What are Fundamentals? - An honest Question

[Shark Tank]

See, people don't hate you. Not in this thread at least

 

[Doombawkz]

See, people don't hate you. Not in this thread at least

One of few. Most do.


Though for the sake of it, me being the odd-man-out, can we all agree that fundamentals are a mastery of the basics and their utilization in the game at large?

If we can, can we move onto the idea of "does anyone truly lack fundamentals at a high level"?

 

[Juggs]

Specifically, fundamentals include but aren't limited to; anti airing, spacing, blocking, situational awareness, movement, footsies, reads/reactions, offense/defense, etc. I mean, it isn't only those things, but fundamentals aren't anything "special". It's just a collection of basic things most people already know about.

Having good fundamentals is like having a good frame or foundation. It isn't necessary to have good fundamentals in order to succeed. And likewise, having good fundamentals doesn't necessarily mean you will be successful either. The reason players like Chris G, REO, Sonic Fox, Justin Wong can be successful earlier in new games than most people, can get better quicker, and can play multiple fighters at a high level has A LOT to do with how solid their fundamentals are. Of course, these are also all talented players and are gifted, but fundamentals can always be fallen back on, even when you know very little about the game.

That said, there's general FG fundamentals, then there's game specific fundamentals. The fundamentals for blocking are very different in MK compared to SF for instance.

Fundamentals can get you far and can be like a safety blanket when all else fails. BUT, good fundamentals alone aren't enough to win majors. You don't just frame a house on a solid foundation then sale it, or live in it for that matter. You fill it out, you complete it, you make it your home.

 

[Briggs8417]

One of few. Most do.


Though for the sake of it, me being the odd-man-out, can we all agree that fundamentals are a mastery of the basics and their utilization in the game at large?

Only reason I would disagree with this is that if you learn the basics of the mechanics of one game, and try to apply them to another, you'll most likely fail to do so.
If we can, can we move onto the idea of "does anyone truly lack fundamentals at a high level"?

It's not a matter of lacking fundamentals ata high level, but just not being quite as polished in some areas as others. I, for example, have reactions that I wish were better. I compensate for this by always playing where I give myself enough space or read my opponent to create opportunities to react to what my the person is trying to do.

 

[Doombawkz]

It's not a matter of lacking fundamentals ata high level, but just not being quite as polished in some areas as others. I, for example, have reactions that I wish were better. I compensate for this by always playing where I give myself enough space or read my opponent to create opportunities to react to what my the person is trying to do.

But do you have "worse" fundamentals? At the end of the day, its drawn out of one and put into another to compensate.
If you have 10 points, say spread over 5 stats, you'd have 2 points in each to be perfectly balanced.
If you have a 1 in one stat, you'd naturally put a 3 in another to compensate, as you are saying here.

So at the end of the day do you not still have 10 points?

 

[Briggs8417]

But do you have "worse" fundamentals? At the end of the day, its drawn out of one and put into another to compensate.
If you have 10 points, say spread over 5 stats, you'd have 2 points in each to be perfectly balanced.
If you have a 1 in one stat, you'd naturally put a 3 in another to compensate, as you are saying here.

So at the end of the day do you not still have 10 points?

I'm just going to go ahead and make the comparison of myself to Justin Wong. Jwong has been playing fighting games for a very long time. He understands how the fundamentals of games work more than just about anyone and can pick up pretty much any game and be good at it, where as I have played like a total of 3-5 games over 4 years. If Justin were to take his vast years of knowledge and skill and put them up against mine, I would most likely be outdone, because he does indeed have better fundamentals than I do. I totally get your viewpoint and don't completely disagree with it because anyone playing well at a high level has to have some understanding of fundamentals.

 

[Doombawkz]

I'm just going to go ahead and make the comparison of myself to Justin Wong. Jwong has been playing fighting games for a very long time. He understands how the fundamentals of games work more than just about anyone and can pick up pretty much any game and be good at it, where as I have played like a total of 3-5 games over 4 years. If Justin were to take his vast years of knowledge and skill and put them up against mine, I would most likely be outdone, because he does indeed have better fundamentals than I do. I totally get your viewpoint and don't completely disagree with it because anyone playing well at a high level has to have some understanding of fundamentals.

Well yeah, one would assume so, but not to offend I'm not 100% sure if you are considered as "high-level" as Justin Wong...
I think a better comparison would be like... last EVO. Cyrax vs Kabal, one has a different skill set needed, but the one who loses doesn't suddenly have "worse" fundamentals. Likewise, just because Kabal or Cyrax don't require every aspect of what fundamentals are doesn't mean they don't require basics.

