not this shit again. inb4 300+ comments of people who say talent exists and people who say talent doesn't exist arguing pointlessly with eachother. or maybe just hitsu vs weird.

At least they'll have some data to throw around. ;)

huh hitsu vs weird?
What are you refering to? :)

You are both stubborn.

that might be true :)

ye but me and weird are liek boff(best online friends forever). i really respect his opinion on everything besides netcode :b

The big question is ofcourse....
Why don't you respect my opinion on netcode?

It's laggy.

because you theorize about highping not having to endure it everyday, and confuse highping with warping cunts who idd ride on +fwd lg

you confuse theory with fact :)

And ye the warping is completely rediculous although easy to fix (create a downside to it for the guy who warps). However the way QL is set up, the higher the average of the pings the more agressive one should play with lg in order to win.
So if you prefer to play +fwd lg you should just get a high ping (let's say around 55) and play your own game. That way your opponent is also forced to play that game and, because you prefer it, you'll win.

I think this is true. It's all about how quickly you learn. But I also think that certain factors in regards to how your brain perceives things is important. Basically if you're enjoying what you're doing on a certain level, you learn quicker. And also being in a creative mindset, so that you can 'think outside the box' often makes a difference.

It's no different than anything a human can do.
Not everyone is good at music
Not everyone can draw
Not everyone is good at sports

ect
ect
ect

Practice can only get you so far, and if you don't have a natural affinity towards something you won't excel.
No matter how hard some people try to play guitar they will never be good. Only a small percentage of those who are good could be considered genius.

ect
ect
ect


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera

whatever. lol

I think We can pick up a very simple example:

In a comparison it is more evident that C. Ronaldo practice much more than Messi. And it seems that Messi likely have a "natural talent" and C. Ronaldo has talent but more limited however C. Ronaldo knows where and how to practice to become a top player.

more evident that C. Ronaldo practice much more than Messi

How is that evident?

If you knew on how much C. Ronaldo practice more than Messi you would know what I am talking about. (do your research)

how is it "my research"? im not the one claiming anything. can you back up your claim or not?

If you do your research you will discover that C. Ronaldo practice like "Fatal1ty stylish". And not even only about techniques but also a lot of fitness too.

Are you lazy? :P Why would I say something that hasn't any prove?

Edit: This fact is well known by Football fanatics.

Mate, I'm a "football fanatic" and what you say is just bs. Of course Cristiano is a freak who always trains like a madman and he looks like it as well. But if you think that Messi doesn't train nearly equally as hard you're delusional. Just because he's Messi he is not exempt from the need of training to retain this level of football.

Ronaldo and Messi are two of the most talented players in the world today which makes this comparison pretty weak. A better one would be Dirk Kuyt or someone like that. A player whose hard work really overshadows his lack of ability in many areas (although Kuyt is better than he is credited for).

I also doubt that you know anything factual about Messi's training regime but I can assure you he isn't that good just because God gave him the ability or some shit like that. They're both complete freaks of nature. This "well-known fact" is just wishful thinking by people who want to create some sort of fairy tale-esque narrative.

You are wrong, Messi practice but not as much as C. Ronaldo this is a fact and everyone knows it. It is evident that C. Ronaldo has talent but not as much as players like Messi, Aguero, Ronaldinho and many others, this is damn evident. I will just point out one thing: look at C. Ronaldo's dribbling skill, it is based on SPEED and not by "dribbling" itself, like Kaka.

I can even make a comparison by Romario and any other strike in the world and I guarantee that Romario hasn't practice as much as any other in the world, and this is also a fact.

And because you do not agree doesn't mean that I said "bs". I've been a football player till my 16s and I played for such good teams in my region and I pretty know what training means. As I said, do your research and you will figure this out, better than just look at the post, do not agree and comment many controversies without even checking the information.

edit: http://www.ojogo.pt/Internacional/interior.as...id=3157653

you see?

It is evident that C. Ronaldo has talent but not as much as players like Messi, Aguero, Ronaldinho

I think you're mistaking "talent" with "dribbling" because all players you listed are better at dribbling (Agüero is debatable) but that's not everything football is about.

Just to show how far off Messi and Cristiano are off everyone else, have some statistics. Don't tell me that Cristiano just is that high up because he works harder than Agüero or other strikers that have more talent than him according to you. There are no forwards who come close to Messi and Cristiano in terms of talent.

