Printable View
[QUOTE=Eat Like A Bosh]I define talent as being blessed with a natural instinct for the game or physical gifts. Something that isn't what you work on hours and hours in the gym, you could think of this like having good genes. Just something that's naturally gifted to you.[/QUOTE]
Is a tendency to work hard a natural instinct? Does work ethic have anything to do with your genes? It may.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Is a tendency to work hard a natural instinct? Does work ethic have anything to do with your genes? It may.[/QUOTE]
Like people said, Talent definitely goes beyond athletic abilities or physical gifts. If you take away a player athletic ability and that player is still pretty good due to being natural at this game, then he is.
For instance, Shaq's unique size, strength and remarkable mobility for a guy that big could be considered a talent, also he stated in his book that he didn't start really playing basketball till high school, can't remember correct me if I'm wrong. It's evident that he picked up the game very quick despite not playing it for very long. For anyone with a fantastic natural instinct to the game, who learns that quick, can be considered talented. Ok, Shaq was a bad example, since his size was his major selling point, but I hope you get my point.
What you described is just being a hard worker. Having a great work ethic doesn't necessarily mean you are a natural. For example, say if I touched basketball when I was born, was playing since 3, practiced like 20 hours a week in the gym each week while in school, and still failed to make the Varsity Team in HS. Do I have a great work ethic? Heck yes. Am I talented? No not really.
[QUOTE=stevieming]Personally I think talent is more how a person reacts to a particular sport.
Shaq was made for basketball but he would be crap at football and tennis. His height, power, strength all suit him best for basketball.
Roger Federer has amazing hand to eye coordination and footwork which makes him GOAT at tennis, but he'll probably be no good at weight lifting, doesn't have the core strength, he could weight train for his whole life and probably never win an Olympic medal.
It's about how natural a sport comes to you, how it suits your body and your physical attributes best.
I never played rugby until I was 14, made school team after one game and played at a high level. I had a great feel for the game and scoring, good pace and strength and balance. The game was easy for me, knew what to do with the ball instinctively, how to beat my man and how to defend my man but got a back injury and gave the game up at 21, lost my love for the game from the injury.
I started playing basketball at 17 and been playing it non stop for the last 17 years, I've put endless hours of training and still I am nowhere close in terms of the level I was at in rugby. I am just an above average rec ball player. Even if I rewind and started playing at 7, had all the best training, I still won't be making pro in Europe.
Vince had talent man, he had oodles of physical talent. But he never bothered to tighten his handle, he didn't work tirelessly on his J, he didn't get a post game like Kobe, he didn't bother developing his footwork more like Kobe.
Physically he had more than Kobe, but mentally he wasn't on the same level.
Sometimes I think you can put mental attributes as talent as well. Kobe's drive, determination and dedication is rare.
Just like in tennis, Rafa's tenancity and mental strength. Dude is a mental giant, when the going gets tough he grits it out. Being mentally strong is so important in tennis, you have to consider that a talent!!
Where as in football, it's 90 minutes and you can hide on the pitch. You've got the team to fall back on, but in tennis the game is only over when you beat your opponent and there's no one else apart from you. So in football, being mentally strong is not as important, apart from when you have to take a penalty in pressure situations. (Look at England - pretty much always mental p *******...es)[/QUOTE]
/End thread.
Talent = Natural born potential, whether physical or mental
Nothing more.
Talent means nothing unless it's utilized.
What do today's posters say? What's talent?
With the new UMVP this question gets a lot more interesting.
Talent = 10,000 hours of practicing the right way in any given field, according to Malcolm Gladwell.
He may allow for some exceptions when it comes to physical attributes. Obviously it helps that Shaq was naturally so big, and yet still athletic.
But take the GOAT. He worked as hard as anyone, and had an immense competitive drive. Jordan is the best all-time because he wanted it more than everyone else and worked harder on different parts of his game. There have been plenty of dudes who were 6'6 and could jump.
