Sorry for risking a subject line that could bring Entine back to life :-), but I must!
I referenced hitting a major league fastball and Martin Dixon (a Lance fan) countered with <<It's a skill you are born with kind of like juggling and holding your liquor. Not so sure that it merits AOY honours.>> Later, another Lancophile, Ed Parrot, referring to suggestion Bonds might be able to work hard enough to become a cyclist, said <<I doubt there is a single "world class" cyclist with a VO2 max under 68-70. I also doubt that Bonds has such a VO2 max. Odds are also tremendous that he has a high percentage of fast twitch fibers (based on his speed before he became a "load"). Certainly there are cyclists with high fast twitch percentage, but they do not win grand tours overall.>> >From this can I posit that you're a great athlete if you're born w/ high VO2 max and slow-twitch fibers, but if you're born with good hand-eye coordination you're not? Obviusly the preceding graf is written with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but I do think it goes a long way towards pointing out how confusing it is to define what qualifies as natural talent. Bottom line is that there's nobody who makes it into the AP voting without having two things: being born with great natural talent and having worked your ass off to make that talent shine. gh
