Then you have someone like Tiger Woods. He has it all: physical gift (optimum physical makeup) and physical talent (his body performs the way his mind commands) and the mental strength to out last any of his opponent.



>>Research quoted in the book describes numerous attempts to find "natural" talent, i.e. gifted, people but have found none. The most talented athletes, scientists, musicians, chess players, whatever have achieved their talent through decades of determined and dedicated practice, usually with the aid of teachers and mentors and usually from an early age.
>>
>>Apart from being physically endowed in some special way, like the height of a basketball player or the vocal chords of a singer, the idea of natural or God given talent is primarily a myth. It is a convenient myth, however, because we can point to it as explaining why we can’t do something. But basically it’s a myth and there is no supporting evidence for it outside, as I said, of being endowed with some physical advantage.
>
>In sports and athletics, the "physical endowment" you refer to is called the "gift", and what a given athlete does with their gift is called their "talent". There are endless stories of supremely gifted athletes pissing it away through lack of talent, just as there are stories of ungifted athletes applying unusual talent to reach unexpected heights.
>
>On rare occasions it is possible for either a gifted but untalented, or ungifted but talented athlete to achieve greatness. However, the vast majority of the time, both are required.
>
>It is much more difficult to measure intellectual gift, but no-one would disagree that it clearly exists.
>
>It's interesting the title of the book refers to "world-class performers". If it referred to "greatness", I'd have to respectfully disagree. For an example of the difference, GM and Chrysler and both clearly world-class, but whether either is great is a matter of some debate < s >