Yeah?

 

[Briggs8417]

Well yeah, one would assume so, but not to offend I'm not 100% sure if you are considered as "high-level" as Justin Wong...
I think a better comparison would be like... last EVO. Cyrax vs Kabal, one has a different skill set needed, but the one who loses doesn't suddenly have "worse" fundamentals. Likewise, just because Kabal or Cyrax don't require every aspect of what fundamentals are doesn't mean they don't require basics.

Yeah?

Ok, so this is where we have been miscommunicating. You are using the word fundamentals as a reference to the tools available to characters in games, where I am referring player skill and knowledge. You're right characters don't shouldn't have worse fundamentals, that the point of character design and balancing. Character designs don't make up fundamentals, players do. A character can have a certain toolset and have them used in different ways, it's up to players to use their knowledge skill and preference of play to choose how to use the character.

 

[Doombawkz]

Ok, so this is where we have been miscommunicating. You are using the word fundamentals as a reference to the tools available to characters in games, where I am referring player skill and knowledge. You're right characters don't shouldn't have worse fundamentals, that the point of character design and balancing. Character designs don't make up fundamentals, players do. A character can have a certain toolset and have them used in different ways, it's up to players to use their knowledge skill and preference of play to choose how to use the character.

Yes, though I also don't agree with the simple list given, and I think fundamentals go beyond just having those qualities and thats that.
I just don't agree that certain people who play certain characters don't have "fundamentals" simply because their character doesn't use them all.
Like Batgirl players, or really any player at the top of their game, has to have strong fundamentals. Its not possible to climb without having those.
However I feel it goes beyond basics, and its how people optimize their playstyles given the tools they have and the skills they know moreso than just knowing the skills.

Our disagreeance comes from the idea of having vs using. I feel like its not enough to have strong basics, you need to be able to do as I said above. Thats what divides "fundamentals" from "strong fundamentals". Or in some case, "basics" from "fundamentals" more to speak.

 

[JDM]

This is where my problem stems with the idea that its all basics. Sure there are things that are effective, some ideas that exist in every game, but not everything carries equal weight in every game, for every character. And you are playing these characters, so you can't just disregard them and say "its just basics" because that doesn't work out for every character, in every game. A character who depends on parries needs more of one thing than another. A character who depends on armor or long limbs depends on some things less than others. Because not every character is the same, character tools NEED to be considered.

I can't fathom that its as cut, dry, and simple as "Here is a list. As long as you follow this list, you have strong fundamentals."
So then what makes someone else have less fundamentals, so long as they have everything on the list? Is it just they aren't as good at one thing? What if they give up one and are better in another due to their character? We have to stop pretending that every game, every character, and every player can fit into a to-do list and all be equal and yet not. This is why I started this topic, not only to see what everyone considered to be fundamentals, but also to see how narrowly defined they are.


Apparently they don't lack it, because its simply the basics. Everyone has them, or so I'm seeing. It would be impossible for anyone of any competent level to be lacking in fundamentals anymore than any other person or character because they can use the basic tools and apply them.

It's not really THAT cut and dry, but that's the general gist of it.

Relying on parries just means you have to rely on your reads and reactions more. Still have to be fundamentally sound to use most things. Then there's stuff like 50/50 mixups that are safe and unreactable that require nothing but execution and reads. Bottom tier level fundamentals, to use. Everyone can flip a coin and get lucky, it's nothing impressive.

No, not everyone's fundamentals are equally as strong. I have great reads, I can download people and play my opponent. However, my reactions suck pretty hard (at least in SF), and my anti airing leaves much to be desired. I still have decent fundamentals but I'm lacking in certain aspects. So I pick characters that are read based, or help my weaknesses (my anti-airing sucks, so I picked characters with some of the best anti-airs so I don't have to react as quickly to jumps as i might need to with bad anti-airs). My reads are good, so Lantern's Might is a great tool for me, same with B1. My footises are good so I use Vergil and Taskmaster in UMVC3, Aquaman and Lantern in Injustice... etc. etc.

EVERYONE has some level of fundamentals. But trust me, once you actually work on them you'll see a huge difference. You'll understand what they are once you start playing multiple games and can do things in it just because. Street Fighter really improved my fundamentals a lot.

