View Full Version : talent vs potential vs outcome


me2007
02-28-2007, 09:06 AM
I was thinking today about whether talent actually means anything. If you have two guys who start boxing at the same time, one is clearly more talented than the other and can master the footwork and punches straight away whereas the other guy struggles. Is this guy talented?

If we fast forward a year and both have mastered the same skills, then what is the use of being talented? surely talent just makes you get to a certain stage more quickly, but is not an indication of potential...how potentially good you are...

could it be that you can have a guy that is not talented but has more potential and ends up going further than the "talented guy".....

Maybe it comes down to dedication and luck...

When i first started to box, people thought i had been boxing for 2 or 3 years but i had never boxed before...

that said, i couldn`t replicate this "talent" in sparring and my confidence went..

what makes a talented guy in your opinons?

any thoughts?

David06
02-28-2007, 09:13 AM
If we fast forward a year and both have mastered the same skills, then what is the use of being talented?
If after a year, these two guys are at the same place skill-wise, this means one of two things.

Either a)guy #1 started slacking because of all the praise, thinking "Hey if I'm so talented I guess I don't need to work so hard" and he let guy #2 catch up to him or b)Guy #2 put in extra time, and hard work in order to make up for his lack of talent.

Or it could be a little both. Either way, hard work beats talent, every time. But if guy #1 is more talented than guy #2, guy #1 will always be better, until guy #2 starts to work harder than guy #1.

That's all there is to it.

PunchDrunk
02-28-2007, 11:37 AM
Talent is potential. If you have two guys who work equally hard, the guy who becomes better, is the more talented. Simple really.

Now, there are so many different areas you can be talented in, that it gets a little blurred as to what talent precisely is. There are many different little things, like technical proficiency, tactical ability, chin, speed, etc. The more of these things you posses, the greater your talent. You still need to work hard though, because if you don't some hard ass worker with much less talent is gonna knock your socks off!

PunchDrunk
02-28-2007, 11:38 AM
If after a year, these two guys are at the same place skill-wise, this means one of two things.

Either a)guy #1 started slacking because of all the praise, thinking "Hey if I'm so talented I guess I don't need to work so hard" and he let guy #2 catch up to him or b)Guy #2 put in extra time, and hard work in order to make up for his lack of talent.

Or it could be a little both. Either way, hard work beats talent, every time. But if guy #1 is more talented than guy #2, guy #1 will always be better, until guy #2 starts to work harder than guy #1.

That's all there is to it.

Hard work does not beat talent every time. It depends on how much talent and how much hard work. You can't oversimplify it like that.

MOREBASS
02-28-2007, 11:44 AM
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Sure there are some people that are born with physical attributes that work to their advantage. Part of the old Nature VS Nurture argument...but most people would tell you that hard work, dedication, and persistance will take you a lot farther than talent alone. Now a combination of both is ideal.

Trick
02-28-2007, 01:53 PM
Personally, I don't really believe a whole lot in talent. OFFICIALY, I've only been a boxer for a month, as that's when I've started goin' to a gym and gettin' trained. Now people there think I'm really talented, but the reality is I've been boxin' since I was like 4. I don't really think that talent is something you're born with, more that little things that influence you after you're born, even if only seconds after you're born. Like in my case, I was exposed to boxing really early (well I've also been training a while on my own) so a lot of things come naturally to me.

Also, hard work beats talent any day.

Peace,
Trick

David06
02-28-2007, 03:31 PM
Hard work does not beat talent every time. It depends on how much talent and how much hard work. You can't oversimplify it like that.
True. What I meant was if you have one guy with minimal talent who trains his ass off, he will beat a guy with talent who just goes through the motions every day.

PunchDrunk
02-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Personally, I don't really believe a whole lot in talent. OFFICIALY, I've only been a boxer for a month, as that's when I've started goin' to a gym and gettin' trained. Now people there think I'm really talented, but the reality is I've been boxin' since I was like 4. I don't really think that talent is something you're born with, more that little things that influence you after you're born, even if only seconds after you're born. Like in my case, I was exposed to boxing really early (well I've also been training a while on my own) so a lot of things come naturally to me.

Also, hard work beats talent any day.

Peace,
Trick

Sorry, but you're so wrong. Talent is something you're born with, and the TRULY gifted fighters cannot be touched by someone with very little talent, no matter how hard they work.

