<p>1) You should really ask Einstein or Feynman! You can still be good, even great, even Nobel-worthy in physics without reaching their level. I heard a Nobel prize winner say words to that effect, so don’t worry.
2) Most of what you said is correct except like I said, a lot of the problems in these books are really math problems where some of the variables have constraints imposed on them by physics. You can be a wizard at the math and still struggle to really understand the physics, gyroscopic precession is a good example. Or quantum physics. The good part is that you can rely heavily on the math (my classical mechanics prof called it “flying by instruments,” like when a pilot flies in the clouds or in pitch blackness and has to rely entirely on instruments to know what’s going on). In qm, “shut up and calculate” is a motto some people have.</p>
<p>That said, from what I know about physics and its history, my opinion is that new theoretical advances require people with intuition and understandings (at least in part) of what is happening physically. Then the math can come later. Like Einstein was guided by intuition first of all, imagining riding alongside a light ray and what that would be like. Later, for general relativity, he had to go out and learn the math necessary, and a lot of other mathematicians and mathematical physicists helped guide him to his final theory. Even then, after publication, it took other mathematicians and mathematical physicists to do things like solve his equations and so forth.</p>
<p>My point is that there is plenty of room at the table for people who are very strong math-wise but weaker intuition/physical understanding wise, and there is also room for people who aren’t the best at math. Like Cavendish. IIRC, Bohr was supposedly nothing special at math, but he had a lot of ideas.</p>