I suppose if you were good at something without much practice then you could call it pure talent or aptitude.

Most people who are really, really good at something have practiced it a lot, though. Maybe they wanted to practice because they have a basic talent for it. Have you ever heard of the "10,000 hour rule"? It says that it takes around 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in a field.

Not everyone agrees with it, but it's mainly pointing out that people who are very, very good at things usually have spent an immense amount of time doing them.

Part of me wonders if you've heard someone say something like "Well, she SHOULD be good at X; she's spent enough time practicing."

I have also heard people argue that if someone is "talented" at something, then they are naturally good at it and don't have to practice it a lot. There may be not-that-difficult things that that holds true for, but in my opinion, being good at something without practicing is not superior than being good at something because you've practiced.

A Mozart comes along occasionally, but it's rare. Thomas Edison's formula for "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" will get you a lot further in life.