 

[Doombawkz]

It's not really THAT cut and dry, but that's the general gist of it.


EVERYONE has some level of fundamentals. But trust me, once you actually work on them you'll see a huge difference. You'll understand what they are once you start playing multiple games and can do things in it just because. Street Fighter really improved my fundamentals a lot.

(I play multiple games )

The point isn't if people have them or not, because as I've said, everyone at a top level has to have some strong fundamentals or they wouldn't be there. I just hate that the definition leaves very little room for the actual player's utilization. Using it in a match is one thing, but reactions don't necessarily give way to responses. I think an intimate knowledge of the system is required to actually have "strong" fundamentals. You can recognize what you lack, and pick characters that represent the strengths or cover the weaknesses. That's good, but that doesn't necessarily fit within your guideline that you gave me before.

If a player just has basic game skills, but lacks the other elements that really give that player a "strength", then do they have strong fundamentals? Also if a player is lacking in some fields but stronger in others, do they not still have the same fundamentals as someone who is perfectly well-rounded?

I think you'd have strong fundamentals, namely because when you talk about the game or your experience with it you don't mention "I worked on my standing jab 1000 times", you mention how you used your knowledge, your "fundamentals", if you will, to go beyond simple basics and reach another level, what one would consider "strong fundamentals". Me personally, I'm a bit more critical of this kind of thing, so I think its a transition from "basics" to "fundamentals". From having to using. Do you see my point of things?

 

[Eddy Wang]

Fundamentals in a basketball player:
Good ball handling, passing , correct consistent shooting, teamwork, and game knowledge.

So it's a mastery, of the universal traits ( non related to physical talent) which enable success in the game. Some of these are subjective, such as correct shooting. Reggie miller's shot was not perfectly fundamental but he was on of the greatest shooters ever.

In any sort of mastery, usually their are universal traits required, I.e. Patience discipline, precision, consistency, feel.

I would say these correlate to fighters

So the universal traits which correlate to success in fighters Imo would be:

Space control
Footsie
Patience
Analyzation of opponent
Playing matchups/neutral perfectly/ developing reactionary play
Execution
Defense
Pressure ability
Punishment

Some players aren't as complete as others but still find success because their character is so powerful it only requires some of the traits above.

An example of this would be Shaquille o'neal. He isn't a great shooter or handler ( for his size he's great but universally no) but he just powers his way and is one of the most dominant players in history. It's kind of like doomsday players just power their way in without having space control or footsies or forced to play really complicated neutrals. They just power in and dunk it.

Some players simply rely on great pressure and reads more heavily then a more universally complete balanced playstyle.

One of the reasons people frown on inj. Is because the op tools overshadow things like space control, footsies, and reactionary play... Imo the most skillful arts along with playing opponent

+1

This guy knows his shit, pecka fucking powa ladies and gents.

 

[FinalBoss_FGC]

Fundamentals in sports are mastery of basics.

Tom Brady of the Patriots is the definition of a fundamentally strong player. Tight spiral, doesn't scramble out of the pocket, fast and consistent form, doesn't heave downfield unless the play is drawn up that way, so-on.

So when someone (out of context or not) mentions "Best fundamentals" on TYM, I think of people who master spacing, footsies, combo execution and punishing.

To me, these players don't YOLO a lot, they go for what's safe and still being effective.

They look like they aren't really doing much, but they are controlling the match at their pace.

 

[Doombawkz]

To me, these players don't YOLO a lot, they go for what's safe and still being effective.

They look like they aren't really doing much, but they are controlling the match at their pace.

While this is true, does this mean YOLO players don't have good fundamentals? I'd think forcing a response is just as effective as preparing to respond to anything. Both require certain skills so they don't get blown up; as for being YOLO, or rather, they can recognize when going unorthodox will be effective.
Case and point: Sonicfox.
Sports case and point: Mohommad Ali, who would often outbox other in-fighters by knowing when to bob in and out, rather than simply waiting for the opponent to close.

 

[FinalBoss_FGC]

While this is true, does this mean YOLO players don't have good fundamentals? I'd think forcing a response is just as effective as preparing to respond to anything. Both require certain skills so they don't get blown up; as for being YOLO, or rather, they can recognize when going unorthodox will be effective.
Case and point: Sonicfox.
Sports case and point: Mohommad Ali, who would often outbox other in-fighters by knowing when to bob in and out, rather than simply waiting for the opponent to close.

