I think it's fair to draw a distinction between being excellent at something and being the best in the world at something. Any number of people who possess an a

I think it's fair to draw a distinction between being excellent at something and being the best in the world at something. Any number of people who possess an adequate combination of innate ability and proficiency can qualify as excellent - and beyond a certain threshold, slightly greater proficiency can make up for slightly inferior innate ability. There are some winner-take-all contests in life in which a tiny advantage in innate ability translates into total victory over everyone else, but in most cases, good enough is just that. Those tiny advantages in innate ability are less significant than the general benefits of training-based proficiency for most activities where excellence is required. For example, my doctor doesn't have to be the best in the world to diagnose an illness accurately and prescribe an effective treatment. She merely has to be competent enough to accomplish that task.