|
Braavos36401 Posts
On October 13 2007 22:42 IdrA wrote:
how come cj turns out monster player after monster player while other teams can barely get someone into a starleague?
they all have the same talent pool to pick from.
obviously every team doesnt have those ideal conditions, if they even exist. cj's practice environment does something that other teams dont.
that 'huge disparity' isnt all that big, bisu, overall, would win more, but jju is very capable of beating him any given day. its astounding when even the best players approach 70% win in their best matchup and no player is ever dominant for very long. the ability to perform under pressure is far more significant than even skill, much less 'talent', as demonstrated by canata and all the other inhouse gosus who can barely win a tv game.
talent is just some ideal all the oldschool players, who were good when no one knew how to play, want to hold on to so they can feel superior to new players.
CJ turns out great players mostly because of practice environment / team culture, but also because of their incredible ability to spot "real" talent. So yes there is the same talent pool but CJ is recruiting people with more potential, more natural talent. This snowballs and naturally more people want to go to CJ and they get to pick the best of the best.
Did you know that years before Savior ever won an MSL, the CJ coach had pointed to him and told people that "this guy will be the best Zerg ever to play Starcraft." He knew before Savior even made the MSL for the first time. The CJ example doesn't hold, in fact it supports even more the notion that there is natural talent, because CJ spots it so well.
Yes JJu can beat Bisu on any given day but why is Bisu a multiple MSL winner yet Pusan has never made a final? Pusan has been in the HERO training environment much longer than Bisu. Bisu was "trained" by big brother Pusan, why is Bisu better? They practice the same way against the same people. The answer is Bisu is more talented.
Maybe that talent only means 5% more wins overall, but that talent also means the difference between a decent spirit toss and the best Protoss of all time.
Talent exists and it's a major factor.
|
so, back when you were good you had to have talent to be good
but now you dont?
talk about a crock of shit.
why on earth would you need more talent to be good (relative to the time period) when people were worse (in terms of absolute ability)?
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On October 13 2007 22:50 IdrA wrote:
so, back when you were good you had to have talent to be good
but now you dont?
talk about a crock of shit.
why on earth would you need more talent to be good (relative to the time period) when people were worse (in terms of absolute ability)?
i can answer this one. before when there weren't replays and there weren't perfected proteam training routines. there weren't maxed out strategies and there existed room for innovation. players had to rely on natural talent a lot more.
nowadays, most proteams can basically manufacture a hundred 250apm semipro FE Terrans that play the same way. the only thing separating them from each other is potential and talent, that "spark" people look for that can't be taught.
haven't you ever heard Rek tell stories about back when Giyom was dominating, he rarely practiced at all, he'd like show up drunk and win tournaments.
edit: not saying this is really the case between you/skew and the older players, i am not a judge of skill... i'm just saying the Drone's logic makes sense.
|
Idra, you are terrible as a player.
|
On October 13 2007 22:49 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 22:42 IdrA wrote:
how come cj turns out monster player after monster player while other teams can barely get someone into a starleague?
they all have the same talent pool to pick from.
obviously every team doesnt have those ideal conditions, if they even exist. cj's practice environment does something that other teams dont.
that 'huge disparity' isnt all that big, bisu, overall, would win more, but jju is very capable of beating him any given day. its astounding when even the best players approach 70% win in their best matchup and no player is ever dominant for very long. the ability to perform under pressure is far more significant than even skill, much less 'talent', as demonstrated by canata and all the other inhouse gosus who can barely win a tv game.
talent is just some ideal all the oldschool players, who were good when no one knew how to play, want to hold on to so they can feel superior to new players. CJ turns out great players mostly because of practice environment / team culture, but also because of their incredible ability to spot "real" talent. So yes there is the same talent pool but CJ is recruiting people with more potential, more natural talent. This snowballs and naturally more people want to go to CJ and they get to pick the best of the best. Did you know that years before Savior ever won an MSL, the CJ coach had pointed to him and told people that "this guy will be the best Zerg ever to play Starcraft." He knew before Savior even made the MSL for the first time. The CJ example doesn't hold, in fact it supports even more the notion that there is natural talent, because CJ spots it so well. Yes JJu can beat Bisu on any given day but why is Bisu a multiple MSL winner yet Pusan has never made a final? Pusan has been in the HERO training environment much longer than Bisu. Bisu was "trained" by big brother Pusan, why is Bisu better? They practice the same way against the same people. The answer is Bisu is more talented. Maybe that talent only means 5% more wins overall, but that talent also means the difference between a decent spirit toss and the best Protoss of all time. Talent exists and it's a major factor.
