve heard came from Dr. Glen Gaesser, professor of exercise physiology at the University of Virginia. During a lecture to athletes in which the professor detailed VO2 Max test implications and other science-oriented topics, someone asked how to identify the most talented athletes. He paused dramatically to allow everyone to ready their notepads, and then he said, "Go to a race and stand at the finish line. See who crosses the line first. There is the most talented athlete."
Or, as Testa says, "Genes determine who makes it into the peloton (the "pack" in professional bike racing), but not who wins the race." Truly superior athletic talents are people like Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan who possess the whole package: superior natural genetic ability, awesome work ethic and competitive spirit.
Member Comments