It's not just training and tallent. It's a ASSLOAD of training and tallent. Even among their competitors you are talking about the cream of the crop. The most tallented and hardest trained. The very best!
Also, some of them drink their own pee. So you could always try that...
Why talent ... for instance, the music example. Some people are just better at differentiating between sounds, rhythm and stuff. Even if you have two people doing the exact same thing, same dedication, etc. One will be better, that is called talent.
There are many athletes out there who are hard workers but they lack talent. They will be pros and all but they won't make it to the top.
As for timing, you need to make the right move at the right time, if in fighting or in a career sense. Too early and all your potential goes *puff* because you were not ready yet, the moment wasn't there. Too late and everything has changed and what once was great or could have been is yesterdays news.
Luck (I like to call it chance) is the fact of summing up positive eventualities, stacked in your favor. At the top level, with people being so close to one another, many things could go either way. We are just not aware of it... or it is hard to prove. With proper preparation and such you can try to reduce luck to a minimum but it is still there.
To emphasize all that, take the first Anderson-Sonnen fight. Anderson was about to lose that one but luckily sonnen just kept throwing that triangle at him.... Had he taken it to early, sonnen could have powered out/not tap... had he taken it to late... he would have lost the fight. He has talent because he knows when to play what move. Dedication at that level is no question. As for the chance aspect... hard to put your finger on it, because life doesn't show stats on "could have" events.
I have already conceded that people's careers can be impacted by pure chance, but more often than not luck is an excuse people use when they're not good enough or when they just flat out **** up. Luck had NO bearing on the Silva / Sonnen fight. There is no such thing as a lucky submission. What's the saying? The harder I train, the luckier I get. Funny how that works.
Originally Posted by franginho
I disagree with your timing example. If you can crush motherfuckers you can crush motherfuckers. If you're that good, you can still make it to the top taking some losses. That's definitely the case in MMA. Look at the records of most of the champs / former champs. If you're a bonafide world class fighter, your career is not going to go puff because you lose a fight.
Your talent examples aren't convincing me either. You say Anderson Silva demonstrated talent by knowing when to play what move. How can you determine his win was a result of talent and not skill gained through hard work? You can't.
Also not buying your musical talent example. The best musicians find a way to make great music despite their limitations. If they said oh well, **** it, I guess I'm not talented every time they ran into a roadblock they'd never amount to ****. It's the determination to keep training that makes them great. Django Reinhardt and his fucked up fingers. You want to talk about the ability to differentiate between sounds? **** you said Beethoven.
Last edited by Devil; 3/27/2013 10:12am at .
As I said on the luck part... it is hard to differentiate/identify.
With more training you can stack the odds in your favor but you are still subject to chance (heck I could win a fight against Anderson if he slipped and KOed himself falling... the chance exists, that is Chance/luck)
I could, as a grappling noob stumble up on a submission without going for it... that is chance, doing so repeatedly via training, that turns it into skill but I still need the setup and that I will get by chance, I can try to force the set up, but I can not control my opponents moves... chance.
As for talent... if your point were true, everybody could be good at everything, which is not true! There are people who are completely incapable of doing certain tasks, no matter how hard they try.
It has been proven that some people are better at imagining 3D objects or learning languages and such than others.
Look at all those prodigies, kids playing chess against skilled older guys and winning. Those older guys should, according to your argument, win because they have run up way more time and effort than the little fucker, yet they are outclassed, how come?
I am not saying people can not reach a certain level of success with putting in the needed effort, but they will be limited.
Look at it like a formula: Success = Talent X Effort X Timing X Luck
Thus assuming that effort&timing are the same and you are saying luck does not exist, there is only one variable to be considered, Talent.
The flaw in this argument is no you really can't. While rolling around with someone your not going to just happen to fall into a submission. Especially when working with someone that has more time on the mat then you.
Originally Posted by franginho
Truth untalented uncoordinated ass that is willing to work hard and put time in on the mat constantly beats gifted athletes.
Time on the mat working smart beats natural talent every day.
You're just digging yourself into a silly little hole with your argument about chance. Sure, Anderson could get his erect penis caught in the cage and get choked while he was trying to free his cock. It would still mean **** all to his career.
Originally Posted by franginho
Your argument about talent is weak. Cling to it if you wish. You can always fine extreme cases. OMG, Billy is a dumbshit. He can't write his name. His right leg is 8 inches shorter than his left leg. Whatever, bro. By and large, training rules. It's way more important than fucking retard luck.
Determined, able bodied people don't let their routine human limitations dictate what they achieve. Back to the music example. If you can't shred, then you play the blues. You don't accept mediocrity. Not if you want it.
You fail with your point about the chess players. My main point in this thread was a post outlining my thoughts on why people who train intensely earlier in life have an advantage.
Devil I am not to sure if the start age is so important.
One day at Judo this old man came in and kicked all our asses, turns out at the time he was considered among the best in the Srs division in the world.
I had a chance to talk to him and he didn't start doing Judo till he was in his 40s still gave him 30 years of practice.
I think it really comes down to being willing to train insistently and smart, more so than an early start.
What does tend to develop early of course is that drive to be good at what ever it is that they are doing.
My buddy Henry got Silver at the PanAms in bown belt this weekend. He isn't sitting around rejoicing that he did so well, no he is pissed at himself for not getting gold and is evaluating what he did wrong and is already back to work on fixing the little things that where the difference between gold and silver.
Its that sort of drive that separates winners from the rest.
How do I fail? Because you say so?
Originally Posted by Devil
On the point of folks training early having advantages, well here you have certain point, to a certain extend.
As you, or who ever it was, said before, you run up a lot of training time and your brain gets wired in a certain way. You develop certain capabilities that others do not develop or have to re learn.
(Funny point on this, babies are able to distinguish the intonations of the 4 chinese ma's but lose this capability if they are growing up in a non mandarin/chinese family. around 3 years of age, they will have lost it.
You can re-learn this but it is hard and will never be as good as for people who were exposed to it their entire life).
So yes, those two, more time and "structuring your brain/responses" in a special way will help.
But once more, if your argument held true completely, who starts out first will have more success, no matter what...as long as they train as hard as the others... I doubt that.
I think that practicing earlier in life tends to prime the brain to lead to more effective practice sessions, so the skilled artist gets more out of his training session than a brand new practitioner.
I am not entirely sure about this. The only thing I can point to off hand is this study about late readers
Originally Posted by Permalost
reading is a fairly complex skill. Does it compare with more physical muscle memory insensive skills? I am not sure, since the only muscle memory involved in reading is all eye related.