4 ms·
I can't help but suspect that the difference between, for example, good sprinters and great sprinters is not simply that Usain Bolt knew a guy who could get him
by EliRivers 8y ago
I can't help but suspect that the difference between, for example, good sprinters and great sprinters is not simply that Usain Bolt knew a guy who could get him some solid publicity to get his name out there as a great sprinter.
- bumholio 8y agoUsain Bolt is a good example. He had good genes from a young age (1.96m at 15), then made the national junior team where he had the opportunity to train professionally and be singled out by the government as the most promising rising star, with special attention and resources to allow him to develop. Then he worked his way to a world champion. So it's exactly the same luck - nurture - dedication pattern. Of course, genes are how luck manifests for athletes, while knowing a radio DJ might be the singer's chance. It still doesn't mean there was anything magical about Bolt or his training regime, or that his rise to 'greatness' was pre-ordained. He didn't have 'great' genes, he had good genes and he did everything right, avoided accidents etc. Just like other athletes, but his unique genes-training combination turn out to be the lucky one.
- EliRivers 8y agoIt sounds like you've redefined great for yourself such that it doesn't exist. Most other people still have a working definition of great.
- batteryhorse 8y agoWell, the difference is a few hundredths of a second. Ever heard of Tyson Gay? Second fastest man in history.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- EliRivers 8y agoSo he's another great sprinter? He's a great sprinter, without the publicity. Second fastest man in history certainly sounds like a great sprinter. If that's just "good", then I think we're working on different definitions of "good" and "great".
- batteryhorse 8y agoMy point is that nobody knows who he is. So he's not considered to be one of the greats.