What is talent? (Vince Carter related)

At first I was going to say that the most talented basketball player I have ever seen was Vince Carter, but then I had another idea.

Can you guys tell me what talent is?

When talking about talent, I see 'natural talent' and 'natural ability' mentioned all the time. But what is 'natural ability'? Is being tall considered talent? Is having huge hops more talent or more hard work? (Think of Barkley for example.) Is 'having a feeling for rebounding' an instinct (i.e.: talent) or mostly hard work? Or is it standing reach and hops? Is it agility?

What do you consider 'putting in the effort'? Is it a natural ability to be able to put in more work than others? I mean... can ANYONE put in more work than ANYONE else? I'm not sure it is mathematically possible... So putting in the 'extra hours' must have something to do with 'ability'.

Is being a smart player (like Nash) talent? Is it ability? Is it mostly due to hard work? Is being capable of deciding what you should work on a kind of 'talent'?

Are we sure that everything taken into account, the likes of Vince Carter and Rasheed Wallace are more talented than guys like Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan?

So what is talent?

(And please don't turn it into a Vice vs. Kobe debate, thank you.)

Great Post.

I never understood what talent actually was. But it seems that on these boards, talent has a lot to do with athletic ability. A lot of the posters on these sites chastise GMs for drafting prospects on potential, yet most of them fall in love with guys just for because of there so called "talent". Just my 2 cents.

ey man, talent is potential brah. its what god gave ya thats impossible or cant be obtained easily by others. like yo brains, mentality, athletic ability, etc. Like if i give you 10000 dollars to startup ya business and I give another guy only 2000 dollars, ya would have more potential to be more successful than that guy brah. But ya could end up losing all dat by not developing it, not being smart nuff or even by bad luck brah. the other guy can be richer than ya at the end.

I hope ya get the picture brah. some got lotsa athletic ability but they can easily lose it all by not maintaining it, not developing it, not smart enuff to use it or just simple injury brah.

[QUOTE=globarticles]ey man, talent is potential brah. its what god gave ya thats impossible or cant be obtained easily by others. like yo brains, mentality, athletic ability, etc. [/QUOTE]

Are you sure that things like mentality and athletic ability cannot be worked on, especially when one is younger, brah? Is the ABILITY to work on 'raw talent' considered TALENT itself?

Fill me in, brah.

Talent I would say is the ability to do some things exactly how they are supposed to be done, and do so naturally. Whether it's with effort or not, practice or not, that's not so important IMO.

When you go to play ball for the first time with your friends, there are some kids that will play the will pull a layup without any previous instruction. And then there are others that will need practice and instruction to do it.

Let's say a math problem: some people just catch the essence of problems faster than others, and are able to write clear, simple solutions. It's irrelevant if they had to put a lot of work to their solutions (or not): most people won't be able to propose such beautiful solutions.

Some people just seem to have the ability to do some things, and leave you thinking "that's exactly the way it [I]has[/I] to be done".

What impressed me more about a prime Carter, is that his impossible tomahawk dunks looked incredibly natural, to the point they even looked easy because of being executed so naturally. I don't care if he spent years practising that move, because I'm sure other NBA players have as well, and yet Carter's dunk usually looked more graceful. And I hate the guy.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]Is the ABILITY to work on 'raw talent' considered TALENT itself?[/QUOTE]
I personally consider it a talent, and the most precious talent anyone can have.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]Are you sure that things like mentality and athletic ability cannot be worked on, especially when one is younger, brah? Is the ABILITY to work on 'raw talent' considered TALENT itself?

Fill me in, brah.[/QUOTE]
Talent is just being able to do something right of the bat. For example, say a cat can just pick up on the piano like he's been playing forever, that's talent. But then, you might have some one who can play piano and look at that cat like "man, it took me years to play piano and you can pick up on it like that."

I don't know.

I don't think work can give you to have a LeBron James body(Karl Malone with with perimeter player's speed).

I think talent is basically just ability. It includes natural abilities, developed ones, athleticism, and skills.

Ray Allen is a talented shooter. Kidd is a talented passer. Carmelo is a talented scorer. Howard is a talented shot blocker. Al Jefferson is a talented post player. Vince Carter is a talented dunker. Tony Parker is a talented penetrator. Kobe is a talented finisher.