I've been training fighters for years, and I've seen all different combinations of talent and hard work. One of my currently HARDEST working guys is unfortunately cursed with a mediocre talent. He's not even that bad, and has SOME talent. When it comes to training, NO ONE can get close to him. Long distance running, he's my best guy. Intervals, sprints, best guy. ANy kind of training we do, he's ALWAYS the guy pulling the other guys through, the one leading the way. He's got 75 fights. I put him in with an above average talented 17 year old with 30 fights, he gets knocked around like you wouldn't believe. And this 17 year old is a lazy SOB, always cutting corners. Both are featherweights

I have another 17 year old. A lightweight. He's a Palestinian. This kid is so talented you wouldn't believe it. A natural, You show him something once, he's got it down to perfection. He's 34-1, his only loss coming in his 4th fight against the National junior champion at the time. Now, because he's an Arab, he's always got commitments with his family and such, so he really doesn't train much. 3 times a week maybe (my other fighters train every day). In September '06 he fought in a tournament in Germany. His 3 opponents were all from the German national team. He knocked out two and outscored the third one in round 2. The German national coaches were calling him the next Amir Khan (sure hope so ;)). If you've ever seen such talent, you'll know that talent is BORN.

Now these two guys are at each end of the scale, one with little talent and the hardest working guy you'll ever meet. The other doesn't do much training, but has all the talent you, me, and everyone else ever DREAMED of.
Hard work does NOT beat talent every time. Like I said, it depends on HOW MUCH talent, and HOW MUCH hard work. Yes, it takes hard work, but without talent you can forget about it. If you want to get to the top, you need both. If you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

Kid Achilles
02-28-2007, 05:36 PM
One of the greatest talents one can have in boxing initially is a mastery over fear and comfort with adrenaline. You can have the strongest, quickest man around get his ass beat in sparring by another slow, weak newcomer who is just fearless and scares him out of the ring.

Although all sports are largely mental, boxing is even more so. Obviously exceptional physical capability (aka talent) is a prerequisite for success in boxing, but without the mentality and character to back it up it will only take one so far.

Also another point I'd like to make is that those who are blessed with talent for boxing are more likely to stick with it and develop themselves to the elite level. It's hard to stick around the gym when you're getting your ass beat all the time.

PunchDrunk
02-28-2007, 05:39 PM
One of the greatest talents one can have in boxing initially is a mastery over fear and comfort with adrenaline. You can have the strongest, quickest man around get his ass beat in sparring by another slow, weak newcomer who is just fearless and scares him out of the ring.

Although all sports are largely mental, boxing is even more so. Obviously exceptional physical capability (aka talent) is a prerequisite for success in boxing, but without the mentality and character to back it up it will only take one so far.

Also another point I'd like to make is that those who are blessed with talent for boxing are more likely to stick with it and develop themselves to the elite level. It's hard to stick around the gym when you're getting your ass beat all the time.

Good points. I'd like to point out that talent doesn't have to be just physical though.

warriorsingh84'
02-28-2007, 07:12 PM
so..how can I tell if I have talent or not?? so far from the time I've been going down to the gym for the past 4-5 months, I haven't had too much difficulty learning the basics and every time I ask my trainer how I'm doing, he just says "I'm doing fine" and that i'm coming along nicely. Also one thing I want to know is that is it true that if you weren't much of an athlete during high school, you won't really have any potential in a sport like boxing if you take it up later in your life??

Kid Achilles
02-28-2007, 10:31 PM
I've seen video of Mike Tyson throwing a basketball and he looks so awkward and uncoordinated in his movements that you'd never guess he was a professional athlete.

Don't worry about how you did at other sports, concern yourself with boxing.

Punchdrunk, I agree about not all talents being physical. Like I said, the ability to have mastery over your fear, the talent of self confidence is a huge advantage and there are some great fighters (like Tyson) who did everything else right but lacked this.

You also have guys like Joey Maxim who had a few talents (very good chin, decent power) but overall were not to be considered talented yet beat superior physical specimens because of his great ability to think and operate in there.

Joe Maxim to me was the ultimate overachiever in boxing if you look purely at physical talent. He was neither fast nor exceedingly powerful, and in boxing if you don't have speed or power you are usually at a huge disadvantage, but Maxim had a great career.

The fact is though, Maxim had a wealth of intangible boxing talents: he had confidence, grit, and timing and a mastery of the fundamentals of boxing. He was an incredibly skilled individual who got thing done in there against faster and stronger opponents.

Very few people are so well wired for boxing however.

