I disagree with the OP so much I have a headache.
I don't know about you people, but I have far, far more respect for anyone that got to where they are by hard work than merely by talent. If everybody has the same potential, then that makes the accomplishments of the people at the top of whatever they do that much more impressive.
I find hard work, long hours, and unrelenting dedication to be qualities that I, and many other people in society, admire.
I could have lived a parrell life to hicham el guerrouj, done the same exact training he did, ate the same things he ate, etc and I would never have been able to run close to a 3:43 mile or been a double gold medalist. Talent is very real and at the top levels (olympics, world championships) it is the most prevalent.
WeZe wrote:
Paula Radcliffe, isn't she British?
Do you even have any runners in Britain? WTF are you even talking about? I have never even heard of a decent British runner.
I am pretty sure that Paula runs a little bit more than 30 miles per week.
you don't actually know that and there is no way to possibly find out.
Talent is the performance difference between two people that put in the exact amount of work and effort.
photo_finish_ftw wrote:
I disagree with the OP so much I have a headache.
I don't know about you people, but I have far, far more respect for anyone that got to where they are by hard work than merely by talent. If everybody has the same potential, then that makes the accomplishments of the people at the top of whatever they do that much more impressive.
I find hard work, long hours, and unrelenting dedication to be qualities that I, and many other people in society, admire.
I agree. Hard work is way more impressive than being naturally talented.
Not really wrote:
WeZe wrote:Paula Radcliffe, isn't she British?
I am pretty sure that Paula runs a little bit more than 30 miles per week.
*******************************************
But you're missing the point. Her coach made sure that she was running fast and when she WAS doing 30 mpw, and faster still on 35, faster still on 40 etc etc. That's what you call good coaching/good training.
GOT IT?
Sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Outliers."
To "philosopher", the o.p.:
Zeno: "Talent doesn't matter: you'll never get there."
Socrates: "What is talent?" [Cut to aporia after 300 pages of dialogue.]
Aristotle: "The virtue of talent is to be found in the Golden Mean."
Augustine: "Tell me O Lord, where can I find talent but in Thee?"
Descartes: "Curro ergo sum"
Frege: "E(x): Tx"
Russell: "Only those runners who lack talent talk about those who do. But what is the set of elite runners who post on Let's Run? How can an poster be an imposter?"
Wittgenstein (early): "The limits of my talent are the limits of my world."
Wittgenstein (late): "We are not talking about a language game but a form of life"
Heidegger: "Das Talent itself talents. Damn that Jesse Owens."
Surprise! wrote:
Talent is something that far too many people use as an excuse why they aren't running faster.
To be sure, talent isn't a myth, and it certainly does impact how fast one can run, but it's too often used as a limiting factor.
why aren't you playing in the nba? Lack of talent is just an excuse.
What this guy said wrote:
photo_finish_ftw wrote:I disagree with the OP so much I have a headache.
I don't know about you people, but I have far, far more respect for anyone that got to where they are by hard work than merely by talent. If everybody has the same potential, then that makes the accomplishments of the people at the top of whatever they do that much more impressive.
I find hard work, long hours, and unrelenting dedication to be qualities that I, and many other people in society, admire.
I agree. Hard work is way more impressive than being naturally talented.
I disagree. Why would you respect someone who sucks so bad at running they have to devote their entire life at something just to be "okay" at it? They obviously suck. Just because they are so narcotic that they train for a 5k every waking hour for 15 straight years just to break 18 min. doesn't mean they are something to be idolized. They have inferior genes and shouldn't be placed higher on the podium than some naturally talented runner who can run 14:30 off of 30 miles a week. Get real. Are you impressed by German F.? You know he's naturally talented and I'm sure many guys you've never heard of work harder than him as G.F. is more naturally talented. But you only know G.F. because he's THE BEST. You are impressed by G.F. because he waxes those runners with less talent even though they work harder than him (G.F. was a low milage guy in HS and didn't run over the '09 summer due to an injury, so I'm sure many guys he'll be beating this Monday have worked much harder than him over the past 5 years.)
You may respect their work ethic, but you most definately are not impressed by their running, nor would you want them to be on your team if you were a coach. If you were a coach, you'd recruit naturally talented runners. Not sucky runners who "work really hard".
Talent is that 13 year old that runs a 5 minute mile, and doesn't really run and/or train. Talent is what most world class sprinters and basketball players have. (obviously not to say they don't work hard too) But if you've been around sports most you life you can spot talent.
OK, I can't resist. In which I continue to amuse myself if nobody else.
Hegel: "Genetics (thesis) + hard work (antithesis) = talent (synthesis). Unless the Zeitgeist incorporates peds."
Freud: "Unlike Oedipus, pick your parents carefully."
Hard work does trump talent.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm