What is talent? (Vince Carter related)

[halffttime]

talent - ball handling skills, shooting skills, decision-making skills, etc.

ability - being fast, jumping high, being strong, etc.

the x factor - determination, will to succeed, strive to be the best, etc.

carter had talent and ability, but IMO now lacks the x factor. there was at a time in his career (early-mid raptors days, early nets days) when he had that hunger. every now and then he'll show signs of that determination that he once had, but he never brings it with consistency anymore.

kobe has talent, SOMEWHAT of an ability, and DEFINITELY strives to be the best. i say he he has somewhat of an ability because let's face it, athletic-wise he's no carter, but his talent and determination makes up for that lack of natural ability.

and of course, jordan had the trifecta. he had the talent, the physical ability, and the mentality to WANT to be the greatest. i will say skill-wise, i think kobe has an advantage over jordan, but the other aspects of jordan's game more than makes up for it. carter HAD what it took to be great, but lacked the will. carter could easily step out on the court on any given night and drop 30, but to do it with consistency and efficiency is a whole other thing.








..i just had to go there

[elementally morale]

...i just had to go there

It's OK, you did it in a nice way.

[ProfessorMurder]

I think talent is subject to opinion... Varying with every person, hence why there's been so many answers in this thread.

Natural 'Raw' Talent to me is just something you can try, and be better than average (or better than you should be given the situation). Take me and basketball. I never played until I was in 4th grade. I tried out for a rec team, and was the best, without training/work/instruction. It's something intrinsic that you either have or don't. (You could be genetically or environmentally predisposed to it)

Ability(to me), is interchangeable with talent. Ability is simply being able to do said thing. Without being able to do something, there won't be a talent. (If you're blind, you won't have the ability to become a talented sniper.)

Having a skill/talent/ability could stem from your natural talent, but it could also be manufactured. But improving/taking some talent to the next level has to be done with work ethic/perseverance/luck. Who knows, maybe I had the same talent as a young Vince Carter, but he worked to improve and I didn't.

Having heart/determination/work ethic, I wouldn't classify as a talent... But they are attributes needed to expand talents.

That's my take on it anyway.

['Toine=MVP]

You [think that psyche is not part of talent]. I consider it talent. So after all I think Farmar is not that talented. He has great physical abilities, though.

Then there is no such thing as wasted talent? If talent is just the sum total of everything, then the best player in the league is the most talented, the worst player in the league is the least talented, and so forth. If someone can't make it as an NBA player, they are less talented than that.

Vince Carter (for example) did not waste his talent, he just didn't have enough talent?

I don't think many people use the term talent that way. If they did, no one would ever say a player wasted his talent, or anything like that. If not becoming an alcohol is a talent, then Vin Baker did not waste his talent by becoming an alcoholic. He actually just lived up to his talent, as that is what you'd expect to happen based on his set of talents. Vince Carter lived up to his talents the same way, because based on his lack of heart or determination or good decision making, he could never have been expected to do any more than he did.

If I am correct in stating your opinion this way, then it is an interesting thought, but you are trying to re-define the term talent to mean something other than what it means to the vast majority of people. I might be wrong in my attempt to define talent in the way that the world generally perceives it, but that is what I was attempting to do.

I believe that the vast majority of people happen to believe that it is possible to waste talent. So there must be some factor outside of talent that causes one to waste it. I am calling it psyche, but there might be a more precise term for it. You are bothered by the widely accepted use of the term talent (maybe bothered isn't the best word), and want to change the accepted meaning of the term to include every factor than can account for performance. Am I right about that?

['Toine=MVP]

Having a skill/talent/ability could stem from your natural talent, but it could also be manufactured. But improving/taking some talent to the next level has to be done with work ethic/perseverance/luck. Who knows, maybe I had the same talent as a young Vince Carter, but he worked to improve and I didn't.

Having heart/determination/work ethic, I wouldn't classify as a talent... But they are attributes needed to expand talents.

That's my take on it anyway.

I think that is the way people use the term talent. Some people are defining it differently, but when you ask a person whether player X is very talented or somewhat talented or not very talented for a NBA player, almost everyone will give you the same answer. And that answer would be based on your definition. If you ask how good a player is, you'll get a wider variety of answers and certainly the ranking of players based on talent will not match up with the ranking of players based on how good they are.

[elementally morale]

I don't think many people use the term talent that way.

You are right.

But how do you use the terms 'space' and 'time'? I can assure you that the way most people use those terms is not the same a few scientists use them. I'm not sure about you, but many people would be surprised that time is not a 'given' and that it depends on speed.

So how people use a term is only important to me when I want to understand what people are talking about or when I want to tell them something in a way they do understand. But when I'm on my own thinking about something I don't care too much about people's opinions. I do before and after, but not while 'doing my thing'.