Of course there are many players who never fulfilled their full potential but as they never fulfilled it we will never know how talented they really were. Still, saying that Cristiano isn't as talented is just plain wrong. I mean, he was dominating United at the age of 18 (while playing for Sporting). He was a kid back then, not the physical freak he is today and he still was so good that he was signed soon after.

Also, you still have to provide proof that Messi trains less. But I doubt that information like that is publicly available to be honest.

My friend, honestly you just want to be against of what I said, nothing that you said proves your "theory".

Honesly, watch Zico's videos on youtube and compare with C. Ronaldo, if you tell me that C. Ronaldo has more talented than Zico then I can attest my theory that you just want to be "in the other way". Dunno if it is by lack of knowledge or because of your ego.

:P

Again you have nothing to say against of what I have posted here (the ibrahomovic's comment).

How old are you pall ?

(based on dribbling, OK! >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZxvYy5-ekI )

And again you just talk about dribbling. I didn't comment on Ibra's statement because I made my post before your edit (but it took 3 hours to get approved by an admin or something).

And it:s simple: it's just gossip talk. It's not even close to factual information on Messi's training regime but only the obvious observation everyone makes when looking at both: one looks athletic, the other one looks agile and that's why the more athletic one must be the training freak while it's all natural for the agile one? Ridiculous.

Again: I'm not saying that Ronaldo doesn't train more than Messi because he probably does for the reason that his game is much more physical but you seem to be under the impression that Messi doesn't train like a madman every day and that everything "just comes to him" because of his talent or something. Just because his play style isn't as physical it doesn't mean that he's lazy and doesn't need to train nearly equally as hard. He's the best player in the world ffs. You don't get the best at such a sport by just having talent.

I'm also baffled that you are really trying to tell me that Cristiano Ronaldo is not one of the most talented footballers of all time. The man who has scored 187 goals in 170 appearances for RM in one of the strongest leagues in the world. I mean, what?

Also, this may sound rude but you don't seem to understand how a discussion works. You made the claim that

it is more evident that C. Ronaldo practice much more than Messi

which you didn't back up with any facts (and I'm talking about real facts, not Ibra saying that Messi is more natural).

Lastly, players from different eras are incomparable. Zico was great of course but football was completely different back then. Every third league player nowadays would run riot in 70s football.

I guess we won't ever agree on this, friend.

If you do your research you will discover that C. Ronaldo practice like "Fatal1ty stylish".

Show me the "research", otherwise I say it doesn't exist.

Are you lazy?

Dude come on. The onus is on you to back up your claim, not me. I guess now you are just stalling because you have nothing.

The last time that I saw it was in a brazilian tv program that shows every sunday called: Esporte Espetacular. Unfortunately Globo company owns the video and they do not allow much free videos of their coverages on youtube of anything else.

Honestly I will do a research again (and I also saw some facts about it on their website: globoesporte.globo.com, I saw it some years ago), we in brazil are some sort of fanatics, for example I bet that not many people know that the german national football association do some support to small teams in order for them to make new players with all support they need, they showed it on sunday again, and many other facts.

http://www.ojogo.pt/Internacional/interior.as...id=3157653

go to translate.google.com and read it.

you see? :P

edit: i didn't even had to research a lot

Great, you found a second-hand report of hearsay in a language I don't understand. This is what you call "research"?

edit: people with bad will.

whats "bad will"? either stand by your original post or delete it, rather than just editing it to insult me

There are definitely a couple of interviews with Thierry Henry where he considers Messi to be more naturally talented than the harder-working Ronaldo. This is first one I could find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyIgPqOpMWY

Edit: And Rio says in same interview that Ronaldo is the hardest working player he's ever played with

Edit Edit: Obviously this isn't 'evidence', but the judgement of high quality footballers must count for something

The music test seemed flawed. Their practice probably wasn't for the kind of test they conducted which measured musical ear and shit. Usually when you practice music you are practicing the fingering to play a certain piece or a scale.

They don't place any value to the quality of the practice. Maybe the people who practiced less may have practiced with greater intensity.

What comes to the rest, I've always wondered why can't the will to practice also be considered a genetic disposition. One anecdote is that Michael Jordan was the most fierce competitor in any sport. He hated losing and that competitive drive made him practice more than the rest (he had good genes too). My theory is that this competitiveness is important part too, it's the reason why men beat women in also "non-physique-based" competitive activities.