Generally the most talented players are the ones that have the most talents. So LeBron James is maybe the most talented player in the league because he can defend as well as anyone, he can run the floor as well as anyone, he can finish as well as anyone, he can penetrate very well, dunk very easily, etc etc. He isn't really a highly talented shooter though. Kobe is probably equal or almost as talented as LeBron in many areas, but greatly exceeds his talent in shooting, so many people would say Kobe is more talented overall.

I think that size while important in the NBA is not really considered talent. Although, it is considered when evaluating other talents. Dirk is a very talented shooter for a big man. Shaq was very quick for a giant human being. Iverson was a very talented scorer for a player under 6 feet. Basically you get extra credit for being talented at something you are not expected to be talented at based on your size. You don't get credit for doing things that should be easy based on your size, but that really only applies to very few players. Like Yao Ming isn't considered a really talented rebounder. He might be good at it because he is 6 inches taller than everyone else on the court many times. Dennis Rodman and Charles Barkley on the other hand were considered very talented rebounders because their height made it unlikely they would be so good at it.

[QUOTE]Talent is just being able to do something right of the bat.[/QUOTE]

That is 'raw talent' I would say. But is not 'fulfilling your potential' some kind of talent? I mean... there are several really smart kids in school and some of them end up being really dumb adults, the majority will do OK, a few will be exceptional and a selected few will become Stephen Hawking or John von Neumann.

One may say Vince Carter had more talent than, say, Michael Jordan... but at the end of the day, MJ is MJ and Vince is Vince.

I really have a hard time understanding talent at the age of 36. When I was younger, it all seemed a lot simpler.

[QUOTE=Pursuer]I don't think work can give you to have a LeBron James body(Karl Malone with with perimeter player's speed).[/QUOTE]

Of course not. But it can give you Steve Nash. Nothing to be ashamed of, IMO.

[QUOTE]Let's say a math problem: some people just catch the essence of problems faster than others, and are able to write clear, simple solutions. It's irrelevant if they had to put a lot of work to their solutions (or not): most people won't be able to propose such beautiful solutions.[/QUOTE]


When I was 10 or 15, I was considered to be talented in arts and languages. I did OK in school and my math skills were not 'bad', but others thought I would not make a scientist. My picture of myself was the same: I thought I would end up being a writer/musician of some sort.

And I am a physicist, and not that bad at it. To some extent you can learn things, it seems. But is that ability talent? What should I call it? Luck? I may as well call it having been lucky, after all it's true.

...I don't think talent really takes player psyches into account. So while Michael Jordan was probably considered more talented earlier in his career, he might be considered better in his last 3 years in the league (with the Bulls), as some people think he took his drive to a whole new level.

Someone like Vince Carter can do many things as well as anyone, but many would argue his psyche has impeded him from becoming a really good NBA player.

Decision-making, drive, heart, etc. matter A TON in the NBA, but I don't think they are considered talents, nor do I think they should be.

[QUOTE='Toine=MVP]Decision-making, drive, heart, etc. matter A TON in the NBA, but I don't think they are considered talents, nor do I think they should be.[/QUOTE]


Talent to you is 'natural physical ability' then?

talent to me is synomynous with potential. To fulfill that potential/talent you need to put in work. Also, if you're more talented than someone else, you reach the same level with less effort, and your ceiling is higher.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]Talent to you is 'natural physical ability' then?[/QUOTE]

No, read my other post. It is developed physical abilities as well, including athleticism and other skills. Nash is a talented passer because he sees the floor very very well and is able to dribble to the area where he needs to be to make the pass. The fact that he makes good decisions might make him a better player, but it doesn't factor in to his passing talent.

[QUOTE='Toine=MVP]No, read my other post. It is developed physical abilities as well, [/QUOTE]

Development has a lot to do with your mindset and hard work, right? So what is talent? Putting in the work when you are young and before you are shown on TV?

Serious question.

...Let's say half the games LeBron decides to give full effort on offense and defense and half the games he clearly plays passively and admits he just didn't want to try. Is he less talented those days? Is he less talented overall because he doesn't always try hard? Of course not. It is a physical skill-set. People are disappointed with guys who can be amazing at times but seemingly don't care enough to play at that level all the time. They are considered wasted talents.

