What are Fundamentals? - An honest Question

[RunwayMafia]

Basics and general fundamentals aside, I think the true ability that sets players apart is adaptability and anticipation. Combine that skill with strong defense and you are going to be very difficult to defeat. I'm a huge fan of interrupting strings and/or countering "false" strings.

You can tell when a player starts to download your bs...it's beautiful to watch.

 

[kabelfritz]

fundamentals are when you walk forward and backward

 

[Big Pampering]

Analysing, and adapting are what makes the best top players different imo. Spacing, risk/reward mindset, fighting game knowledge should be a given to be a good player. Analysing and adapting after just playing one match is what makes a player different. Almost every player can adapt, but not after just one game. The reason why you lost is not always that apparant after just one game. Analysing and adapting is not a skill that you can easily improve, you need a lot of experience for it to grow.

Some people also don't adapt at all after winning a game. A lot of players will be like why do I have to adapt after I just won a game? Because the opponent might have adapted to what you just did and it is a given that you need to play as good as possible and that is only possible if you analyse and adapt to the information you got from playing the first game against your oponent.

For example: especially in street fighter you often see a tournament winning player vs a consistent top 8 placer play a first to 2 set. While the first game may be very close and come down to the last round. In the second match the top 8 placing player sometimes gets completely downloaded and crushed.

Out of the nrs community Cd jr might be the best at adapting from what I have seen. This doesn't mean I think cd jr is the best in the nrs community, but he really impressed me with his KI play and has always been great at adapting in MK9. He has really grown as a player.

A player like reo for example excels in knowledge, breaking down a character, he knows whats cheap, finding tech, execution, good decision making in general etc. But when it comes to spacing, patience, adapting, analysing you gotta give it to cd jr.

 

[EGP Wonder_Chef]

Something that Batgirl and Martian Manhunter lack.

But that Wonder Chef is a master of.

I wish signatures still existed so I could sig this.

 

[Juggs]

Out of the nrs community Cd jr might be the best at adapting from what I have seen. This doesn't mean I think cd jr is the best in the nrs community, but he really impressed me with his KI play and has always been great at adapting in MK9. He has really grown as a player.

A player like reo for example excels in knowledge, breaking down a character, he knows whats cheap, finding tech, execution, good decision making in general etc. But when it comes to spacing, patience, adapting, analysing you gotta give it to cd jr.

I think adapting specifically is REO's greatest strength. The other things may go to Jr though.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

(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?

I think you're still confused about what fundamentals are. Having great fundamentals doesn't necessarily mean you're winning all the time. You can have great fundamentals but lose to lack of matchup knowledge, widely uneven matchups/overpowered tools, or lack of understanding the game's meta.

But you can see strength in fundamentals independently of whether someone won or lost the match. Great spacing, timing, execution etc. are plain to see, win or lose. Whether or not you know the game and system, you can still see them. They just might not be enough for you to beat someone who really knows the game well and abuses their advantages.

You can also see them independently of what character someone plays. If a Bane player has great spacing and timing, you'll still see it regardless of the meta.

Fundamentals aren't like, a score -- you can't just add up categories with points. But you can generally tell if someone is making good use of fighting game fundamentals or not.

Most people have not truly mastered the basics of anything they do. Fighting games are no exception to that rule.

 

[RM Truth]

just wanted to heel it up lol

Stahp. You're like the worst heel ever. Your probably tweener status at best.

 

[LRK128]

Fundamentals are blocking teleports and projectiles, blocking when you're not attacking, and meter burning F3.

 

[Doombawkz]

I think you're still confused about what fundamentals are. Having great fundamentals doesn't necessarily mean you're winning all the time. You can have great fundamentals but lose to lack of matchup knowledge, widely uneven matchups/overpowered tools, or lack of understanding the game's meta.

But you can see strength in fundamentals independently of whether someone won or lost the match. Great spacing, timing, execution etc. are plain to see, win or lose. Whether or not you know the game and system, you can still see them. They just might not be enough for you to beat someone who really knows the game well and abuses their advantages.

You can also see them independently of what character someone plays. If a Bane player has great spacing and timing, you'll still see it regardless of the meta.

Fundamentals aren't like, a score -- you can't just add up categories with points. But you can generally tell if someone is making good use of fighting game fundamentals or not.

Most people have not truly mastered the basics of anything they do. Fighting games are no exception to that rule.

The problem is people claim other people are "lacking" in fundamentals. I believe anyone can have fundamentals, but strong fundamentals are a different story.

No division between them means no one truly "lacks" anything involving it.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The problem is people claim other people are "lacking" in fundamentals. I believe anyone can have fundamentals, but strong fundamentals are a different story.

No division between them means no one truly "lacks" anything involving it.

How is it possible that no one can lack fundamentals? That doesn't really make sense.

It's not something to be mad about; it's something to work on. It's more for player improvement than ego satisfaction.

 

[Doombawkz]

How is it possible that no one can lack fundamentals? That doesn't really make sense.

It's not something to be mad about; it's something to work on. It's more for player improvement than ego satisfaction.

At a top level, no one should lack fundamental knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn't compete at a top level, yes?

 

[Ra Helios]

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

Patience and defense is what I lack but Im getting better at it.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

At a top level, no one should lack fundamental knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn't compete at a top level, yes?

Well it depends on how you define "top level". But there's a real difference between "should" and "does in actuality".

 

[Doombawkz]

Well it depends on how you define "top level". But there's a real difference between "should" and "does in actuality".