100% agree on the competitiveness part!
and i also think that the quality of practice comes along with the level of competitiveness.

I think the music test was actually limited to execution. Interpretation is really hard to evaluate objectively.

The article does differentiate "practice" from "deliberate practice". But I agree that the quality of the practice does affect results a lot.

If you have the "natural talent" to do something, it's only normal you feel good doing it. So yeah, that enjoyment would lead you to wanting to practice it more.

Everything is genetics.

Except those things that are not.

Discuss.

yes

no

You're wrong.

I was hoping someone would answer "maybe". You ruined it.

Oops! I can edit my post, if you want. ;)

Have a plus [+] to feel better.

i dont really care about being the best. i wanna beat my opponent when im playing against him, but as long as im not bad or mediocre in the grand scheme of things im kinda satisfied

Only when dealing with cutting edge mental or physical exercises can you talk about genetics being a deciding factor. You could for example argue black people are better at high intensity physical exercise because of slavery, regardless of the social taboo because its inconvenient to mention there were some good things to come from Slavery.

But no doubt SOME GAMERS are lucky in the sense that they seem to elevate towards certain games, or excel at certain mechanics of those games.

But you could train any kid to be top tier at most things in life, all they need is a desire for it, and the right people behind them to push them.

I saw it all the time when I raced motorbikes, some kids were so much better than others, and when you look behind the scenes, these kids were training every day after school, instead of riding around a field in circles once a week like some of us did.

So for me I don't think its genetic, if it is, any differences can be overcome with hard work, desire and the right people behind you, quake or most things in life at not at a high enough frequency to be decided by genetics.

Yeah like we didn't have any slavery in the eu. It just had a different name)). Educat pl0x

And the "Most Incoherent Post of the Day" reward goes to...

It's not fair.

First a bafta and now this award, too?! Man... some guys have all the luck.

In one of the researches they cite, twins were tested and they found that in the case of true twins (exact same DNA) if one of them has a genetic predisposition for something, so does the other. When they are not true twins (50% equal DNA), the correlations drops to almost the average.

There are things you can't achieve with any amount of practice, even if you start really young, unless you have the genes for it. Take the case of top athletes, for instance:

Along the same lines, biologist Michael Lombardo and psychologist Robert Deaner examined the biographies of male and female Olympic sprinters such as Jesse Owens, Marion Jones, and Usain Bolt, and found that, in all cases, they were exceptional compared with their competitors from the very start of their sprinting careers—before they had accumulated much more practice than their peers.

I already pointed out the latter. But as I said, Quake is not that highly tuned.

Could be, if there was more competition, more cash on the line. As it is now, it's "easy" for top players to dominate the scene.

Its not easy at all, the best players played for years to get to where they are.

And there's been plenty of money in quake, I doubt a single quake pro set out to play the game for money when they learned the core skills.

Most of the guys just wanted to win at the top game.

It's just about numbers. If there were thousands of top players dedicated to the game instead of just a few dozens, the competitive level would be much higher.

You can say that to rubbish anything or anyone as numbers are infinite. If there were thousands at the top, you could say if there were millions, if there were millions, you could say billions.

Its not acceptable.

There is only room for a handful of people at the top of any sport.
Quake has had hundreds of thousands of people playing it over the years, many with the intention of making it, so if you're the best, or thereabouts then you can only ever beat what's in front of you.
many gave up.

There are few other sports harder than quake, in football, you can make a good living playing in the 3rd or 4th division, and 10's of thousands across the world do, in videogames, only a handful do and probably more people play games than football and the games industry is massive, probably even richer than football.

Meh.

Quake is so harsh, it only rewards the messi and ronaldos.

:o c=====================3
:o====================3
c==========:o=========3

Aiming skillz? ;)

something I possess in neither quake nor sex :(

Man... I totally relate to that! ;)

Here's a great article on the role of genetics in sports:

How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners.

"He says that while we tend to think of Kenyans as really good distance runners, all these runners are actually from the same tribe of Kenyans known as the Kalenjin. They number around 5 million, making them a small minority, even in Kenya, yet they dominate most of the world's long-distance races."

"There are 17 American men in history who have run under 2:10 in the marathon," Epstein says. "There were 32 Kalenjin who did it in October of 2011."

Radiolab podcast about this: Cut and Run.

Now we know why Kenyans dominate the marathon. :)

Nice read, thanks.

WMO

C O O L L E R
O
O
L
L
E
R