P.S. The LeBron example was hypothetical.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]talent to me is synomynous with potential. To fulfill that potential/talent you need to put in work. Also, if you're more talented than someone else, you reach the same level with less effort, and your ceiling is higher.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I thought at age 25. On a sidenote: How old are you? (I'm curious.)

[QUOTE=elementally morale]Development has a lot to do with your mindset and hard work, right? So what is talent? Putting in the work when you are young and before you are shown on TV?

Serious question.[/QUOTE]

Sure. If someone is driven as a young person and works hard to develop physical abilities, then he has certainly made himself more talented. If he chooses to tank it as an NBA player that has nothing to do with his talent level.

Increasing ones talent is not a talent in my opinion.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]That's exactly what I thought at age 25. On a sidenote: How old are you? (I'm curious.)[/QUOTE]

21. Work ethic I believe is something you learn, depends on how you're brought up. Work ethic is essential to fulfill your talent, but is not a talent itself.

[QUOTE='Toine=MVP]Increasing ones talent is not a talent in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to call it then. Is being able to select what you are really talented in considered talent?

I mean... if Shaq would have decided to become an actor, we would call him not that talented, right?

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]Work ethic is essential to fulfill your talent, but is not a talent itself.[/QUOTE]

What is it then? Ability?

If it is ability, is it natural? Or you have to work on being able to put in the work to improve your talent?

I'm not kidding with you, sorry if I may come off as someone doing just that.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]What is it then? Ability?

If it is ability, is it natural? Or you have to work on being able to put in the work to improve your talent?

I'm not kidding with you, sorry if I may come off as someone doing just that.[/QUOTE]

work ethic is a pattern of behaviour. Like etiquette, honesty etc

[QUOTE=elementally morale]I don't know what to call it then. Is being able to select what you are really talented in considered talent?

I mean... if Shaq would have decided to become an actor, we would call him not that talented, right?[/QUOTE]

what? do you mean not that talented at acting? i think we are only talking about basketball talent right? because we could say he is not that talented at acting right now. but maybe he would have become a great actor, and then we would consider him very talented at acting (long shot).

maybe you mean if he chose to act instead of play basketball we would not consider him a talented basketball player. well, that might be true. but it would depend on how good he would have been at playing basketball in that scenario. if his post moves were worse because of that choice, he'd be a less talented post player.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]work ethic is a pattern of behaviour.[/QUOTE]

So it is totally up to you to decide whether your work ethic will be 'great' or 'bad' then? Or is it sheer luck?

[QUOTE=elementally morale]When I was 10 or 15, I was considered to be talented in arts and languages. I did OK in school and my math skills were not 'bad', but others thought I would not make a scientist. My picture of myself was the same: I thought I would end up being a writer/musician of some sort.

And I am a physicist, and not that bad at it. To some extent you can learn things, it seems. But is that ability talent? What should I call it? Luck? I may as well call it having been lucky, after all it's true.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I knew I liked you for some reason. I was considered to be talented in languages -and still want to think so- (although I was never considered talented in arts besides writing). Still, I love writing and know 3 languages fluently. And when I was around 10 I clearly remember crying because I simply didn't understood math.

Despite all that I'm close to getting my college degree in math :lol

Not sure I understand what you mean by ability talent here. But overall yes, I do think as talents as luck of some sort. And the talent to fulfil your talents, that's the one talent everyone has to believe they have, despite clear cases of people who don't.

[QUOTE='Toine=MVP]what? do you mean not that talented at acting? i think we are only talking about basketball talent right? because we could say he is not that talented at acting right now. but maybe he would have become a great actor, and then we would consider him very talented at acting (long shot).

maybe you mean if he chose to act instead of play basketball we would not consider him a talented basketball player. well, that might be true. but it would depend on how good he would have been at playing basketball in that scenario. if his post moves were worse because of that choice, he'd be a less talented post player.[/QUOTE]

I mean both.

Had he chosen acting as a profession, he may have turned out to be an average actor. And then at age 25, being a lot slower and weaker you would have given him a basketball. He would play like a tall O'Neal but not like Shaq.

So him having picked up acting as a career option made him less talented as a basketball player? Is the ability to decide which sport/other activity to choose 'talent'? AI could have been great at Football. LBJ, too. Or Shaq at boxing, possibly.

But I'm done with stupid questions like that. I will listen to others' opinions instead. Thx for answering.

