Do you believe that the highest paid professionals are the best?

[BoleroOfFire]

Kasz216 said:

BoleroOfFire said:

@Kasz: Can't they simply be the best at what they do that we know of?

Not really no.

I mean proffesional sports are way more complex then they look. 

There isn't some guy who could come off the street and do amazing.  The closest to that to happen was Kurt Warner i believe... and it's not like the man had never thrown a football before.

These kids often are practicing with dedication from the age of 5 on.  Tiger Woods is possibly the greatest living golfer ever and it's because his dad forced a club in his hands from the minute he could stand.

Practice and dedication are what it takes to be an athelete... even with great skills.

A lot of the "better" people who don't make it don't make it because they make bad choices.  Like Michael Vick who blew it with dog fighter or Lenny Bias who overdosed on drugs.

Sure if Vick grew up in a more middle class family maybe he wouldn't of been brought into a dog fighting culture... but would he of been the same michael vick who pushed so hard?  Hard to say.

The only people who really get screwed when it comes to sports are screwed because they're mishandled.  Not because they are better.

For example most Candian greats when it comes to hockey are born in the first three months of the year.  Because Candaians scout their kids for hockey from like... gradeschool, and in the junior leagues they do it 1 year at a time by months.  So the size of the kids born early is mistaken for talent and the early born kids get all the best coaching and instruction and therefore become the best players.

Another example is women.  Women are and can be a lot close to men in atheltics then is show currently... why?  All the best trainers train men, all the best leagues are men only, men are the ones who are told to apire to a career in sports, and the most money are in mens sports.

Get some women some real training just like the men and you'd be surprised.

In the end... the best people get the job.  Some may have become the best because they were born early or with the right genitals... but they're still the best.

The aquamarine text goes against your final statement.  In fact, you're pretty much making my point.  First you state that practice and dedication is more important than skill.  Then you say that others get "mistaken" for having talent thus get the best resources poured into them.  This follows the reasoning that the people currently sitting at the top are there due to a combination of chance, ambition and skill.  This does not disprove the postulation that there are others across the globe who possess more raw skill in that particular activity.  I believe famousringo said it well:

famousringo said:

c03n3nj0 said:
Of course not, there are 6 billion people, there's bound to be someone who could out swim Micheal Phelps, for example.

In fact, he just lost a couple races two weeks ago.

Getting a big paycheque requires more than just excellent skills. It requires attributes like ambition, self-promotion, greed, social networking, negotiation... the list goes on and on. I'm sure that there are a lot of very skilled people who just aren't interested in fame and glory, or who don't have the skills needed to avoid being exploited by agents or employers.

So the highest-paid professionals might be the best at this broader skill set, just not the best at their specific craft. The two aren't necessarily exclusive, but I think they often are.

I think that's what you were trying to get at.  In which case, I agree.  However, my question referred to raw talent alone.

 @noname: I like your flash-in-the-pan theory.  

@Arius: I also noticed the focus on sports.  Maybe I shouldn't have used 2 sport examples.  Or maybe it's more obvious to everyone that many more people could have become excellent neurosurgeons if they'd only had the chance to go to school.