View Single Post
10-13-2011, 07:23 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post

Observed talent is based on "proof" by doing, not some abstract facility. In this, Bryzgalov far exceeds Bobrovsky. Being "proven" is based on how good Bryzgalov is. Repetition of success is just further proof of real, observed talent. If by "my premise," you mean talent, then no it is not irrelevant. Talent is just how good someone is. It is really just the same concept of your "proven-ness" by another name.
Your incorrect again. Talent is just how much natural raw ability someone has. Players such as Alexandre Daigle, Pavel Brendl, and Nikolai Zherdev were extremely talented players. How you apply that talent to your play on the ice and use that talent, determines how good you are. Talent alone is just talent.

Bryzgalov isn't here just because he is talented. It's because he is a proven #1 NHL Goalie. Really a simple concept that your having a hard time understanding.

Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
You keep ignoring the points I am actually making. I am not saying they should not have signed him. That is completely misconstrued, once again. The point I am making is that there is a difference between "talent upgrade" and "in the bank" results. One is based on speculation (extrapolation that past observed talent will lead to future successful results) and the other is based on the examination of reality (observed results from some given, relevant time to some point of reference, such as the present).
I didn't say that you did say that they shouldn't have signed him. I'm simply pointing out that your premise simply isn't applied in the real World, so is therefore irrelevant. None of what you wrote above means anything. It's pure jibberish.

Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I think I have explained this fully enough. Talent = how good a player is. I see no reason to differentiate how good a player is from "capacity to achieve success" for the purposes of this conversation. It is a very generic and basic meaning.
Talent isn't how good a player is. There are less talented players that become better players than players with more natural talent than they have. Happens all the time in sports. You really should have that understanding. There is no need to post definitons from a dictionar. And if you do have to resort to that, then you obviously don't have a point.

Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade because he is more talented. His actual results can be judged so far as they actually have been produced. It's elementary.
Incorrect. Bryzgalov is an upgrade because he is a proven player. And again, how can he be an upgrade if it hasn't happened yet. According to your premise it is fiction. Your own replies show how ridiculous your statements are.

Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Answer: yes!

Your reply:

fic·tion   [fik-shuhn] noun
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation

This is just one example of why I had to bring the dictionary into it. Because it's clear that you are the one that doesn't get it. And that "it" is the definition of the words that this discussion is based on.
One post you say that he is an upgrade, and another you say he's not. That it's fiction. Which is it? You don't even know what your saying.
Posting the definition of fiction didn't work the first time. It's not going to work the 2nd or the 3rd either! LOL

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote