PPMD's Falco Discussion Thread

[Beat!]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just throwing out the term "Natural Talent" like that might be a bad idea on a forum.

 

[leffen]

Hard work, effort and practice can only go so far in any activity determined by skill. You can only aquire so much skill through practice. Natural Talent is necessary to progress beyond that.

What a huge pile of bull****.

Then again, maybe its your genetic structure that makes you come up with such a awful john for being bad.

 

[JPOBS]

I don't really care to elaborate on it, mostly because, not only does the average person not understand physiology and psychology enough to hold a reasonable conversation, but also because not even experts in the field are 100% agreed/certain on the nature vs nurture discussion.

I understand if you disagree.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Hard work, effort and practice can only go so far in any activity determined by skill. You can only aquire so much skill through practice. Natural Talent is necessary to progress beyond that.

Tell that to rock lee

 

[leffen]

You dont get it.

Talent is really, just your genetic structure and how it has adapted to your past experiences and how well this makes you fit for a specific task.

But:
WE CANT KNOW HOW, WHEN OR IF TALENT AFFECTS YOUR LIMIT.

Your "talent" could be that you are able to force yourself through excessive training even though you see little to low results. It could be that once you reach a certain level of understanding your learning curve could sky rocket. It could be that you handle high pressure situations very well.

The reason Peepee won Pound could've been because he tripped one day at school, we really have no idea and including "natural talent" in a discussion about success is just introducing a dumb, undefined and illogical variable to the table. Trying to use such a thing is a giant waste of time.

Some may seem to be "blessed" with a huge chunk of "natural skill", but that is just more or less them standing out from the crowd because they found a way to accomplish their goals that fits them. Everyone cannot take the same road, but everyone has a road. Its just a matter of not wussing out, thinking outside of the box, and not making any damn excuses.

 

[Da Shuffla]

Hm ... mind set ... mentality ... let's take a lesson!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDIAYpLmDkI#t=3m25s

I actually really enjoyed that video, and then proceeded to watch part 3. Lately, I've been getting a little better at controlling my emotions during a match. This is especially difficult, however, in tournament. This happens most noticeably when I go up against a "big name," and somehow, as if by magic, lose all of my tech skill. Controlling your emotions is indeed a skill, and, as seen here, it paid off.

The only thing I didn't like was that the protagonist looked like Marth.

 

[Wenbobular]

Wow I totally didn't notice him looking like Marth at all

 

[Sinji]

Being the best requires having a passion for the game. Passion enough that u wanna study everything about the game.

Also it requires training and talent.

Also consistency and NO JOHNS. I remember when Armada lost to Silent spectre at pound 4 and he said that europe doesn't have talented falcons but he said no johns and then beat Hax in losers. Thats what makes a top player.

 

[Rubyiris]

Would you believe me if I said I honestly don't believe I know what needs to be done to push myself to the next level, consciously or otherwise?

I'm not just johning though. I do not feel as though I have any talents regarding smash nor am I a fast learner or a good thinker. Everything I have done in smash has been through pure hard word and perseverance.

 

[JPOBS]

You dont get it.

Talent is really, just your genetic structure and how it has adapted to your past experiences and how well this makes you fit for a specific task.

But:
WE CANT KNOW HOW, WHEN OR IF TALENT AFFECTS YOUR LIMIT.

Your "talent" could be that you are able to force yourself through excessive training even though you see little to low results. It could be that once you reach a certain level of understanding your learning curve could sky rocket. It could be that you handle high pressure situations very well.

The reason Peepee won Pound could've been because he tripped one day at school, we really have no idea and including "natural talent" in a discussion about success is just introducing a dumb, undefined and illogical variable to the table. Trying to use such a thing is a giant waste of time.

Some may seem to be "blessed" with a huge chunk of "natural skill", but that is just more or less them standing out from the crowd because they found a way to accomplish their goals that fits them. Everyone cannot take the same road, but everyone has a road. Its just a matter of not wussing out, thinking outside of the box, and not making any damn excuses.

You seem to be under the impression that I am asserting that hard work isn't necessary to become the best, because talent = everything. Thats not what I'm getitng at, AT ALL. To help clarify, I'll give you one non-smash related example and leave it at that.

