@Falcon: I meant that (believe it or not) there are a lot of teenage girls that find Shia attractive. I'm sure some boys do as well. You might be in for a surprise yourself.

The most gifted athelete I ever met was a little white guy who was the running back in my (crappy) highschool football team and could run a 40 yards in 4.1 seconds in grade 10 in full equipment without any training. He was able to get a scholorship to a US university to play football in grade 12 (which is remarkable for a Canadian highschool student, in particular in western Canada where football isn't that popular) and all he had to do was graduate and write the SAT; unfortunately, he decided that it was cooler to get high and skip school then to go to class, and he was kicked out of school.

In contrast, one of the least talented atheletes I knew growing up is now a (minor) professional primarily because he puts 10 times the effort into everything he does.

Having talent is great, but it doesn't make you the best athelete ... Hard work, determination, training and experience matter far more than raw talent; and the best atheletes (not the atheletes with the most raw talent) tend to make it to the higher levels. I do know that there are some people who do get screwed because, although they are a great athelete they do not fit the play style of a sport at a higher level (for some reason) ... but it is difficult to say whether a player that is great at a style that is (typically) unsuccessful is any better or worse than a "poor" (by league standards) player at a successful style. Doug Flutie is a good example of this because his style was (very) well suited to the Canadian game, and he had a good couple of years in the NFL, but he really was way too small to be successful how most coaches wanted a quarterback to play

One factor to remember in team sports is that a player may not be technically the best on their own, but may be best in terms of the team and its chemistry, while a technically superior player may be poor at working within the confines of a team.

BoleroOfFire said: @Falcon: I meant that (believe it or not) there are a lot of teenage girls that find Shia attractive. I'm sure some boys do as well. You might be in for a surprise yourself.

Oh don't worry, i have a friend that when somebody says "Shia" she totally freaks out..

And thanks to you and bond i don't have any idea of how to continue spamming in this thread..

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.

My answer remains no. And its actually quite interesting that we mostly seem to stick to professional sports and not other career areas..We won't even get into nepotism.

Depends on the sport.

The second most talented human ever to play american football is Deion Sanders.

The least skilled player ever to play football, is Deion Sanders.

If you ask any Pro Coach, if they could have any defensive player ever at there prime, they would all take Deion Sanders.

The reason is you could put him one-on-one with any receiver who ever played the game, and that person was no longer a factor. You could then scheme your defense like QB's are unfamiliar with. You no longer needed to worry about a safety over the top to protect the corner.

You now had far less real-estate to defend. He was a game changer, and it had nothing to do with his skill, and everything to do with his born ability.

So yes, anyone can improve there game with hard work, but talent always wins.

Oh, and to give you an idea of how good he was. One year, of all the ball thrown to receivers he was covering, he had more interceptions then they had collective receptions. (I think it was 5). Imagine a payer who for an entire season is covering the best receiver the other team has in one-on-one coverage... every time. They knew the coverage, and all of them combined could not catch 5 balls.

PS. The most talented player to ever play football, was Jim Thorpe.

In general, I should think not, or at least, not for long. You usually get to be the best-paid because of your past performance, but that astronimical figure is usually reached after a season in which the person performed at a superhuman, and usually unsustainable, level: come next season (or the one after) the person is liable to cool down quite a bit, either because opponents study up on impeding that player, because the person becomes a bit complacent, because their luck runs out, etc. I can only name a few athletes who reached the top and stayed their for any appreciable time: most seem to be flash-in-the-pan types.

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:

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.   

Generally no.
Some fields more than others.