Curry is a talented shooter because he's worked so hard on his game, particularly 3 point shooting. And he's figured out a better way to shoot. Curry is a pioneer. Is that talent?
[QUOTE=Marchesk]Talent = 10,000 hours of practicing the right way in any given field, according to Malcolm Gladwell.[/QUOTE]
Is the ability of being capable of putting that much effort into anything considered talent? Or being able to choose the field you are about to be putting the effort into?
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Is the ability of being capable of putting that much effort into anything considered talent? Or being able to choose the field you are about to be putting the effort into?[/QUOTE]
Ever watch the movie Gattica? "There is no gene for the human spirit."
That's probably bull shit, because some people (maybe most of us), don't want to put that much effort into any one thing. But some have the drive, and more importantly, are able to stay motivated when the rest of us say, screw it, this ain't worth it.
Gladwell talks about how as a teenager, he was one of the best middle distance runners in Canada, and he was working out with someone who went on to be in the Olympics, but he decided it wasn't worth it to keep putting in that kind of effort, because he had other interests.
But I know that he's not quite right about talent, from my own experience. Take track and field. Some people are naturally good at certain events, and not others. I know this from experience. No amount of training was going to make me into a sprinter. And no amount of hard work would give a sprinter the ability to be a good miler. Different percentage of fast/slow twitch muscle at play.
It sounds crazy, but Usain Bolt would get destroyed by world class milers in the 1500 meters. State champion high school milers would probably beat him. No amount of hard work would give Usain Bolt the ability to run a sub 4 minute mile (not that most high schoolers ever do that, but to be world class ...).
So there is something to talent, at least when it comes to things which require specific raw physical ability.
[QUOTE=Marchesk]Ever watch the movie Gattica? "There is no gene for the human spirit."
That's probably bull shit, because some people (maybe most of us), don't want to put that much effort into any one thing. But some have the drive, and more importantly, are able to stay motivated when the rest of us say, screw it, this ain't worth it.[/QUOTE]
I'm Hungarian. Back in the day there were two Hungarian swimmers, Krisztina Egerszegi and Tamas Darnyi, who won everything. They have like 9 Olympic Golds combined and Darnyi was unbeaten for like a decade.
What's more important to me though is noone remembers who the second best in Hungary (or in the world) was at the time. The runner-ups put in the same amount of effort, I'm sure.
Many kids put in the effort to become successful in the NBA. Few make it.
Do we call the winners 'more talented' when looking back?
[QUOTE=elementally morale]What do today's posters say? What's talent?
With the new UMVP this question gets a lot more interesting.[/QUOTE]
Haven't seen you post in forever. I remember you because your username gave me a mindfukc.
Anyway, talent is easy to see, harder to define, and harder still to quantify. Is X more talented than Y? One can never know.
Some things can be learned at a young age that are nearly impossible to learn as an adult. Early childhood (often up to the age of 5) are very impressionable and malleable years in the development of a person. It can make it seem like a person was born with that ability when in reality they simply picked it up very early in life (and I'm not considering time spent learning/practicing here just how early it happened). Does that count as talent? Can talent only be what you're born with? I don't know.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]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.)[/QUOTE]
I would like to make a rough breakdown into percentages. Also I think when it comes to natural physical talent. The significance of each category depends on the position and type of player. So if you are a center. Height and size should matter more than to than a guard.
Physical natural talent = 70% (Height and Wingspan, Speed, Agility, Hand-Eye coordination, Size, Durability, Hand size, Vertical, etc.)
Instincts & Bball IQ = 15% (X and O's, Understanding of timing and flow, general feeling of the game, defensive and offensive positioning, being savvy , etc.)
Character = 15% (work ethic, killer instinct, ability to handle pressure, etc.)
[QUOTE=FKAri]Haven't seen you post in forever.[/QUOTE]
I was lurking. Didn't have much to say for a while. :cheers: