PDA

View Full Version : What's your idea of an OBJECTIVE measure of 'talent'?


Volcana
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:09 AM
When we ask, 'who's the most talented', what exactly do we mean?

Let's go to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

1 a : any of several ancient units of weight b : a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2 archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3 : the natural endowments of a person
4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ability)
5 : a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity

All I get out of that is that it's what you're born with, not what you learn. Well, also that's mental as well as physical. That's useful. You can't be 'most talented' if you don't have the mental aspect going for you somehow. No headcases need apply.

* Superior hand-eye coordination is a talent

* Superior mental focus is a talent

* Superior court vision is a talent

* Anticipation is a talent

Those are things either you have, or nothing in the world can get you.

* The ability to hit a slice is NOT a talent, it's a SKILL.

* Being able to hit a 125 mph serve is not a talent, it a skill.

* Hitting with pace (and keeping the ball in the court) isn't a talent, it's a skill.

* Hitting a topspin lob isn't a talnet, it's a skill.

So now that we have some idea of what talent is and is not, how do we measure it?

GS titles? Looking good in miniskirts? What?

WhatTheDeuce
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:15 AM
When we ask, 'who's the most talented', what exactly do we mean?

Let's go to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

All I get out of that is that it's what you're born with, not what you learn. Well, also that's mental as well as physical. That's useful. You can't be 'most talented' if you don't have the mental aspect going for you somehow. No headcases need apply.

* Superior hand-eye coordination is a talent

* Superior mental focus is a talent

* Superior court vision is a talent

* Anticipation is a talent

Those are things either you have, or nothing in the world can get you.

* The ability to hit a slice is NOT a talent, it's a SKILL.

* Being able to hit a 125 mph serve is not a talent, it a skill.

* Hitting with pace (and keeping the ball in the court) isn't a talent, it's a skill.

* Hitting a topspin lob isn't a talnet, it's a skill.

So now that we have some idea of what talent is and is not, how do we measure it?

GS titles? Looking good in miniskirts? What?
You need to be TALENTED to be able to hit all those types of shots, so I can't say I agree with what you said.

CanadianGuy
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:17 AM
hand-eye coordination, Martina has that hands down. Both old and new. They can do volleys, and Martina Hingis is pretty much the encyclopedia of all shots. Not to mention the anticipation, Hingis 2 hands down. Venus does not have the feels of the court. And she does not have the anticipating skills as Hingis. IMHO, Anna Kournikova is the more talented one if comparing to Venus. She knows what shots to hit and she does have good hands though still miles away from Hingis. Anna, Martina, Venus were the ones that Nick thought to be the most talented on the tour several years ago. Kim goes by since she hits big. But Jennifer knew what the game was all about by the age of 14, so obviously she was talented.

Mental focus though is developed. Justine Henin-Hardenne is a perfect example for that.

Serena is talented, but not as talented. She goes through matches by hitting hard serves and big strokes hoping they would go in. She does not exhibit those so called "natural talents" when she was smaller like someone else said in another thread.

Stefwhit
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:31 AM
(Not sure why this convo couldn't be continued in the other thread about talent.... I just pasted my replies from there in here...)

In my definition talent is synonymous with accomplishment, it is one who posseses extrodinary skill, or an individual set apart from others through their ability to display their skills with "seemingly" little effort.

Talent is NOT necessarily centered around variety!!! Variety is just one aspect of the game of tennis. I might have the ability to hit every shot in tennis, but if I don't know which shot I need to hit to win the point- which by the way is ALWAYS the goal in tennis, then what talent am I honestly displaying???? As for the argument about "having every shot in the book"- I bet there are some Harlem Globtrotters who can do a lot more with a basketball than both Kobe and Jordan, but you wouldn't dare say any of them were more talented at playing basketball.....would you?

If you want to get technical:
-some players are talented because they can play a lot of styles of tennis
-some players are talented because they hit their shots with perfect technique
-some players are talented because they are able to do these things at a young age
-other players are talented because they can perform at an older age, better than most of their peers
.....so in basic and obvious way everyone is talented, but in the way that matters most to the overall goal, WHICH AGAIN IS TO WIN (matches), then I would definitely have to say that results are a good measure of talent. Age has nothing to do with talent. Is Michael Chang more talented than Andre Agassi because he was able to win a major at a younger age? Isn't it equally impressive having Graf win a major at the age of 29, as it is watching Hingis win a major at 16- both require equal amounts of talent IMO. Since the goal of each player is to ultimately win, I think that the greatest measure of talent is in results- plain and simple.

VS Fan
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:34 AM
Thanks for the correct definition of talent vs skills.

Venus IS more talented than Serena.

Serena is more skillful than Venus.

She learned these skills from a talented player and developed them well.

Stefwhit
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:42 AM
To have the ability to summon the necessary skills to win- requires talent....no way you're going to convince me otherwise!!!!!

Skill IS a synonym for the word talent!!!!!!
source:http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=talent
look it up....(thesaurus)


1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
2. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
-b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.
3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=talent

VS Fan
Apr 19th, 2004, 02:56 AM
Well I disagree with the idea that Talent and Skill are a synonym.

Talent is "natural" or "inborn"

My sister had an inborn artistic talent. She could take a pair of sissors and cut out an outline of a horse with no tracings. This was before she was ten years old. She made a 3D horse out of copper wire that looks really good. she said she made it to use to draw different positions that the horse would be in. She did this with no formal training. ( I have this sculpture in my apt.) This is talent.

Skill is "learned"

Talent is helpful when learning a skill, but not absolutely necessary.


Did you get your definition from Websters or some other source?

