Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of talent?
Being good when younger means talent imo... less stuff that needs to be learned and experience plays a lesser factor, versus players who get better as they are older means they are better at adapting but not as talented.
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
Idk, so many players have unique form trajectories that it can be hard to establish a definitive talent-age correlation in this era.
Hate to draw negative attention to my favourite Bernard, but I think he was one of the closest to being lauded a young 'prodigy' in this generation, and he never really took off after success around the age of 18.
That's not to say he hasn't established himself as a good player, but if we consider success at a young age as being a key determinant of raw talent, he hasn't done anything big enough to prove that he's naturally any better than the later developers.
Then we have Kyrgios, who also had success at 18, but hasn't completely come into his own yet. Despite this, he appears to have as much talent as anyone in his generation. His early success may have been about raw ability, but it may have also just been because his game style had the physical power to compete on the tour while his peers where still physically developing.
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
The older players get, the more they realize they have to work really hard physically to be ranked inside the top 10.
Skills with a racket are easier to display at a young age, when a pro you really need the whole package (with the right substances too ).
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
It's a tough transition from Junior to the Pro tour. We've also seen lately that the prime of some careers has been later in general. I still think we have been witnesses to something unique with a period of domination by 4 players, which means fewer younger players have been able to 'breakthrough'
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
Not quite, seeing wht they can do with a racquet on court is a better definition of talent. Some players who are good young are simply coached better or developed earlier and thus get a headstart, but that doesn't mean their celling is as high.
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
What baffles me the most is why "being talented" (whatever that means) is somehow more valued here than great work ethic. OP put it that way like learning by practice is a bad thing :shrug:
Re: Is being good when you are younger (aka "prodigy") the ultimate definition of tal
Well, under this test, Becker would be the 2nd most talented male tennis player (Wimbledon at 17 years, 228 days). That makes some sense, but #1 and #3 would be Chang (French Open at 17 years, 110 days) and Wilander (French Open at 17 years, 293 days). That makes a lot loss sense.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!