Quote:
JasoninHalifax untapped potential plus training = rate of improvement. one person could be super talented, but maybe they're closer to their potential than the untalented person. the first is going to find it harder to improve than the "untalented" one who has a lot of low hanging, easily accessible fruit to pick off.
I never said anything about training maximal hours. never. Its not always about training more. It is often about training well, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and ditching the stuff that doesn't.
when you tell that perennial 2:00/100 swimmer that they did a great job by becoming a 1:55/100 swimmer with their hard work, its simply about where they are vs where they were, and how they got there. No statements on "talent" anywhere, neither explicit nor implicit.
Ha - now you're really dodging.
I kinda knew you'd bring this up. I could also bring up other variables as anybody could - nutrition, recovery or lack of, etc. I just two major factors (training+talent) to simplify things and because the two I'm highlighting are so important.
And, yes, you ABSOULTELY ARE making a statement when you tell that 2:00/100 'good job' to get to 1:55. For simplicity, let's assume what I said -they're PERENNIAL 2:00/100s (not totally new with completely untested potential). This is most AGers, very realistic. Year-round 2:00/100 swimmers, despite trying year after year. You are absolutely making a judgment and an implicit statement on their talent when you say 'good job at 1:55!" even if you never say the word talent.
You'd also look heavily into what they did to improve,as you said. If it took them a ton of work and a lot of schedule sacrifice just to get that 5sec/100, which honestly is pretty realistic for a lot of perennial 2:00/100 swimmers, you're not going tell them they'll be in lane 1 of masters by next year.
You don't have to say the word talent, but it's one of the biggest factors that you'll judge your athlete's workouts and goals by, and you know it.