I'm just saying players that stick strictly to fundamentals do those things.

I'd never, in this world or the next, say @SonicFox5000 has poor fundamentals because he has the YOLO factor. I just feel YOLO is more flashy...like the attempt to dunk on someone or the attempt to hurdle a tackler. If you pipe the defender or hurdle them, you get top ten on SportsCenter...if they block you or grab you and slam you...they get top ten on SportsCenter haha

 

[Doombawkz]

I'm just saying players that stick strictly to fundamentals do those things.

I'd never, in this world or the next, say @SonicFox5000 has poor fundamentals because he has the YOLO factor. I just feel YOLO is more flashy...like the attempt to dunk on someone or the attempt to hurdle a tackler. If you pipe the defender or hurdle them, you get top ten on SportsCenter...if they block you or grab you and slam you...they get top ten on SportsCenter haha

I guess, but again, I would stress that "fundamentals" isn't to be used as a blanket term. Not all players are the same, after all, so what they consider "fundamental" might not be the same for someone else. Bane player's fundamental is far from the same as say... a Flash's fundamental. While the concept might be the same, there are differences in playstyle we can't ignore, nor can we consider one side "fundamental" and the other side not.

Its not just "spacing, defense, anti-airs, etc", its how each player or character tackles each specific avenue of it. Thats why strong players are recognizable for how they play.

Thats why I feel knowing the basics =/= utilizing them.

I feel like Yolo is a certain term we've almost cursed his playstyle with. Its smart play most of the time, its never obvious and it takes most people by surprise, and if it doesn't work he can shift gears. Its never reckless, so I wouldn't say its "yolo". Thats just me though.

Sorry if it isn't making sense. I'm not saying fundamentals aren't the basics or some kind of mastery, I promise.

 

[FinalBoss_FGC]

I guess, but again, I would stress that "fundamentals" isn't to be used as a blanket term. Not all players are the same, after all, so what they consider "fundamental" might not be the same for someone else. Bane player's fundamental is far from the same as say... a Flash's fundamental. While the concept might be the same, there are differences in playstyle we can't ignore, nor can we consider one side "fundamental" and the other side not.

Its not just "spacing, defense, anti-airs, etc", its how each player or character tackles each specific avenue of it. Thats why strong players are recognizable for how they play.

Thats why I feel knowing the basics =/= utilizing them.

I feel like Yolo is a certain term we've almost cursed his playstyle with. Its smart play most of the time, its never obvious and it takes most people by surprise, and if it doesn't work he can shift gears. Its never reckless, so I wouldn't say its "yolo". Thats just me though.

Sorry if it isn't making sense. I'm not saying fundamentals aren't the basics or some kind of mastery, I promise.

No, I understand what you are saying.

I just think the term "fundamentals" (at least, in my definition) is the universal application of basics to help you do more advanced gameplay.

I do not believe fundamentals and a specific character's meta are the same thing.

Because you have to understand footsies, zoning, reading opponent and so-on in order to apply the meta of a character.

That being said, I believe it is impossible to be a top player without great fundamentals because fundamentals is just what you learn by playing the game.

For instance (probably a poor example but I'm at work so it's hard to really dwell in the subject), knowing how to pressure can translate from Ultra to Injustice. Because pressure is pressure and zoning is zoning. But using Batman's trait to make his pressure options safe is meta and using Kenshi's up-sword to antiair then shoulder to push back for zoning game in meta.

So understanding how to pressure or how to zone is fundamentals but using the specific character tools is meta.

That's why Chris G can pick up any fighting game and dominate

So adapting to characters can even be under fundamentals, by my definition

 

[PPJ]

You're not wrong, but all the same. Your input is valued if you have a personal definition for it.

just wanted to heel it up lol

 

[Doombawkz]

just wanted to heel it up lol

You're too pretty.

 

[STB Shujinkydink]

Every minute you spend not getting better your opponent is.

I think I've seen this thread like 10 times lol quit talking and start playing!

 

[Charybdis]

Fundamentals, to me, are the basics in everything from spacing to timing to execution to anti-airs. The bare necessities required to play the game at a competent level that some players excel at to the degree where they can cancel out tactics that are actually more effective in the game: for instance, Chris G puts substantially less time into IGAU than most other players but his fundamentals are just goddamn good that it doesn't matter, he can still compete at the highest level.

