I think talent is just a start up to becoming godly, like all those people that are amazing at what they do like daigo practiced a crap load to get to where they are but talent is what got them started, Like Jwong Just picks up a game and is good at it realizes this but he is not the best so he practices to become it. Talent is just a huge lead but is nothing without practice
That only says that you require different practice to achieve the same ends that others achieve. You learn by hearing, they learn by reading. But at the end of the day you get the same grade as a good student who takes notes. This equates to someone who learns better in SF4 from videos or reading posts about advanced play. But at the end of the day we all have to do our homework (ie practice in real matches). So this doesn’t really apply to the discussion at hand in terms of whether being “naturally talented” makes someone at a different level that can’t be reached by normal people.
And you’re still ignoring the fact that “talent” isn’t a definable trait. Like you said you didn’t excel in math until later in life. So you were talented but you didn’t know it yet. The only way you could find out is that you kept with it. If you gave up and just said “Fuck it, I suck at math and I’ll never be good” then you would’ve never found your talent for it. If Daigo or JWong had quit the first time they got stomped on, then they would’ve never developed into what they are now.
That’s why I can’t stand people who talk about talent. They speak of it as something magical that they’ll never have. They act as if you have talent, you KNOW you have it. Just because you’ve played for 5,000 hours and you still aren’t a big deal doesn’t mean you’re not talented. Maybe for you you’ll have to find your talent by playing people far outside your skill range and lose to them so you can learn from them first hand. But if you don’t have access to those better players then you’ll never realize your potential.
So at the end of the day, does worrying about “talent” even matter if there’s no way for you to know if you’ll have it until something “clicks”?
I think as far as genetics is concerned, its really more about how competitive one is naturally born into. Perhaps it’s environmental, meaning competitive people around you will make you competitive, but I tend to think that being competitive has a sense of family lineage involved. Consequently, genes and personality will only get you so far. You can be competitive, but if you don’t train and learn shit, you’ll hit a wall.
Same thing goes for training. You can only go so far with training, but in the end, if you don’t have the drive to win and be competitive, your ass ain’t going too far.
So if I were to train as hard as I possibly could in the best way that I could then I could become an NFL lineman? While I do say training makes up the majority of a person’s skill, there are certain limitations that are built in to our body. Our brains are a physical organ and as such vary from person to person.
You completely missed the point on the differences in the way I learn compared to most students. You are saying that if you train hard enough and in the right way anyone can achieve the same level of mental skill. Ok maybe. I didn’t have to learn how to use my hearing to pick up information. It just comes naturally to me. Others would have to train themselves to reach the same status as me. So why is that?
That in itself is two completely different skill sets even though both achieve the same goal of picking up the information.
Being good at SF basically boils down to the fine motor skills you developed as a child. This is going to determine your reaction and your execution. That’s about 2/3rds of your game right there. Then of course, there’s the metagame, which depends on how clever you are.
I’d say that between those two main factors, either component can come from either genetic predisposition, or how well your fine motor skills developed as a child. I think that you can always train yourself to do better, but by the time you’re my age (28), you’re pretty much stuck with what you’ve got.
I can work on big combos or my reaction time a little bit, but I’ll never move out of the “above average” threshold that developed in my younger years. Doesn’t mean I can’t get better, but there will be a point where that’s about all I can do. Of course, I blame a lot of my inability on being a burnout. 
Its a video game…not the 100m dash.
If you aren’t good at SF you can teach yourself to have a better in game mindset, better reflexes, to play smart, etc etc.
If you aren’t good at sports, you can’t teach yourself to be black…
I LOL’ed so hard at this…it’s probably just cuz I’m drunk though. :tup:
Talent definitely exists, or else everyone would be made to do the same thing. Now, anyone can do whatever they want with enough practice and dedication, but talent is what gets you from a to b faster and is basically just your affinity to learning or adapting to whatever it is you’re trying to do. Some guys are just better at language than they are at math,some guys prefer biology over chemistry etc…that’s talent, doing something easily because you have a high affinity for learning or performing it.
Not sure if this topic really ties into videogames that well? Yea, talent definitely exists here a little, but it’s WAAAY less important than hard work as opposed to real life sports(or any area where talent can be involved). Comparing japan to america doesn’t work in this area either because it’s not accurate to say an entire population has more talent than another population,especially when the americas have a great deal of ethnic diversity which should lower differences if genetics were that much a factor.
Therefore, the difference must be almost entirely cultural in this instance. The only proper way to measure talent really in my opinion would be to start off two people doing the same thing with the same amount of experience, and see if results are consistant when the tasks requires the same learning affinity.
lol, no but you can play badminton.
ps
everything in life comes down to natural (born with it) talent.
take any two people in the world give them something to do
with a strict ragime of learning and one of them will always take to it better than the other.
The only way to truly answer this question is to get as good as you possibly can, to a point where you can make specific statements about what you cannot do. If you have mastered everything else but X, and you know it’s physically impossible because you can only react in (>X) frames, then yes, you MAY be at a disadvantage, assuming you can’t improve it no matter how hard you try, assuming you can’t work around it, assuming your opponent can figure this out, and assuming he has a gameplan to exploit it.
Have most people looked at that level? or are these just vague statements along the lines of “Some undefined amount of talent is required to reach this undefined level of skill…sooo I can’t be as good as <player>”. i’m not even sure there is enough data on sf4 to say what “talent” is required to be at a top level.
So here is a more interesting question, what specific talent does justin or daigo have that you cannot overcome IYO? If you don’t know that, how can you say you can’t be as good?
I agree, however it can also depend if your definition of “talent” differs from the definition of understanding.
Some people have a talent in playing instruments others have an understanding of what makes good music.
I think experience is great but if you don’t have a basic understanding (not even talking about talent) you’ll find yourself just reproducing crap. In my field of photography this is very prominent.
I’ve seen people that have been shooting for several years and have some of the best equipment but they have no understanding about what makes a photo into art…whereas others that just pic up a camera and have the “eye” and can take amazing pics.
To sum up, it can be argued either way.
My friend’s(graduated in june) brother started his freshman year in highschool recently and already broke every personal record he had at the start of cross country season.
I’m rather undecided on how important talent is though personally. Some people don’t work themselves hard enough because of various reasons.
its both. simple analogy- a wide reciever in football.
either you have hands to catch balls or your dont. some are born with it and a rookie can come in and play at a level that some pros dont get to. he has natural talent. some recievers spend years on the bench learning and training and even though they might have previosuly not be able to catch a ball for shit, now they can at a high level. ultimately natural born talent does exist in SF but it can still be tought and learned over time IF you meet basic mental requirements. the game requires mental processing at a high level. if your brain isnt equipped to execute, plan, react, think ahead, etc then you will always suck.
so sterotypical redneck joe that talks with a draw that matches his mental draw will always suck. you cant be a dumbshit and be a pro at this game anyway.
Only a chump would think he is worse at a video game because of genetics. Grow up.
come to the south and find yourself the sterotypical inbred guy. they do exist and are not as rare as you think. genetics do have an effect.
its 70% practise 30% talent
i won money with RTS games but i will never win with fps or SF 
No, its…
ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to…
Sorry, just had to. >_<
42.7 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.
lol at the people who think genetics have no part in this. Because as you know, we all have the same reaction speed. And don’t forget that we’re all blessed with the same sense of rythm, so our ability to perform combos is obviously determined *purely *by hours spent practising.
You need zero talent to be good at fighting games. It is muscle memory. No one is genetically predisposed to being good at pressing 6 buttons in sequence.
The 10,000 hour rule applies.