Consider a cross country team. You have one girl who doesn't do anything all season, does...well...average for a freshman. Then someone realizes that she actually can run faster. Suddenly she's winning freshman races and being kept for varsity season.

Another runner. Above average for a freshman, but nothing amazing compared to two of her teammates who are just insanely good. She pretty much goes unnoticed, her coach underestimates her, and she's constantly trying to both improve, and prove that she doesn't suck. A year ago, she couldn't have run 100m without stopping. She's not as good as the girl mentioned above, but she works harder.

Who's the better athlete, in your eyes? (actual experience here). Frankly I think the second girl is, but I'm biased (since the second one is me, and the girl mentioned above is an annoying kiss-ass who acts stupid because she thinks it's cute)

To me, the better athlete is the second one also because the second one is similar to me too.. Plus, I know a girl just like the first one who really pisses me off at practice. She just...never tries hard during our practices because she thinks everyone else isn't good enough to make her improve. That isn't really quite true though..and that's why we lost more games than we should.

I guess like you I'm pretty biased but it also depends on the athlete's personality too I guess. There are a lot of factors that come into play..

I guess it depends what your definition of 'better' is, for the purpose of the situation. If it's by how many races she wins, then it will be the first girl. If it's by the effort put in, and the overall improvements made, then the second girl is better.

Personally, i'm inclined to go with the second girl, because she seems to put in the effort to want to do well, whereas the first, seems only to do it because she was discovered to have some skill at it.

The second one since she works hard to be where she is at, where as some people just are good already and don't have to work as much, so they don't really appreciate it

I don't think it matters which one is the better athlete. I've had two very different experiences in track. One time it was a bad experience because everyone was so busy competing with each other that they didn't stop and realize they were on the same team. Another time, everyone was very supportive of each other and it made people have more fun in track.

Well, that hasn't happened to me, but I think the second person, because the first, if she doesn't work hard, is not using the gifts she has, and the second is trying her hardest and trying to get better. I can't really relate, except maybe when I'm trying to spar a black belt who doesn't try very hard against me, a blue. However, the black belts just don't need to try very hard to beat me anyway, so maybe it doesn't count.

I believe the second athlete is the better athlete because she's actually trying and working to improve. The first one is just being lazy, and a good athlete is NOT lazy. *nods once*

The first one seems to have a natural speed, but feels like a slacker to me. The second one may be more average, but she works hard and, to me, deserves more of the recognition.

I hope you get noticed more for your hard work. :)

The second one is the better athlete to me too. Sure, the first girl had skill but if you don't have the determination and aren't bothered enough to train to better yourself, you aren't going to get better. She might be good at first but the other players are going to continue to better themselves and she's gonna stay stagnant.

The second one of course, because the first one likely isn't ever going to do anything with it, a wasted talent

I think that whoever puts more time and energy into what they're doing is better. this applies to everything in my opinion, not just sports. I also think that people that are supposed to be on the same team shouldn't be competitive in a bad way with each other. Just because someone has natural speed, doesn't make them a bad athlete. Some people just need to work more at things than other people.

I also think that the whole idea behind any sport is to just have fun while doing it, otherwise you'll just end up being frustrated and angry all the time over something that really isn't a big deal. I play a lot of sports and I'm one that actually has to work to be average at the sport. There are people that I play with that seem to have a natural 'gift' for it, but it's all still fun because I don't care as long as I know I'm trying.

from personal experience the second girl...by the looks of it the first is peaking in athletic capabilities while the second although struggling is learning much more and will be consistant and only have room to improve...

Its worse when you're competing for your country against others when you get a head then someone from your very own state who your friends with and wins almost everything decides that you're not allowed to have your moment of glory (talking about a cycling race) and drags/bridges the gap with the whole pack of riders on their tail just because their selfish and wants gold for themself...ends up they got third and a lecture from the country's coach that what they did was wrong and they should of just settled for silver...stupid selfish >insert profanity<

To me i think the second athlete is better because at least they are trying and they have some spirit in running and what they do.

The first girl mentioned is the better athlete.
Coaches will give speeches about how they're looking for athletes with the best potential, and the ones who want to work hard and improve, but that's only if it comes with 1st place ribbons.

And, while you may be the more motivated of the pair, and least likely to skip out on a race because of some silly whim (which I get from the "basically does nothing"), she's still better.

I think you would have to delve into the full lives of the two athletes.

Since everything you have done in your life has affected how you do now; you can't really judge a person that you don't know well.
What if the second person never tried before her cross country experience? What if through life the first person always did her best until she had some horrible experience slow her down? I don't really think anyone can say who is better. I think it doesn't really matter either, since both people can change in time. And basing things on potential is just a way of taking the better chance, so it's not really reliable...

I think rather than thinking about if one is better than the other is trivial...I think thinking about how you can help or how you yourself can become better should be the focus.