Basically, fundamentals are just the beginner levels of the game. To use a real life martial arts example, the simplest joint lock in Judo or BJJ or MMA is a straight armbar. It's probably the first submission you teach someone. It's fundamental. But you see the likes of Shaolin Ribeiro or Caio Terra or Rickson Gracie (or Ronda Rousey if you're a filthy MMA peasant ) and they just slice through people with it. My BJJ coach told me a story once: a guy he trained with at a club in the US for five years trained armbars every day, every training session. Every roll (sparring session), he'd always be trying to get an armbar. And for years, everyone knew he was working for an armbar and so just avoided it. But eventually he got so fucking good at that fundamental submission he could slap it on everyone whenever he wanted. His fundamentals were just so fucking good.

The problem is some people have decided to interpret fundamentals as something you cite when you get your back blown out but can't accept it. For instance, "oh yeah @SonicFox5000 may have won our set 10-0 but he uses Batgirl and has no fundamentals, while my precious (insert character not named Martian Manhunter here) actually requires fundamentals, not just throwing out random shit". If people who don't know how to play the game accuse zoners of being 'spammers', then people who do know how to play the game often accuse people who go against the rules they've constructed as how you 'have to' play the game of 'lacking fundamentals'.

Just to balance this out, everyone who uses a top tier character lacks fundamentals and should be tournament-banned

 

[Swindle]

Fundamentals in sports are mastery of basics.

Tom Brady of the Patriots is the definition of a fundamentally strong player. Tight spiral, doesn't scramble out of the pocket, fast and consistent form, doesn't heave downfield unless the play is drawn up that way, so-on.

So when someone (out of context or not) mentions "Best fundamentals" on TYM, I think of people who master spacing, footsies, combo execution and punishing.

To me, these players don't YOLO a lot, they go for what's safe and still being effective.

They look like they aren't really doing much, but they are controlling the match at their pace.

I agree with this post the most, although THTB is pretty spot-on too.
Spacing (including footsies), execution, and blocking/guarding are fundamental. Many here are making the term way too complicated, and adding other non-fundamental elements that make up a good FG player. Beyond fundamentals you have reads, reactions, and creating situational events like pressure. These are NOT fundamental, but are necessary to win consistently in competition. "Fundamental" is a term easily manipulated, due to the fact that most (nay, all) FG's have character-specific tools and/or mechanics that allow people to exploit the game engine to trump or ignore solid fundamentals. Solid fundamentals never guarantee a win, but can certainly be the game-changer when mistakes are made by your opponent.

 

[Montanx]

As I see it, there's two phases of the game, fundamentals and combo execution. Fundamentals are simply everything in mk that isn't on combo videos.

 

[Akromaniac27]

I think meter management is another core basic that gets overlooked. Injustice gives out meter like candy yeah, but what good is it if you sit on full meter long enough that you could've built back 2 bars in the process back? Such as knowing meter gaining combos and when it's the best time to use it, especially when closing a round. Those extra special uses within combos in the long run help build up about a bars worth that will save your ass in the late game, mainly because you'll be doing 3 combos give or take per round if they're punishes anyways.

Players that know how to use this to the best that they can imo, can be seen with characters like:

Raven, Harley, MMH, Zod, Nightwing, Zatanna, and some more I can't think of at the top of my head because I'm like half asleep....

These characters "seem" like they never run out of meter, but it's really exceptional meter management because they know when and where to whiff specials, throw them out, and when to burn it to gain some back. I'd suggest Aquaderp, but his is like auto everything, so I doesn't count lol

 

[RyuKazuya]

Well i would say we have different sorts of fundamentals .

1. general fundamentals
Fundamentals that consist of basic knowledeg on fighting games in general
knowledge about punishment for instance. Also techs and setups that can be found in nearly every fighting game.(meety, safejump and other stuff like that)

2.Game specific fundamentals
Those fundamentals refer to a specific game. Things that work out for a certain game. Lets say knowing the special sidestepping fundamentals for tekken , which cannot be used in other games as well as in tekken.

3.Character specific fundamentals
fundamental knowledge about a certain character on how to poke and how to play safely. Noob saibot for instance.
You have to know how to use his upknee or his shadow charge properly to avoid getting hit.

4. Matchup specific fundamentals
As the name says it refers to the fundamental knowledge of a certain matchup. lets say johnny cage vs noob saibot. Noob saibot as to keep cage away as far as he can to aviod being fried. Then trying to bait out a ex shadow kick and punish severly.
( just a short example)

I call this the theory of fundamental levels ^^