Micheal Phelps isn't the fastest swimmer because he's the hardest worker. You think other swimmers haven't worked just as hard as he has all their life? No. The difference is, Phelps has a talent thats useful for swimming. His body actually has a much higher VO2 max and more efficient usage of consummed oxygen than other humans. Maybe he has a abnormally higher hemoglobin count, maybe his muscles are somehow more efficient at oxygen useage, the fact is, he's just naturally ****ing better at respiration than his competition, thats how he can swim and win 8 gold medals. Of course he had to train his arse off to get to that position, but he has a natural "talent" that pushes him over the top. Its not just his work ethic, EVERYONE at a certain level of competition has a similar effort/practice/etc.

Likewise, Ruby could play this game endlessly, but he may never be as good as PP is. That could be for tons of natural reasons due to brain chemistry, reflex arcs, somatosensory organization, etc. However, you can't just will yourself into having better/more useful genetics.

I don't think we're necessarily arguing different perspectives here, because I agree with you somewhat. Seems like you just misinterpreted my original comment as something I didn't literally mean.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think mental sports, such as video games, don't have talent limitations like physical sports do. Everyone has the ability to change their mental contructs and get better by improving their strategy, anticipation and execution.

 

[ChivalRuse]

Wow I totally didn't notice him looking like Marth at all

Yeah I completely missed that too. Lol.

 

[JPOBS]

True. Its hard to draw firm conclusions and correlations between video gaming and more physical sports. Whatever, I don't really care that much. Like i said earlier, people will believe what they believe and even experts don't agree on most things.

meh.

 

[Rubyiris]

http://rubyirissmash.blogspot.com/

Documenting my activities and progress leading up to Genesis. I am serious about this and I WILL achieve my goals.

 

[FoxLisk]

I think mental sports, such as video games, don't have talent limitations like physical sports do. Everyone has the ability to change their mental contructs and get better by improving their strategy, anticipation and execution.

That's like saying mental activities, like science, dont have talent limitations. There are mental talents too.

In any case, I would say that, there being probably under 5000 competitive smashers, ever, in all of time, the chances that any random, average guy could pick up a controller and learn through sheer training and experience to be the best in the world, are pretty damn high. The idea that Mang0 and PP have enough natural talent to outdo a normal person training like an athlete seems pretty far-fetched to me.

In a sport like Football, where you have tens of thousands of people who want to be professional players and hundreds who are all on intense regimens of training with good coaches and facilities and stuff, talent comes out because there is enough competition to require it.

But I think if I took any random group of 10 high schoolers, coached them and them drill, study, and practice against each other 8 hours a day - not just play, but really learn - and go to tournaments once or twice a month for outside practice, they'd be the ten best players in the world within three or four years. That kind of dedication and focus is just not given to this game by anyone, and if anyone did it, their hard work would easily outstrip someone like Mang0 or PP who relies on his smarts and talent to get by with only playing once or twice a week.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If you want to argue about it, you should take an example from a mental sport that has a lot of talent base and a developed metagame such as Chess or StarCraft2/Broodwar

 

[FoxLisk]

If you want to argue about it, you should take an example from a mental sport that has a lot of talent base and a developed metagame such as Chess or StarCraft2/Broodwar

okay then, take chess. the top pros pretty much all eat, sleep, and breathe chess, and some of them consistently dramatically outperform others. i dont know the intricate details but i suspect that magnus carlsen doesnt practice a whole lot more than, idk, someone in the 40-50th range, and would yet be heavily favoured to beat them... that's because he has more talent.

also bw is at least as much based on execution as on mental ability... or are you arguing that reflexes/dexterity have no basis in talent or genetics or whatever?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I wouldn't call it talent, i would call it better strategy/skill. There is no physical limiting factor, the better player simply wins.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-makes-the-best-player.html

 

[Walt]

This is a stupid conversation. Stop having it. It only causes aggravation because of different world experiences and world views means no one is going to say "oh, you're right". Shut up. Talk about Falco. Or mentality. Or how to get better. Not theoretical BS that isn't going to change anything for anyone but ultimately cause extremely ******** johns like "hurr durr he has more natural talent so he doesn't have to work as hard" in some number of years. Suck a **** both of you.