[QUOTE='Toine=MVP]I think talent is basically just ability. It includes natural abilities, developed ones, athleticism, and skills.

Ray Allen is a talented shooter. Kidd is a talented passer. Carmelo is a talented scorer. Howard is a talented shot blocker. Al Jefferson is a talented post player. Vince Carter is a talented dunker. Tony Parker is a talented penetrator. Kobe is a talented finisher.
[/QUOTE]

I think that, let's say Howard is talented shot blocker only because he's so athletic, same for Carter's dunking ability, would he be able to do it without his athletic ability? No.
I agree that his dunks look better than some other equally athletic guy, but main part of that is athleticism.

Ray Allen's shooting, Kidd's passing, Carmelo's scoring (that's little bit athleticism based) are very little (to none) are based on athleticism. While Al's post playing, Tony's penetrating and Kobe's finishing ability are more based on their athleticism. It requires some other natural abilities tho...

[QUOTE=jamal99]I think that, let's say Howard is talented shot blocker only because he's so athletic, same for Carter's dunking ability, would he be able to do it without his athletic ability? No.
I agree that his dunks look better than some other equally athletic guy, but main part of that is athleticism.

Ray Allen's shooting, Kidd's passing, Carmelo's scoring (that's little bit athleticism based) are very little (to none) are based on athleticism. While Al's post playing, Tony's penetrating and Kobe's finishing ability are more based on their athleticism. It requires some other natural abilities tho...[/QUOTE]

yeah, but that analysis doesn't help. i am saying all that stuff adds up to talent.

[QUOTE]because I simply [B]didn't understood[/B] math. [/QUOTE]

Wait... Haven't you just said you were talented in writing? :oldlol:

:cheers:

[QUOTE=elementally morale]So it is totally up to you to decide whether your work ethic will be 'great' or 'bad' then? Or is it sheer luck?[/QUOTE]

Like the other things I mentioned it depends a great deal on the social environment you were raised, how your parents raised you and what kind of experiences you made in your childhood.
I don't believe that people are born "good" or "evil", "lazy" or "hard-working" (for lack of a better word), but everyone has certain predispositions.

I'm a fairly talented trumpet player and am pretty certain that I would not have reached the level I've reached in trumpet playing had I picked the flute or guitar instead.

wow an interesting thread on my ISH? no way....


Its a good question, what Im thinking is talent is this innate set of parameters which can be converted into ability though hard work. Having inherent athletic ability: things like long reach, explosive step, or being light on your feet are all talent. A player will go and practice and he will convert these attributes into skill. I guess talent is like raw ability which you just have by the grace of god.
Even mentality is a talent. You can't tell me that having a Jordan or a Chris Paul mentality can be taught. They are just annoying ass OCD dudes that took their obsessive personalities and directed it towards basketball. Even Vince at one point displayed drive, which is a talent, but no one knows what happened and he lost it.

So to sum it up, talent is a set of qualities which you are born with. If you don't apply to anything it'll never turn into ability. You also can't pinpoint talent, or its just really hard. There is also a distinction to be made between being a talented basketball player and being a talented leaper, shooter, or rebound or something. Steve Nash is a talented ball player, he took the talent he had and converted it into ability which allows his to succeed on the court. Rodney Carney on the other hand is a very talented leaper, but he cannot convert that into basketball ability, so he is not as talented of a ball player. In relation to other nba players of course. Vince carter is a talented leaper, shooter, passer, and overall ball player. Possibly as talented as anyone, ever. He also converted it into ability. But unless we get some kind of machine and get inside his brain and follow his career from his rookie season till now, we will never know why he lacks drive or desire.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]Like the other things I mentioned it depends a great deal on the social environment you were raised, how your parents raised you and what kind of experiences you made in your childhood.[/QUOTE]

It is called having been lucky, then. You didn't choose your parents, did you?


[QUOTE]I'm a fairly talented trumpet player and am pretty certain that I would not have reached the level I've reached in trumpet playing had I picked the flute or guitar instead.[/QUOTE]

Do you consider the selection of the instrument a talent of some sort?

I think when you're talking about guys at a pro level, especially the elite ones it's very hard to distinguish talent from hard work. Because everyone is talented to some extent and everyone also works hard, though some more than others.

