Integral of interest and pedagogy over time
I have a tendency to use mathematical analogies in my thinking, so I apologize if this confuses people.
I think of talent as the integral of interest and pedagogy over time.
To clarify, I believe that what most people call talent is actually the historical result of the amount and type of "training" done so far.
At birth, there is certainly a difference in abilities of all babies born (even here, I wonder how much influence the mothers diet and environment affects things). But after that, the baby, the child, the teenager, etc. have experiences that shape both their motivations and the strategies they use to pursue what they are motivated to do.
So, I believe, at any given moment, the quality of the training depends on two factors:
1) The nature of motivation. A strong intrinsic motivation seems best. This, to me, means a self-chosen desire to master a skill, fulfill a grand purpose, or achieve some autonomy. External motivation can also work to some extent if it is strong enough, but I think there are other psychological costs to this sort of motivation.
2) The quality of instruction, coaching, or mentoring. Although there are many self-taught talented people, I think you will find that even these people have studied role-models that they wanted to become more like. Being talented in the more competitive endeavors relies heavily on being well coached.
I believe that the result of all your past training (and skills can transfer from one domain to another), is what people refer to when they talk about "talent."
With that, it is almost a tautology that the answer to poll question is no. If you are good at something it means you are talented at something, and vice versa.
I suppose notable exceptions are when there are distinct physical advantages. For instance a 7' person is more likely to become good at basketball than a 3' tall person. You may call this "talent", but most people would not...it is just a physical advantage. With this, someone may be the best at something not competitive(imagine if basketball were a brand new game with no analogous games around, then a 7' tall person could be the best without talent).
I didn't answer the poll, because, I believe my use of the word "talent", although based off of the common usage, is not based on a common understanding of what talent is.