well, look at their starleague performances. pusan gets to the semi finals and is up 2-0, catches boxer cheesing and has his back against the wall in the third game. but falls apart and loses 2-3.
whereas bisu is a good(but not great) player in proleague games and whatnot, but he turns it on when it really matters.
the ability to perform under pressure is what determines the champions. that is why bisu has 2 starleague titles and stork doesnt have one. stork is clearly(i think) just as good as bisu. but stork falls apart when he has the lead in the fifth set, bisu doesnt.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
i don't see how that proves theres no talent disparity. "being clutch" is innate as well as circumstantial... people have different potential to perform well under pressure. some people are just naturally very nervous, some are calm and always come through. it's part trained, part personality (thus, part talent).
and this still doesn't address the intelligence/fast thinking/fast learning aspect of talent. certain players even though fundamentally brilliant still make the dumbest decisions. i'm sure the proteams try to teach their players to make smart, instant decisions but that kind of split second creativity is partly talent.
|
Yeah that's surely it. It's pressure.
|
I get the feeling someone is indirectly defending himself here
|
On October 13 2007 22:53 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 22:50 IdrA wrote:
so, back when you were good you had to have talent to be good
but now you dont?
talk about a crock of shit.
why on earth would you need more talent to be good (relative to the time period) when people were worse (in terms of absolute ability)? i can answer this one. before when there weren't replays, there weren't perfected proteam training routines, there weren't maxed out strategies, there existed room for innovation. players had to rely on natural talent a lot more. nowadays, most proteams can basically manufacture a hundred 250apm semipro FE Terrans that play the same way. the only thing separating them from each other is potential and talent, that "spark" people look for that can't be taught. haven't you ever heard Rek tell stories about back when Giyom was dominating, he rarely practiced at all, he'd like show up drunk and win tournaments.
ya, back when people were still trying to figure out how the fuck they were supposed to play the game. and then boxer came along and every good player since has had to practice his ass off to be anything.
as for the other point, thats the sticking point of the whole debate. i dont really see how doing crazy shit when people dont know how to respond properly qualifies as talent. look at tsunami. stick him in an environment where people actually know what theyre doing, and how to respond to stuff, hed get run over. yet people call him a tactical genius for.. doing retarded shit.
|
On October 13 2007 22:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
i don't see how that proves theres no talent disparity. "being clutch" is innate as well as circumstantial... people have different potential to perform well under pressure. some people are just naturally very nervous, some are calm and always come through. it's part trained, part personality (thus, part talent).
and this still doesn't address the intelligence/fast thinking/fast learning aspect of talent. certain players even though fundamentally brilliant still make the dumbest decisions. i'm sure the proteams try to teach their players to make smart, instant decisions but that kind of split second creativity is partly talent.
well to take skews initial example, if you put someone with 100 iq against someone with 200 iq, the one with 200 iq is probably gonna win. does he have an innate ability to play starcraft?
|
Braavos36401 Posts
you don't think creativity and innovation are talent-based things? i don't think you can manufacture a great artist.
are you saying then, that if you were born to boxer's family and did exactly what boxer did during his life then you would be exactly the same as him? isn't that kind of a ridiculous statement?
why do proteams even bother selectively recruiting then? they can just take random people off the street.
|
actually its very easy. either you think money is the most important thing and you cant lose 1-2 semester @ uni or you dont care and try it
|
On October 13 2007 22:57 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
I get the feeling someone is indirectly defending himself here
ya i find it somewhat insulting that people like you think you're better than me just because you quit playing once people figured out how to actually play.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:01 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 22:56 Hot_Bid wrote:
i don't see how that proves theres no talent disparity. "being clutch" is innate as well as circumstantial... people have different potential to perform well under pressure. some people are just naturally very nervous, some are calm and always come through. it's part trained, part personality (thus, part talent).
and this still doesn't address the intelligence/fast thinking/fast learning aspect of talent. certain players even though fundamentally brilliant still make the dumbest decisions. i'm sure the proteams try to teach their players to make smart, instant decisions but that kind of split second creativity is partly talent. well to take skews initial example, if you put someone with 100 iq against someone with 200 iq, the one with 200 iq is probably gonna win. does he have an innate ability to play starcraft?