So yeah, talent is hugely important, but don't think of talent as just how fast you are or how hard you can hit.

eazy_mas
02-28-2007, 11:17 PM
talent is just a headstart and something that comes more naturally to you compared to other.

for example some people are born smarter, stronger and some are not....etc.

but usually if you train hard you could beat a talented person.


and an extrme version of talent is geunius where somebody is really really good at it and that is a rare occasion you get to see one but even though he needs to train to be better

j
03-01-2007, 12:41 AM
Talent is potential.

talent is the outcome.

i'm not a believer in natural born greatness. many, many people do evolve into being better at certain things than others, but this is a product of hard work combined with insight/understanding.

as a person's understanding(and insight) of something developes, so does potential. when that person trains to fulfill that potential, it is turned into talent - sticking by the model of the original thread.

yeah, all people will develope certain attributes based on genetics. however, i don't see genetics as being a big part of talent.

i mean, being tall is not a talent, is it? neither is being skinny, or fat, etc.

tiger woods wasn't born with any special genetics. he was just handed a golf club when he was four and was encouraged to develope an understanding(insight) of how to swing it and such.

Verstyle
03-01-2007, 12:47 AM
i like talent over potential. cause with a talented fighter u can build him up even higher to where the potential fighter wants to be.like 2 ppl racing that run at the same speeds.If 1 guy has a pretty big head start the guy with the headstart will win if he keeps that motivation all the way threw the race.

j
03-01-2007, 12:54 AM
i like talent over potential

there's really no difference between them. refer to my previous post.

Verstyle
03-01-2007, 12:59 AM
there's really no difference between them. refer to my previous post.

potential is u COULD have the tools to get u there. talent is u HAVE the tools to get u there

j
03-01-2007, 01:55 AM
my bad, i misworded what i was thinking.

i basically meant to say that they are inseparable in at least one sense.

if you haven't created the potential for talent, you will never have it.

if you have talent, you have worked with your potential.


ahhh hell, i'll just stick with my original post about this topic.

PunchDrunk
03-01-2007, 05:10 AM
talent is the outcome.

i'm not a believer in natural born greatness. many, many people do evolve into being better at certain things than others, but this is a product of hard work combined with insight/understanding.

as a person's understanding(and insight) of something developes, so does potential. when that person trains to fulfill that potential, it is turned into talent - sticking by the model of the original thread.

yeah, all people will develope certain attributes based on genetics. however, i don't see genetics as being a big part of talent.

i mean, being tall is not a talent, is it? neither is being skinny, or fat, etc.

tiger woods wasn't born with any special genetics. he was just handed a golf club when he was four and was encouraged to develope an understanding(insight) of how to swing it and such.

I think you're confusing talent with something else. Talent is certainly not the outcome. Talent is what you're born with, that gives you the possibility to become great, IF you add work.
Talent and hard work is like Cool Aid. Talent is the sugary stuff, hard work is the water. You can't drink the powder, but if you add water, you have something sweet. If you don't have the sweet, yet work hard, you can satisfy your thirst, but it's just water.

You can be certain Tiger Woods was born with special genetics! There's a million golfers out there, busting their asses 15 hours a day to be as good as him. What sets him apart is TALENT. Ability, skills and coordination he was BORN with.

Try training a bunch of kids for a few years, and you'll see the difference between the mediocre and the truly talented does NOT lie in how much they work at it (check out my previous post). It's just there.

Trick
03-02-2007, 02:17 AM
Sorry, but you're so wrong. Talent is something you're born with, and the TRULY gifted fighters cannot be touched by someone with very little talent, no matter how hard they work.

I've been training fighters for years, and I've seen all different combinations of talent and hard work. One of my currently HARDEST working guys is unfortunately cursed with a mediocre talent. He's not even that bad, and has SOME talent. When it comes to training, NO ONE can get close to him. Long distance running, he's my best guy. Intervals, sprints, best guy. ANy kind of training we do, he's ALWAYS the guy pulling the other guys through, the one leading the way. He's got 75 fights. I put him in with an above average talented 17 year old with 30 fights, he gets knocked around like you wouldn't believe. And this 17 year old is a lazy SOB, always cutting corners. Both are featherweights

I have another 17 year old. A lightweight. He's a Palestinian. This kid is so talented you wouldn't believe it. A natural, You show him something once, he's got it down to perfection. He's 34-1, his only loss coming in his 4th fight against the National junior champion at the time. Now, because he's an Arab, he's always got commitments with his family and such, so he really doesn't train much. 3 times a week maybe (my other fighters train every day). In September '06 he fought in a tournament in Germany. His 3 opponents were all from the German national team. He knocked out two and outscored the third one in round 2. The German national coaches were calling him the next Amir Khan (sure hope so ;)). If you've ever seen such talent, you'll know that talent is BORN.

