This reminds me of a kind of debate one might have regarding actors and the Oscars. If the Oscars were meant to reward outstanding talent, then any year in which Brando, or George C Scott, or Robert DeNiro or Denzel Washington appeared in any film they should've gotten the Oscar for Best Actor, as they were (often by wide margins) the best/most talented actors of their generations. But since the Oscars are meant instead to reward performances in a given picture in a given year (which is as it should be) there needn't in theory be any surprises when a good solid actor given a wonderful role and fine direction delivers that kind of great performance and is recognized for it with an Oscar. Talent doesn't (primarily) exist in theory or in a vacumn -- indeed, it strikes me as a virtually meaningless concept until it is attached to/made manifest in an actual performance or work of art, or through a golf course that exists not in the imagination but in fact.
Peter