if you pit someone who is really coordinated and tall against someone short and fat, obviously the tall and coordinated person will win.
but does he have an innate ability to play basketball???
obviously IQ, intelligence, thinking-speed, learning-speed, hand-speed, these are all partially innate, "talent" factors that make a good starcraft player.
nobody is claiming someone is born with the ability to play a random computer game designed by a random company, as if God or evolution or whatever when making a person somehow thinks "gee lets make a starcraft baby."
|
On October 13 2007 23:02 Hot_Bid wrote:
you don't think creativity and innovation are talent-based things? i don't think you can manufacture a great artist.
are you saying then, that if you were born to boxer's family and did exactly what boxer did during his life then you would be exactly the same as him? isn't that kind of a ridiculous statement?
why do proteams even bother selectively recruiting then? they can just take random people off the street.
taking any reasonably smart person who has the will/dedication to practice enough off the street would be just as good. but it saves time to pick people who are already good.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:05 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 23:02 Hot_Bid wrote:
you don't think creativity and innovation are talent-based things? i don't think you can manufacture a great artist.
are you saying then, that if you were born to boxer's family and did exactly what boxer did during his life then you would be exactly the same as him? isn't that kind of a ridiculous statement?
why do proteams even bother selectively recruiting then? they can just take random people off the street. taking any reasonably smart person who has the will/dedication to practice enough off the street would be just as good. but it saves time to pick people who are already good.
ah but that's not what Skew was saying. he was saying talent didn't exist AT ALL, or barely had any impact. that's what i'm arguing against and what i think is amazingly ignorant.
"reasonably smart person who has the will and dedication" is already presupposing a good amount of talent, and there's a continuum of how talented (how smart, how much will, how much dedication) that person has. part of this is what they are born with.
simply being reasonably smart with will and dedication (somewhat talented) may get you on a pro team but you will NOT be a champion without some form of exceptional talent, whether it be dedication, competitiveness, determination, intelligence, etc... you can train these factors but only as to the amount you were born with.
|
Talent and fast learning are two different things, but they are closely related. Allthough you'll more often than not see the one person picking up a sport/competition fast and then improve faster than others, the effort put in will show after a certain amount of time. In other words the slowly improving might have a higher potential maximum level than the fast improving player. If the dedication and will is there I believe many players(also a good share of nonkoreans) will be able to reach a high level, and the talent part only limits you from reaching the Bisus and Saviors.
SaferZerg. Made it to quarters in the IOPS OSL about 3 years ago. Last thing I heard from him was that he lost against TossGirl in the MBC prelims. If SaferZerg can reach the quarters then so can MANY other progamers as well. Timing and luck with brackets, maps, matchups, and form are of course important points, but it is certainly possible. Chances are slim though. PJ beating Savior in another BO3 are about the same 
|
Braavos36401 Posts
i don't see how "learning fast" isn't something that's considered a talent.
anything that you're born or genetically influenced to have in greater amount than someone else, or that gives you an innate advantage given similar environment, is talent.
|
On October 13 2007 23:07 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 23:05 IdrA wrote:On October 13 2007 23:02 Hot_Bid wrote:
you don't think creativity and innovation are talent-based things? i don't think you can manufacture a great artist.
are you saying then, that if you were born to boxer's family and did exactly what boxer did during his life then you would be exactly the same as him? isn't that kind of a ridiculous statement?
why do proteams even bother selectively recruiting then? they can just take random people off the street. taking any reasonably smart person who has the will/dedication to practice enough off the street would be just as good. but it saves time to pick people who are already good. ah but that's not what Skew was saying. he was saying talent didn't exist AT ALL, or barely had any impact. that's what i'm arguing against and what i think is amazingly ignorant.
Uhh.. yes it is. Talent doesn't _mean_ anything and people aren't born with innate abilities.
|
Braavos36401 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:02 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2007 22:57 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
I get the feeling someone is indirectly defending himself here ya i find it somewhat insulting that people like you think you're better than me just because you quit playing once people figured out how to actually play.
i don't see how it really is that insulting that they think they are better than you, is it really a big deal that some random guys that don't even play this game anymore think they are better than you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
