talent vs potential vs outcome

[PunchDrunk]

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 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]

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]

I agree wholeheartedly Potatoes. Great example.

[j]

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]

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]

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.