IMO It's easier to pick up talent at a lower level. At a higher level it probably doesn't matter that much when you factor in players' hard work. Let's face it, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, even slackers like McGrady and Carter work damn hard at their games. They're all talented guys. The biggest difference between them is that the former work harder, stay in better shape and so have separated themselves from their peers. You could argue Vince and McGrady are more talented in some respects, especially McGrady, but it really hasn't done much from them towards establishing them as anything more than mere footnotes in Baksetball history.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]I mean both.

Had he chosen acting as a profession, he may have turned out to be an average actor. And then at age 25, being a lot slower and weaker you would have given him a basketball. He would play like a tall O'Neal but not like Shaq.

So him having picked up acting as a career option made him less talented as a basketball player? Is the ability to decide which sport/other activity to choose 'talent'? AI could have been great at Football. LBJ, too. Or Shaq at boxing, possibly.

But I'm done with stupid questions like that. I will listen to others' opinions instead. Thx for answering.[/QUOTE]

I guess I am saying it doesn't matter how potentially talented a player might be. If LeBron James was severely injured as a baby, and was never able to walk, we would not consider him talented. It doesn't matter how much potential baby LeBron had. If you have the physical skill-set, you are talented, no matter how you got there. If you fail in the NBA or whatever other area of life despite your physical skill-set, then you can be considered a wasted talent (whether it is because someone is an alcoholic or just doesn't try or whatever other psychological reason).

[QUOTE=elementally morale]It is called having been lucky, then. You didn't choose your parents, did you?




Do you consider the selection of the instrument a talent of some sort?[/QUOTE]

You could call it luck, I'd call it destiny :cheers:
Choosing the right instrument is not a talent but luck. Although I'd consider it a talent to recognize talent in someone else, as my eventual teacher told me a trumpet would fit me more than another instrument. If you want me to go into detail I could even tell you why I'm less talented in playing trombone for example, even it's in principle a similar instrument. Has to do with certain predispositions of my body :pimp:

[QUOTE=DLeagueWannabe]Great Post.

I never understood what talent actually was. But it seems that on these boards, talent has a lot to do with athletic ability. A lot of the posters on these sites chastise GMs for drafting prospects on potential, yet most of them fall in love with guys just for because of there so called "talent". Just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]

GM's make the mistake all the time of drafting needs over talent. ALWAYS DRAFT BASED ON SKILL.

Its happened all the time. Look Sam Bowie being taken over Micheal Jordan. Jordan was obviously the most Skilled player in that draft even before he was drafted people knew that. The only person in the country that rivaled him was Len Bias and he wasnt even drafted first either(what happened with him was a unseeable situation).

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]You could call it luck, I'd call it destiny [/QUOTE]

I'm aight with calling it destiny. It doesn't depend on what you call it. :oldlol: (I think it doesn't... but who knows?)

On the other hand... if you were destined to become a great trumpet player, too, then you can get no extra points for your decisionmaking and hard work, can you? Aaaw man, these things get tricky.


I'm so sad my thread got deleted (the one where I was 'Jeff aka insidehoops' for like an hour). I have it in a downloaded version, but it would be just great to be able to show it to you at this point. Have you read that thread by any chance?

(I'm off for supper, will be back in like an hour.)

[QUOTE=elementally morale]I'm aight with calling it destiny. It doesn't depend on what you call it. :oldlol: (I think it doesn't... but who knows?)

On the other hand... if you were destined to become a great trumpet player, too, then you can get no extra points for your decisionmaking and hard work, can you? Aaaw man, these things get tricky.


I'm so sad my thread got deleted (the one where I was 'Jeff aka insidehoops' for like an hour). I have it in a downloaded version, but it would be just great to be able to show it to you at this point. Have you read that thread by any chance?

(I'm off for supper, will be back in like an hour.)[/QUOTE]

I don't remember that thread, no.
I don't that you cannot control your destiny though, there are always people that succeed despite a bad social environment, and people that fail in spite of a good social environment.

What about a player like Chauncey Billups, whose coaches say he has no talent, but plays very effective basketball from hard work and high basketball knowledge? Does he really have no talent, or does he just have less talent than other All-Star players of his caliber?

Then we have Jordan Farmar. He is exceptionally fast and has amazing ball handling skills, athleticism, and is a good finisher. He is clearly very talented. Yet he is a below-average point guard. Why?