Is natural talent a big enough factor?

[RyanSanders103]

This may be me just over thinking stuff, but I've played Ultimate for over 3,000 hours on a competitive level and yet I still lose over half my games. I ask my friends for advice and it seems worthless, but then I asked some other people and they just say that I have no natural talent. This is sad to hear considering I was finally going to start attending my locals, but now I'm second guessing myself.

Any opinions on this topic?

 

[Doc Monocle]

I am far from a position of giving the most in-depth input here, but I would let it suffice to say that talent and accomplishment are two different things. Yet still, skill and talent are two different things, though subtly, and others cannot determine whether the reason you struggle is for lack of talent. Here are potential definitions that show why:

Skill- Proficiency acquired over time in and for executing a task. (Proficiency improved by experience)

Talent- A natural tendency to show proficiency in a given task.

Tendency: A quality that is identified by what its effects would be without limitations on that quality.

Now ask yourself this question (but only if you agree with the above definitions): Can a person whose senses are bound by limitations of time and space identify whether the reason you lack proficiency improved over time (a limitation of the senses and the display of proficiency) is because you lack the quality necessary to show it when that quality is only identified in the absence of limitations on it? If I assume the role of a harsh critic, then I might exemplify what I mean by stating the essence of the critic's thoughts like this:

"My senses, which are limited, tell me that you lack skill. This is provable by watching your proficiency, bound by the same limitations as my senses. As for why you lack skill, it is because you lack the ability to show it to my senses."

In short, the critic determines that because you do not show them proficiency, you necessarily lack what it takes to do so satisfactorily. I consider it a fallacy that anyone but the possessor is capable of determining definitively what and where their talents are or are not. Do you?

 

[StrangeKitten]

You should still attend those locals. I'm not even sure what "natural talent" would look like in such an unnatural thing as a video game, but if you keep attending locals, you'll keep improving. It's worth keeping in mind that a lot of the top players have spent years going to tournaments to get where they are. They weren't that great at the game when they started out, but staying on the grind is what lead to their success. Another thing to note, keep a positive attitude if/when you go to locals. Don't get down on yourself if you do poorly, because winning shouldn't be your goal. Your goal should simply be to learn and improve.

 

[Nah]

Everyone isn't cut out to be good at everything, and denying that individual talent/aptitude is a thing is just something people tell themselves so they can sleep at night if they can't accept that reality.

That said, it (talent) is also not necessarily literally everything, and it might be too early to tell in your case. You at least have access to (local) tournaments, which is a resource not everyone gets.

Besides, you're young. In 4 years you'll only be 20, and 4 years can potentially yield a lot of improvement (or not)

 

[Oddball]

There are three things that control who wins.

Natural Talent
Hard Work
Sheer luck

You have no control over how much natural talent you have or how lucky you're going to get, so you need to put some time into the hard work part.