But you are right: not many people use the term 'talent' the way I do. That is the reason why I asked this question here. I wanted to know how you guys use the term.

[elementally morale]

If I am correct in stating your opinion this way, then it is an interesting thought, but you are trying to re-define the term talent

correct

to mean something other than what it means to the vast majority of people.

for inner use, yes. In the sense that I would want to change the way people think of talent, no.

I hope that made sense.

['Toine=MVP]

Okay. Well, that wasn't totally clear by any of your other posts.

[elementally morale]

Well, that wasn't totally clear by any of your other posts.

Of course not. If I tell you WHY I'm asking before you answer... that may change your answer. That I did not want in this case. So I gave you the info, only a bit later.

['Toine=MVP]

Of course not. If I tell you WHY I'm asking before you answer... that may change your answer. That I did not want in this case. So I gave you the info, only a bit later.

true. i probably wouldn't have even posted if i knew that's what you were getting at. so i'm glad i didn't know earlier.

[elementally morale]

true. i probably wouldn't have even posted if i knew that's what you were getting at. so i'm glad i didn't know earlier.

It made sense though.

I read many interesting viewpoints, PLUS you guys read many interesting viewpoints PLUS some of you had to make a bit of an effort to define something you use quite naturally.

I think it was great, and I'm happy for everyone's contribution. Yours as well.

[Solid Snake]

1) There's no such thing as destiny. That's gets into the realm of fate, which is dangerously close to the man-made concept of the ill-fated idea of religion. There is no god.

2) Choosing what craft to hone your skills at is not a talent. I don't see how that's a serious question (I've seen you ask the question several times in this thread, "So person X choosing craft Y is a talent?" Insinuating that the act ifself of choosing that craft was a talent).

3) Luck, I'm willing to go with. People's bodies are made different. Some people's bones are more dense than others (a fact you can't change, unlike muscle mass), and some people's mindset is different that may make them work harder at certain things (mindset can be changed, but would take an external stimulus to trigger this event happening). In other words, I'm taking the long way to say that talent is a natural ability you possess, but I don't call it luck, it's nothing. If anything, call it coincidence, that's if you consider it a "coincidence" that that rock happens to be placed at this position on earth, as opposed to that position, or that leaf landed left of the tree, as opposed to right. I don't consider any of that as Luck or Coincidence, it simply just, is. Same as natural talent.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I view basketball talent differently than most people. I view it as an innate feel for the game, an innate creativity. Others view it more like "athletic talent" (e.g., VC, Lebron, Shaq etc.). There's some overlap there, but, for example, Larry Bird ranks VERY high on my "most talented players ever" list, but he would barely rate on others' lists because they're almost exclusively talking about athletic talent. Guys like MJ, Barkley, Magic, Bird, Dr. J represent the pinnacle of basketball talent for me, while for others guys like Carter/Lebron/Shaq would. Size is the one athletic/physical attribute I can see making a case for when discussing "talent," but I tend to not look at or care about stuff like leaping ability, speed etc. That stuff helps, but that's not "talent" - that's stuff you were born with. Basketball is a creative game; the most talented players are those who evince the greatest level of creativity imo.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I look at all of the things that seem to come naturally to a player, including physical attributes.

For example, the fact that footwork, post moves and passing skills came natural to Shaq at 7'2", 340 along with a great basketball IQ and incredible athleticism makes him rank among the most talented players ever IMO.

But perhaps the most talented player ever is Wilt because he showed at various times that he could do just about anything. Whether it was scoring at will with easy dunks, effortless unorthodox shots like his finger rolls, controlling the glass with a natural feel for rebounding matched by very few, blocking almost any shot he wanted or making Sabonis-esque passes with ease later in his career. Then you consider the size, strength and athleticism.

And yes, Bird ranks very high and the list, as does Magic Johnson. They had a feel for the game and did certain things that you can't learn too frequently. Particularly with their passing and in particular, Bird who made some of the most difficult shots.

Jordan obviously is high up as well because of his athleticism, feel for the game and the skill to do what he wanted. For example, nobody improvised better in the air than Jordan and you can't teach that. He just reacted better than just about anyone and when he was challenged he couldn't do something, he did it.

Guys like Sheed and VC are high up there as well, but I'm not sure they're as high as the guys I mentioned. Sheed, for example had all of the skills and athletic ability, but he either did have the desire or IQ to use it best. Similar to Carter, but I think Sheed wasted even more potential. He could do everything. He had a very good post up game, great length and defensive instincts, great shooting touch and range, solid passing ability and excellent athleticism.

Based on talent, Carter should have atleast been on Kobe's level, but he was never as talented as Jordan. Michael clearly had a better feel for the game, particularly defensive instincts and he had more speed and quickness.

[no0]

can someone explain to me how VC showed more athletic ability than kobe? i'm not being a sarcastic **** here. i'm just clueless.