Loving what you do is necessary, but not sufficient.
What you do should be at the intersection of what you love and what you're good at.
How do you know you're good at something a priori without spending the 10,000 hours to find out empirically?
You do what statisticians do ... take a small sample and estimate.
Spend 20 hours each doing 10 different things, and then pick 2-3 of them to spend 200 hours doing. Then pick the one. While it may take 10,000 hours to be truly awesome, you can probably get a sense of being "good" at something in a much smaller amount of time.
You wouldn't be "fucking awesome at basketball, even after 10000 hours of practice if you were crippled, pushing 90, blind or disadvantaged in a number of other ways. It's not an easy truth to accept, but the playing field is not level and while the human will is capable of amazing feats, there are limits.
The right things don't exist... or have we already forgotten the whole "do what you love" concept?