If what fundamentals are is the basics, then it should be impossible for someone to exist as a "top level" player and lack even one of those in any sort of complete manner.

Your execution can't be completely dead, your defense has to at least exist, you have to have some semblance to spacing, and so on. You cannot outright "lack" a fundamental and function against people who do not lack it. As you said, its not necessarily a points system, but then if thats the case is it simply a have or don't have situation?

By top level I mean Max, Sonicfox, Pig, people who can walk into a tournament and be argued to take up a top 8 or even winning the thing entirely.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Your execution can't be completely dead, your defense has to at least exist, you have to have some semblance to spacing, and so on. You cannot outright "lack" a fundamental and function against people who do not lack it. As you said, its not necessarily a points system, but then if thats the case is it simply a have or don't have situation?

I don't understand what this means. If you say someone is lacking in discipline, it means their discipline is not very good. If you say someone is lacking in fundamentals, it means their fundamentals aren't very good.

In a community as small as ours, it is very well possible for people to compensate for a lack of certain fundamentals with a notable strength in another area.

But if you point is that the people winning tournaments need at least some kind of fundamentals, I think most people would agree.

 

[Doombawkz]

I don't understand what this means. If you say someone is lacking in discipline, it means their discipline is not very good. If you say someone is lacking in fundamentals, it means their fundamentals aren't very good.

In a community as small as ours, it is very well possible for people to compensate for a lack of certain fundamentals with a notable strength in another area.

But if you point is that they people winning tournaments need at least some kind of fundamentals, I think most people would agree.

Lacking in something means they have a less-than-satisfactory amount, yes. Fundamentals are the basics, the barebones, step 1 process of the game.
If you lack in something thats a basic building-block, then you probably don't exist in a high level area. Thats all there is to the point, you can have fundamentals, you can have some weaker than others, but you cannot lack something thats required to function at any level.

Saying someone has simply less of something else is one thing, someone can have strong fundamentals but not as strong as someone else. However, to say that they "lack" fundamentals isn't possible. If you can build a house, and someone else can build a slightly worse house, that person isn't lacking a house. However, if they cannot use a hammer, then they lack a house.

They have fundamentals, of some varying degree they have them, but to lack them and yet be a top level player just isn't possible. They can have weaknesses, but not outright lack the entire concept. This topic was more to clarify after reading M2Dave's "best fundamentals" topic and seeing some people say people like Forever King "lack fundamentals because he counterpicks". This forced me to be like "Is that what fundamentals really means?"

 

[PainForge]

@Doombawkz Your posts made me think about some questions I had that are relevant to the discussion, which is: When you consider the highest level of play, how much do both player reads and matchup knowledge matter in your opinion? Does one thing matter more than another or are they equal? Do you think reads on a player matter more when your character has a highly disadvantageous matchup?

 

[Doombawkz]

@Doombawkz Your posts made me think about some questions I had that are relevant to the discussion, which is: When you consider the highest level of play, how much do both player reads and matchup knowledge matter in your opinion? Does one thing matter more than another or are they equal? Do you think reads on a player matter more when your character has a highly disadvantageous matchup?

If you are asking me personally, At the highest level I feel knowledge is always more important than reads. Knowing the Match-up means knowing the options and having potential answers, some of which are more effective than others. One can make a much more consistent and stable gameplan based on what they know the opponent is capable of. Making a read is great, however I feel like one cannot always depend othe idea that the opponent is going to do something because often the answers are not as safe or as good as what one could do when covering their bases.

As far as a huge disadvantage, sometimes reads can be a good equalizer but I still say Mu knowledge trumps it.

 

[Chaosphere]

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

Those all seem to be every category that makes up a good player. What's the difference between someone who is a good player and someone who has good fundamentals? Or are they the same thing?

 

[Peckapowa]

Those all seem to be every category that makes up a good player. What's the difference between someone who is a good player and someone who has good fundamentals? Or are they the same thing?

If you define a good player by winning, then not all players have great fundamentals because not all characters require equal mastery of the various fundamentals to succeed with. Also people can have very solid fundamentals but not take enough risks or make as many reads.nthats the area they lack. Or they don't have very good setups

 

[Doombawkz]

If you define a good player by winning, then not all players have great fundamentals because not all characters require equal mastery of the various fundamentals to succeed with. Also people can have very solid fundamentals but not take enough risks or make as many reads.nthats the area they lack. Or they don't have very good setups

But does anyone outright not have fundamentals at the upper levels?

 

[Barrogh]

Well, I'll just say that I expected people to jump the OP who happen to be Bane player for asking the definition of fundamentals

Um, sorry, carry on.

 

[Doombawkz]

Well, I'll just say that I expected people to jump the OP who happen to be Bane player for asking the definition of fundamentals

Um, sorry, carry on.

Someone did on the first page, until they realized that I do, in fact, lack fundamentals regardless.

 

[Peckapowa]

But does anyone outright not have fundamentals at the upper levels?

Nobody doesn't have them I suppose, nor is anyone perfect. Diff. Levels of them

 

[Chaosphere]

If you define a good player by winning, then not all players have great fundamentals because not all characters require equal mastery of the various fundamentals to succeed with. Also people can have very solid fundamentals but not take enough risks or make as many reads.nthats the area they lack. Or they don't have very good setups

I see what you mean. I generally like to deal with specifics and a lot of these terms are very vague, such as "analyzation of the opponent." BUT I totally get what you're saying and your explanation has been the best one so far.