Now these two guys are at each end of the scale, one with little talent and the hardest working guy you'll ever meet. The other doesn't do much training, but has all the talent you, me, and everyone else ever DREAMED of.
Hard work does NOT beat talent every time. Like I said, it depends on HOW MUCH talent, and HOW MUCH hard work. Yes, it takes hard work, but without talent you can forget about it. If you want to get to the top, you need both. If you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

Haha, well Punch Drunk, you do know what you're talkin' about, but I don't think a philosophy can be WRONG. From what I know medically, talent doesn't really make sense, well I mean born talent. Genetics plays a key role in about everything. But I can tell you now, I've had to analyze every damn chromosome from 1-23, and there ain't no boxing talent gene. People pick things up better than others for a whole host of reasons. Like I said, I personally believe that it's all post-natal influences, I could be wrong. The RIGHT answer I don't think can be found to that one. Congrats on your little Amir Khan though, try to get him in the gym more often, because even the most talented guy won't go far unless he's dedicated.

Peace,
Trick

PunchDrunk
03-02-2007, 05:18 AM
My point is quite simply this: Everything about a person is part nature, part nurture. If the word talent is to have any meaning, then it's the nature part of a boxers ability (which means it's something you're born with), and the hard work part is the nurture.

Of course there's no boxing talent gene! Geesh :D Boxing talent is and can be made up of so many different things, that nailing down exactly what it is, is near impossible. Also, two different fighters with great talent might not be talented in the same way. Their talent will consist of some of the same components, but probably not in the exact same way. Some guy will have a bit more speed to rely on, while the other guy may have a little better timing or strength or something else.

Anyhow, if you've ever seen and worked with a REAL talent, you'll know that it's something they're just born with. :)

potatoes
03-02-2007, 11:30 AM
I was thinking today about whether talent actually means anything. If you have two guys who start boxing at the same time, one is clearly more talented than the other and can master the footwork and punches straight away whereas the other guy struggles. Is this guy talented?

If we fast forward a year and both have mastered the same skills, then what is the use of being talented? surely talent just makes you get to a certain stage more quickly, but is not an indication of potential...how potentially good you are...

could it be that you can have a guy that is not talented but has more potential and ends up going further than the "talented guy".....

Maybe it comes down to dedication and luck...

When i first started to box, people thought i had been boxing for 2 or 3 years but i had never boxed before...

that said, i couldn`t replicate this "talent" in sparring and my confidence went..

what makes a talented guy in your opinons?

any thoughts?





Men with little talent can sometimes get lucky and do well in a competitive environment, Carlos Baldomir has proven that. Baldomir has also proven that the lack of talent limits the level of skill a man can expect to attain. No matter how hard Baldomir trains he will NEVER get to Mayweather's level. Anybody who claims any different is just a theorist who has had little experience in sport and no experience in boxing.

PunchDrunk
03-02-2007, 06:33 PM
I agree wholeheartedly Potatoes. Great example.

j
03-03-2007, 04:20 AM
i forgot about this thread.

feel free to have your opinion, your entitled to it. you obviously didn't get my point. but how could you, since you are not even open to it.

history has proven my point. you know what, i'm not even going to waste my time explaining.

maybe you know something that jack dempsey and the dozens of skilled fighters i've met didn't.

PunchDrunk
03-03-2007, 08:42 AM
No reason to get upset because I disagree with you. :)

I quite simply think you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'talent' when you say it's not something you're born with. Look it up in a dictionary. It means "natural, innate ability"

Exige Jr
03-03-2007, 08:53 AM
Well the talent you have before you step into the gym, pales in comparison to what you are about to learn from staying at that gym. So I would rather have potential as a world champ, than the talents of someone with a years fighting under their belt, when they first step into the gym.

At the end of the day though, potential is unlimited. I dont think you can limit someones potential unless they have an obvious deficiency like being disabled, in which case you can safely say they will most likely never become world champion. Other than that everyone can get to wherever they want in boxing, its just down to how much time you want to dedicate to it. And also if you return for sparring the day after taking a beating.

In that sense I would rather have the talent to start off with.