Given the tens of thousands of individuals who have received as good or better training for golf or sports or music or any one of a number of other pursuits, and who did not become Tiger Woods equivalents in those pursuits, it becomes kind of obvious that “talent” (i.e. innate, genetically-determined, maximum potential) is not a product of environment layered upon an equally blank slate. It’s environment layered upon genes. There is a reason some individuals, and some groups, rise to the top of their particular fields, and it’s way more than nurture. It’s nature.
In that sense, Tiger Woods is, in fact, “talented.”
That is almost certainly to a large extent a culturally induced overlap (in our culture, the kinds of influences which may lead one to be interested in chess overlap with the kinds of influences which may lead one to be interested in academic subjects, to be pushed to excel in such endeavors, etc.)