>Pete Sampras didn't possess more talent than Andre Agassi, but he won 14 grand slams to Agassi's eight because he worked harder and more steadily.

And how many hard-working tennis players failed to match Agassi's eight?

Also for all the talk attempting to downplay the importance of intelligence, the article did say:

>"Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside"

Coincidence alone couldn't explain such a concentration at the high end... and yet from the rest of the article, no concession whatsoever is made to this fact. It's very hard to put much faith in the conclusions the author came to.

So is the ideal of innate genius dead? If not, should we kill it? Certainly a clear-eyed analysis shows that "genius" is really a set of exceptional skills cultivated through disciplined study. We should probably shelve the notion of genius as an innate, almost irrepressible gift and speak instead of expertise, talent or even greatness - terms that hint at the work underlying supreme accomplishment.

Perhaps we should kill the notion of genius, although the author seems to consider genus soley as someone who achieves the highest heights, while the traditional understanding of a genius is someone who is exceptionaly intelligent, regardless of their achievements. I do not know is such people do exist, however there are individuals with a very low intelligence hence perhaps it is safe to assume that there are individuals with a very high intelligence.

More importantly however, the author seems to disregard intelligence and emphasise work, while in truth both of them are needed as much. In the crem dela cream, most of those people got there by working very hard and putting in the hours, as most of them have this passion therefore, the winner will be the one who has a slightly higher intelligence.

Not in any way to undermine the effect of the environment, but the environment is something we can control as such it is a good bet many other people are on an equal level "nurture" speaking, but as we can not control our innate ability, then the winner I suppose is the one who has a higher "intelligence.