Warning! The contents of this thread is a long read.

That's actually what I was trying to get at it in my post Eugene. These natural gifts or special qualities may lend themselves to many different pursuits so in that regard perhaps the notion that people such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and Bobby Fischer are/were naturals in their fields is an exaggeration since hard work and practice allowed them to achieve success. But not everyone has the drive, determination, focus and self-motivation to dedicate themselves to putting in the hard work required.

Right, the innate ability probably is not specialized to one or two activities. Conceivably, Bobby Fischer would have been just as good at Go or any other strategy board game, or even a great war general because of his cognitive abilities.

And I definitely think the motivation to work hard is an innate ability like high IQ or athleticism. Practice is hard and boring and if you weren't crazy, you'd never work as hard as you need to become great.

But my question is this: there have been players who are more physically gifted than Jordan and maybe even smarter but haven't achieved the same level Jordan has. What do you think it is?

Jordan has this immediate vibe....he's the only man alive who can get every person in an arena onto their feet, no matter what age/gender/race/experiences they've had. I know people who hate the sport of basketball who would only watch jordan games. On top of his ability and smarts (because as you said, there's been others better), he had a staff/teammates perfectly willing to let him stand out because they knew he'd let them in when he could. You never saw scottie and MJ behaving like kobe and shaq for example. I think that is why he was so successful, he made everyone involved even in remotely in his career so excited and passionate about it, so he got the team put around him, the coaches, and the fan support he needed to not only be the best basketball player ever but to even transcend the sport and elevate it to a popularity never before seen. Babe ruth did the same thing for baseball.

But my question is this: there have been players who are more physically gifted than Jordan and maybe even smarter but haven't achieved the same level Jordan has. What do you think it is?

I think it's simply having the whole package. There are people who have been more athletic yet they don't possess the smarts or the desire to hone the specific skills required for basketball. Then there's those who have the smarts but not the physical gifts that allow them to perform the same feats or take advantage of more athletic opponents. And then on top of that he'd developed his skills through so much practice and was constantly driven by a love of competition and determination to succeed.

Illini brings out a good point: should charisma and personality should be counted as a "talent" like we think of a high cognitive capabilities and athleticism?

And I agree, Andrew, that it must have been the whole package. Then what about Larry Bird? He was below average athletically (compared to others at this position at that time) but he dominated the league during his career. Or even John Stockton? Players who were clearly at a disadvantage in one category, but everything else made up for it.

And we have to consider the possibility that certain characteristics are not entirely generalizable: for example, Jordan's fierce competitiveness made it hard for a lot of people to get along with him.

I think charisma and personality play a major role is defining the diffrence between a star and a superstar. These attributes allow them to transcend and overcome any barriers that prevent individuals from being accepted by the vast majority of society. The likes of Shaq and Jordan, and probably soon if not already, Lebron and Wade are well respected athletes in the NBA and broader society because their personalities make them human and likable. I don't think Jordan's legacy would be as famous if he behaved like Ron Artest or Steven Jackson off the court.

Illini brings out a good point: should charisma and personality should be counted as a "talent" like we think of a high cognitive capabilities and athleticism?

I don't know if you could class them as "talents", though they're qualities that can present themselves very early on in life. I recall reading a story about Diedrich Bader, who played Oswald on The Drew Carey Show, which described a moment in his childhood that seemed to foretell a career in show business. Apparently his family were at a theatre watching some old Charlie Chaplin movies when the projector broke down. A four year old Bader stood up and began performing various classic Chaplin routines much to the delight of his fellow audience members. It could be argued that such a seemingly natural flair and love of performance influenced his career choice.

And I agree, Andrew, that it must have been the whole package. Then what about Larry Bird? He was below average athletically (compared to others at this position at that time) but he dominated the league during his career. Or even John Stockton? Players who were clearly at a disadvantage in one category, but everything else made up for it.

I think Larry Bird and John Stockton are examples of players whose intelligence and finely developed skills compensated for what they may have lacked in athleticism. They were able to play their position and indeed the game of basketball in general in a way that suited their strengths and downplayed their weaknesses.

You don't wake up one morning to find that you remember the whole pereodic table.

I did, in the past.

Don't let John Stockton fool you with his lack of athletic/physical gifts. He has one physical/athletic trait that most people don't know, even caught me by surprise when I read it.
His heart rate is at an average of 30 beats per minute, less than half of normal individuals and yet he doesn't have low blood pressure. It means that his body doesn't tire out easily if he exerts double the effort, it's still in the normal range that the body can take. He's like a machine.