[Gabe32]

I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"

Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.

It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.

So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.

[solowyn]

Playing tennis and trying and miserably failing to imitate anything they do best

[Lleyton_]

Because he is.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results.

Results? pffft......how bourgeois.

Going by that standard, we'd have to say Nadal is talented. Absurd.

[safin-rules-no.1]

Depends on the size of his tits.

[Platypu$]

are you on drugs?

[oranges]

Take an anti-tard pill and chill

[Gabe32]

Thanks guys. I guess this is what you get on an internet message board.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"

Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?

The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.

It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.

So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.

What about actually watching the players play the game? Could that give something? Maybe look at things like how cleanly they strike the ball, how they can use their FH/BH at different spots in the court. How they hit winners and what type of winners. How their "feel" for the ball looks at dropshots, volleyshots etc. Lots of things to look at even if you never played tennis yourself (Like I have, not on top level though) but then even the commentators make a lot of good points during matches about "talent".

I'd would be insane to say that guys like Nalbandian, Safin (and maybe a little Gasquet, never that sold on him, mostly that crazy good BH) aren't insanely talented and should have done better results. Why they didn't doesn't necessarily have to do with talent...

[rubbERR]

He eats like elephant and is still top 25, that surely tells enough, he should ask food tips mr.Djokovic

[homogenius]

A mess

[Gabe32]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

What about actually watching the players play the game? Could that give something? Maybe look at things like how cleanly they strike the ball, how they can use their FH/BH at different spots in the court. How they hit winners and what type of winners. How their "feel" for the ball looks at dropshots, volleyshots etc. Lots of things to look at even if you never played tennis yourself (Like I have, not on top level though) but then even the commentators make a lot of good points during matches about "talent".

I'd would be insane to say that guys like Nalbandian, Safin (and maybe a little Gasquet, never that sold on him, mostly that crazy good BH) aren't insanely talented and should have done better results. Why they didn't doesn't necessarily have to do with talent...

So you are arguing for aesthetics/technique? I would not consider Nadal aesthetically pleasing or as having the best technique (at least in the traditional sense). But if someone asked me who is more talented, Nadal or Safin, I would say Nadal in a heartbeat.

[FiBeR]

Results are a meassure for greatness but not for talent.
You cannot be taught to measure talent, it's like art a bit. Appreciation is up to you. You can give out tips but it is you who have the final call.

If you appreciate art/talent, it is up to your own capacity of doing so. I can give you thousands of youtube examples of his talent but if you do not know how to appreciate talent, then its useless.

Picture explaining red to a blind folk... that's what you are asking. You have to see to understand what's red and how does it look like.

[abraxas21]

he's talented but he's not nearly as talented as the MTF nalbytard brigade (=80% of MTF) would like you to believe.

to say his talent is on par with olderer's is an insult to the game of tennis

[Gabe32]

Originally Posted by FiBeR

Results are a meassure for greatness but not for talent.
You cannot be taught to measure talent, it's like art a bit. Appreciation is up to you. You can give out tips but it is you who have the final call.

If you appreciate art/talent, it is up to your own capacity of doing so. I can give you thousands of youtube examples of his talent but if you do not know how to appreciate talent, then its useless.

Picture explaining red to a blind folk... that's what you are asking. You have to see to understand what's red and how does it look like.

I think I understand what you are saying, but at times it seems like a cop-out. It is too subjective and too easy of a way to end an argument.

If Nalbandian is that much more talented than Federer, or even is equal... what the HELL has he been doing. He can't be that much of a headcase.