 

[Mogwai]

there is, without a doubt, a physical barrier in Starcraft Broodwar and I think you're absolutely crazy if you deny it. SC2, eh, too early to decide, but in BW, well, let's just say there's a reason no one stays dominant into their late 20s. There's a very definite boundary between something like chess where there is no technical difference between how a 4-year old kid and Garry Kasparov move their pawns to e4, and something like starcraft where there are vast differences in execution of strategies.

 

[tarheeljks]

yah everyone has a limit that they cannot pass, but smash doesn't have a structure that lends itself to identifying said limit particularly easily. yeah you can bundle people and say "below this level of reaction time is too slow" and what not, but that sort of stuff gets selected for in people who continue to play and i'd argue that even above such a threshold there are various factors present that make evaluating player ceilings difficult.

phelps has a level of talent unrivaled even by other elite swimmers, but the organizational structure of swimming, as well as most other sports, is established to the extent that such talent is highly unlikely to be lost or to go untapped. smash on the other hand has no leagues, no coaches, no developmental programs etc, in addition to players having varying abilities to dedicate themselves to the game in a fashion that would permit an assessment of talent. so in a vacuum i agree w/the notion of external factors limiting ability in the longterm , but idk how much bearing such a statement has here given the structure of competition

 

[JPOBS]

I really like Foxlisk and tarheeljks's notion about selection pressure for talent in larger sports. Good point. I have to agree that smash is small enough that its probably possible for someone to become the best solely via unrivaled determination. I suppose M2k was an example of that for a time.

This is a stupid conversation. Stop having it. It only causes aggravation because of different world experiences and world views means no one is going to say "oh, you're right". Shut up. Talk about Falco. Or mentality. Or how to get better. Not theoretical BS that isn't going to change anything for anyone but ultimately cause extremely ******** johns like "hurr durr he has more natural talent so he doesn't have to work as hard" in some number of years. Suck a **** both of you.

Funny, you're the only one getting upset about this.

How about you be more productive and bring up another topic to discuss if you have a problem, instead of making such a useless post.

 

[Walt]

I don't play falco, I just like reading the usually valuable information this thread has to offer. The discussion just wasn't helping anyone.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

there is, without a doubt, a physical barrier in Starcraft Broodwar and I think you're absolutely crazy if you deny it. SC2, eh, too early to decide, but in BW, well, let's just say there's a reason no one stays dominant into their late 20s. There's a very definite boundary between something like chess where there is no technical difference between how a 4-year old kid and Garry Kasparov move their pawns to e4, and something like starcraft where there are vast differences in execution of strategies.

I would agree that there is a physical barrier but it is never the limiting factor since it is easily overcome by practice


edit- i guess easily isnt the right word. More like, within each person's means

 

[FoxLisk]

I would agree that there is a physical barrier but it is never the limiting factor since it is easily overcome by practice


edit- i guess easily isnt the right word. More like, within each person's means

disagree strongly. i think flash was the champ for a year or so largely because of his mechanics, and he definitely wasn't practicing more than jaedong or bisu. it isnt within jaedong/bisu's means to overcome that barrier against flash, as evidenced by both of them spending their whole lives practicing too.

 

[Deleted member]

to suggest that there is no talent barrier in smash is extraordinarily naive. not all players are created equal.

m2k definitely has a STRONG natural talent for the game, and if you say he's 100% effort 0% talent i'll tell you you're dead wrong, since i watched him grow and change as one of my closest friends.

if you're really special, you might even have a teacher as good as me.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I dont think flash was significantly better in the physical performance of the actions, he simply made marginally better choices. Just like PP made marginally better choices than armada.

 

[Metal Reeper]

Not saying you're wrong Umbreon. But I swear M2K said that he never had any natural talent for the game and he had to study his own self tons. He also spent countless hours thinking about Melee. I was trying to talk to him about MK9 after Zenith and he just spaced out, then he said he was thinking about melee situations lol.

