[Volcana]

Besides winning tournaments?

Actually, include that one, since we actually have posters heere who claim that winning tournaments, even GS tournament DOESN'T mean you have tennis talent.

NOTE: OBJECTIVE measures.

 

[griffin]

There are LOTS of objective MEASURES (titles, w/l record, h2h's, etc., etc.)

They just get used in SUBJECTIVE ways (who did they play for that title, when in their respective careers did 2 players play - and on what surface?)

 

[Gallofa]

Oh plenty. Things like being pretty or wearing the right clothes.

 

[bandabou]

There´s only one way to measure talent: winning! Talent will always beat no-talent. All the talk about: "such and such win but aren´t talented." is crap....if you have talent, you will win...if not, it´s because you don´t have enough talent.

 

[Volcana]

There are LOTS of objective MEASURES (titles, w/l record, h2h's, etc., etc.)

They just get used in SUBJECTIVE ways (who did they play for that title, when in their respective careers did 2 players play - and on what surface?)

Sounds like a lot of those 'objective' measures fial the test of completeness. The informations objective, just insufficient.

 

[griffin]

The informations objective, just insufficient.

Indeed! Especially when it can't be used to support YOUR point

 

[controlfreak]

One person's opinion of a certain player's talent is unquestionably subjective, however if you take a poll of enough people, you will end up with a statistic that is somewhat more objective.

Example: if you ask a thousand tennis fans whether Maja Matevzic has talent and whether Milagros Sequera has talent, and the results are that 630 say yes to Maja and 580 say yes to Milagros, then you could surmise that Maja is objectively more talented than Milagros. Hypothetically of course.

 

[arcus]

There are players who possess superior ability to make shots that others just cant. They might however be weak mentally or not good at shot selection. So winning is not the only marker of talent. Chris evert is a good example of a pretty talented player who was mentally and tactically very strong. Hana mandlikova and jana novotna had as much natural ability as anyone , but were emotionally very flaky and thus lost a lot. Martina navratilova was talented, but mentally not so strong early in her career. But she dominated evert when she got sorted out her mental demons because she had more raw ability.
A player who is 6'10 and serves bombs might beat a player who is 5'1 but has more natural ability. Winning and talent are not equivalent.

 

[DA FOREHAND]

Talent=STEFFI GRAF

 

[TennisLurker]

In my opinion, shot making ability is what indicates the talent of a tennis player.
Not winning.
When I think of talent, I think of Hingis, Sabatini, Arazi, Santoro or Marcelo Rios.
Players who can make amazing things with their racquets.

 

[Martian Willow]

...I'm still not really sure what talent is...I only know that if Player A beats Player B, it's because they played better...

...of course, some players appear to have more potential than others...but what's potential (...or 'talent'...) if you don't know how to use it...?

 

[Martian Willow]

In my opinion, shot making ability is what indicates the talent of a tennis player.
Not winning.
When I think of talent, I think of Hingis, Sabatini, Arazi, Santoro or Marcelo Rios.
Players who can make amazing things with their racquets.

...Volcana was asking for objective measures...

 

[DA FOREHAND]

Every top ten player can hit the ball x amount of times to a set spot on the court off of either wing, same w/volleys, there is a small degree of seperation between the top players. It's the intangibles that seperate one player from the next, and the biggest of those is mental strength. If you cannot come up w/the shots you make reg. in practice when it comes down to crunch time, you don't own that shot.

 

[DEETHELICK]

No top 10 player has only one talent.

Being physically strong is a talent, being mentally tough is a talent, being fast is a talent, having a big FH or BH is a talent.

Could achieving World No. 1 be an objective measure of talent, as it is piecing together all the above 'talents' that leads to a World No. 1 position, which in my eyes is a talent in itself.

 

[Gallofa]

talent
1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
2. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.

In the first sense, a talented player would be one with an innate ability, with born-like aptitudes, as such, I feel talent is rather unobservable.

However, looking at the second definition, you could interpret having talent as the ability to do things better than most. Superiorly, better than say 95% of people. Running faster, hitting more shots accuratedly, serving more aces. It is tricky in any case, since it has to be "natural" or "innate". Was Conchita Martinez born with the latent ability to hit perfect moonballs, or did she come up with them due to her lack of speed?

Most people understand talent as "ease". How easy does it look? Popular belief seems to be that if it looks easy, then it's probably a talent. If it has required 4,000 hours of hard work at it, is it really a talent? It looked like Hingis was a talented shot-maker. It looked so easy. It looks as if S. Williams is a talented athlete, you see her running faster, jumping higher, and it looks so easy.

But you know what? Serena Williams and Martina Hingis have probably dedicated 4,000 hours of hard work at it.

 

[Pamela Shriver]

...I believe totally that losing badly is a great talent, especially when its done serving a double fault on match point down...

 

[Gallofa]

...I believe totally that losing badly is a great talent, especially when its done serving a double fault on match point down...

You did have a natural ability for it. In-born talent, no doubt. AND you did it more consistenly and often than most so indeed, a talent.

 

[Pamela Shriver]

Thanks Gallofa, one of my most adoring fans :kiss:

I also believe I have an unique talent for neck growing but whether thats anything to do with tennis is another thing