>Jos,
>
>I don't really care whether you agree or not with a post you misunderstood.
>
>To illustrate my point, Picasso and an average painter do totally different paintings using the same tools. The difference lies in 3 areas:
>1- Picasso is talented for painting
>2- Picasso has teamed with many other painters like Braque and others
>3- Picasso has worked much more than other painters
>Nowhere does the tooling play any role in Picasso's work.
>
>What counts most is how much collective intelligence a community puts in using its tools.
>

I'm not crazy about Picasso, but I'm a wannabe painter and can tell you that today's oil painting tools haven't changed enough since Rembrandt painted to make a good painter out of a bad painter. So, in that case I agree with you.. the painter, not the paint, makes the difference.

Not so in all areas, however.
Because technology has come so far I can hit a golf ball almost as far now (I'm a super senior) as I could when I was 20.
Sam Snead, one of the most powerful hitters ever to play the game, averaged about 250 yards off the tee.
The shortest hitter among today's pro's averages over 270. Jason Day averaged over 320 during the recent PGA tournament.
Sam was, and is, my hero but I'm not going to play with the clubs that Sam used just because I liked Sam.
Of course a good player will beat a lesser player who uses the same clubs, but today's average player is having a lot more fun on the course because of today's equipment.