One problem with this thesis: you assume that if ones talent is "slow to
emerge except with hard training" equates with "not being at the top of the
talent scale." That's a huge assumption, not testable, and therefore
specious. The very definition of "talent" is that it is there. I believe you
confuse "innate capacity" with "innate ability." There is NO SUCH THING AS
INNATE ABILITY. Those who "emerge" through "hard work" have innate ability,
which they unlocked through hard work (understanding that tapping talent is
different with different people and body types). Without such innate
capacity, all the hard work in the world would come to naught. No matter how
hard Donovan Bailey may train, he will NEVER become an elite marathoner.
Never. Ever.
On 5/26/01 3:43 PM, "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have always wondered where we draw the line on talent. You could argue
> that Bill Rodgers who "only" ran in the 4:30, 9:36 range in high school
> didn't have a whole lot of talent. You could also point to many others who
> ran comparable high school times yet went on to win many elite races. You
> could say that their talent didn't show through because of the lack in
> training, but wouldn't talent show through despite training? I would have to
> agree with something that Malmo has pointed to over and over again. The
> faster you run the more talented to become. So, I'll stick with my statement
> that you can still win many elite races while not being at the top of the
> talent scale with loads and loads of hard consistant training because there
> have been those whose talent did not show through in high school but got
> more talented as time went on.
>
> Alan
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.jonentine.com