 

[Palpi]

Mew2king = derp

 

[mers]

Oh Falco boards. This is hilariously typical.

 

[Metal Reeper]

Also, M2K is just OK. Everyone watchout for Citizen Snipz,he is*on the rise, watchout for his rawr.

 

[Deleted member]

Not saying you're wrong Umbreon. But I swear M2K said that he never had any natural talent for the game and he had to study his own self tons. He also spent countless hours thinking about Melee. I was trying to talk to him about MK9 after Zenith and he just spaced out, then he said he was thinking about melee situations lol.

he sincerely thinks that way too. what's m2k not "naturally" talented at? creativity? tech skill? adaptation? thinking? without a strong set of skills everywhere, he never would have made it as far as he did, heavy work load or no.

did m2k put a lot of work into the game? YES, yes he did. but tons of players play countless hours and never become remotely as good as jason did.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i don't think m2k is talented at any of them really, but he shows that if you put your mind to something all of those skills can be improved regardless of talent.

To me, talent has always seemed like a starting point in mental activities. You start a bit better than everyone else, but its possible for anyone to surpass you by improving their mental qualities.

 

[Mogwai]

I would agree that there is a physical barrier but it is never the limiting factor since it is easily overcome by practice


edit- i guess easily isnt the right word. More like, within each person's means

people play this game professionally for a living in Korea. There are people out there that practice as hard or harder than Flash and simply don't have his mindset or his manual dexterity or WHATEVER and thus never get close to his skill. It's extremely naive to think that there is no talent involved.

 

[Wenbobular]

Good thing we don't play this game professionally so I still have a chance at making it out of pools someday :D

 

[Deleted member]

i don't think m2k is talented at any of them really, but he shows that if you put your mind to something all of those skills can be improved regardless of talent.

To me, talent has always seemed like a starting point in mental activities. You start a bit better than everyone else, but its possible for anyone to surpass you by improving their mental qualities.

that might be your abstract definition then. there's nothing wrong with contriving your own definition. really, we all start at the same place. you see a game with nintendo characters hitting each other and it's cool, you don't know the buttons and you might think it's weird that you're hitting them off rather than doing a real knockout. smash, etc. you might think pikachu and fox are cool because you're into animals with diseases.

my definition for talent stems from an ability to learn the game. so where you might think m2k didn't understand smash as well immediately, that's really an insignificant advantage considering the skill barrier to enter the competitive scene to begin with. rather, m2k knows how to learn, knows how to innovate, and knows how to improve quickly. and his approach to all of them is raw and powerful.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I just don't believe our brains are structured in that way. I believe "talent" exists, simply because there are varying levels of improvement and skill level, i just don't think it is the bottom line at any skill level (in mental sports). You can always improve yourself and catch up to someone who is better than you (whether they are better by talent or hard work).


edit- i see talent in mental sports as more of lucky solutions. You get the solution to a problem faster/easier than someone else, but that never excludes them from the ability to learn the solution.

 

[Winston]

Even if there aren't literal upper limits to mental activities (and that's an optimistic assumption), there are time constraints.

What if the improvement per time someone can make with effort after a certain point is logarithmic? (or instead, insert your favorite asymptotically slow-growing function here.) It seems ridiculous to claim that these curves are the same for everyone, and while you might say a slower learner is able to catch up to a more talented learner with enough time, that time required might be far too much for it to be attainable in any practical sense.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Nobody grows at a constant rate. Often there are sudden realizations of knowledge which snowball into other deductions and more knowledge and then stagnation (sometimes referred to as plateauing and leveling up). Not to mention that people can learn how to learn better, and the act of learning itself makes you learn faster and better.

While you're theoretically right that someone who learns consistantly faster and puts in the same amount of time/effort should remain better than someone who learns slow and puts in the same time/effort, I don't think its possible to ever define how an individual learns or how much talent they have. From a practical standpoint, the only thing to do is give it your best at all times and be happy with your results regardless.

 

[Mew2King]

Hard work, effort and practice can only go so far in any activity determined by skill. You can only aquire so much skill through practice. Natural Talent is necessary to progress beyond that.

...not true