Edit: I just looked at your link at ask Jeeves.

The synonyms given here are absurd, check Websters. While related, these synonyms are not direct. These are just general related terms.
They are NOT synonyms

Stefwhit
Apr 19th, 2004, 03:06 AM
Well I disagree with the idea that Talent and Skill are a synonym.
I didn't make that up, it's a fact! Do you own a Thesaurus, if so look up the word talent. If you don't here's the link to the website:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=talent

Stefwhit
Apr 19th, 2004, 03:15 AM
Did you get your definition from Websters or some other source?....

The synonyms given here are absurd, check Websters. While related, these synonyms are not direct. These are just general related terms.
They are NOT synonyms
OK... Here's the thesaurus from "WEBSTERS":
Entry Word: talent
Function: noun
Text: Synonyms- aptness, bent, bump, faculty, flair, genius, nose, set, turn
Related Word art, craft, skill; endowment; expertise, forte

link to Websters: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=talent
...do you also disagree with Websters... :lol:

Ballbuster
Apr 19th, 2004, 03:17 AM
Thanks for the correct definition of talent vs skills.

Venus IS more talented than Serena.

Serena is more skillful than Venus.

She learned these skills from a talented player and developed them well.

I disagree. I think Serena has more raw talent than Venus. Serena can spin on a dime.

fammmmedspin
Apr 19th, 2004, 03:23 AM
When we ask, 'who's the most talented', what exactly do we mean?

Let's go to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

All I get out of that is that it's what you're born with, not what you learn. Well, also that's mental as well as physical. That's useful. You can't be 'most talented' if you don't have the mental aspect going for you somehow. No headcases need apply.

* Superior hand-eye coordination is a talent

* Superior mental focus is a talent

* Superior court vision is a talent

* Anticipation is a talent

Those are things either you have, or nothing in the world can get you.

* The ability to hit a slice is NOT a talent, it's a SKILL.

* Being able to hit a 125 mph serve is not a talent, it a skill.

* Hitting with pace (and keeping the ball in the court) isn't a talent, it's a skill.

* Hitting a topspin lob isn't a talnet, it's a skill.

So now that we have some idea of what talent is and is not, how do we measure it?

GS titles? Looking good in miniskirts? What?Most of those talents improve with practice. Many great talents in any art form have/had elements of the headcase about them - it would be pretty stupid to define talent to exclude genius. Its also not necessarily related to GS titles as that would, at best, measure talent at winning GS and at worse luck of the draw or luck that one was concieved when no other great players were. Its also unlikely that anyone would have all the talents - Graf's will and Hingis's brain eyes and hands in Serena's body - and impossible to measure one talent against another. Its also unlikely that anyone would display their talent all the time. Consistent mediocrity can't be more talented than rarer brilliance and overwhelming ability in one sphere (eg power) isn't necessarily more praiseworthy than imaginative play or skilled shot making.

Basically its all subjective. One mans beautiful powerful striker of the ball is another's mindnumbingly boring unimaginative turn off.

VS Fan
Apr 19th, 2004, 03:25 AM
Is this definition in Websters? Rogers Thesaurus seems to have a lot of related terms listed as synonyms.

Perhaps Rogers and Ask Jeeves do not know what the term Synonym means.
A synonym is a word with the EXACT SAME meaning as the given word.

Such as: Floor/deck Ceiling/overhead wall/bulkhead etc.

Skill and talent just do NOT meet this test.

Talent is inborn and natural, while skill is learned.

The skill will be improved if there is an inborn talent, but it MUST be learned.

This may be splitting hairs, but it is the way I see it.

fammmmedspin
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:17 AM
Is this definition in Websters? Rogers Thesaurus seems to have a lot of related terms listed as synonyms.

Perhaps Rogers and Ask Jeeves do not know what the term Synonym means.
A synonym is a word with the EXACT SAME meaning as the given word.

Such as: Floor/deck Ceiling/overhead wall/bulkhead etc.

Skill and talent just do NOT meet this test.

Talent is inborn and natural, while skill is learned.

The skill will be improved if there is an inborn talent, but it MUST be learned.

This may be splitting hairs, but it is the way I see it.
I know what you mean but hand eye coordination, court vision, anticipation and mental focus all require the brain to be connected up in the right way and the process is still going on I believe well past the point at which tennis players are learning their first backhand. Court vision, anticipation and mental focus all need you to play the game and learn from experience I should think. You might get better nd do it faster than most people but you would still be in a learning process just as you would be hitting the ball. You could argue the brain would have to be up to the job (though you have winners who have relatively little brain so you are looking for particular brain cells) but thats not far removed from arguing that you need good muscles and nerves linked properly to the brain to be able to do a particular shot well.

New
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:51 AM
When we ask, 'who's the most talented', what exactly do we mean?

Let's go to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

All I get out of that is that it's what you're born with, not what you learn. Well, also that's mental as well as physical. That's useful. You can't be 'most talented' if you don't have the mental aspect going for you somehow. No headcases need apply.

* Superior hand-eye coordination is a talent

* Superior mental focus is a talent

* Superior court vision is a talent

* Anticipation is a talent

Those are things either you have, or nothing in the world can get you.

* The ability to hit a slice is NOT a talent, it's a SKILL.

* Being able to hit a 125 mph serve is not a talent, it a skill.

* Hitting with pace (and keeping the ball in the court) isn't a talent, it's a skill.

* Hitting a topspin lob isn't a talnet, it's a skill.

So now that we have some idea of what talent is and is not, how do we measure it?

GS titles? Looking good in miniskirts? What?

Ok so she's skillful. But does it matter? She can play better than all of us on this thread combined.