EPTWho do you think had the higher peak as a Zerg player: Jaedong or Soulkey?
Jaedong insane mechanics in KeSpa era or Soulkey insane gaming sense crushing ASL right? Or maybe the Maestro SaviOr?
Lets break this down!
Zerg GOAT. Soulkey vs Jaedong
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
StarCraftExplained
14 Posts
Who do you think had the higher peak as a Zerg player: Jaedong or Soulkey? Jaedong insane mechanics in KeSpa era or Soulkey insane gaming sense crushing ASL right? Or maybe the Maestro SaviOr? Lets break this down! | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1693 Posts
| ||
|
QRCode
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
atrox_
United Kingdom1711 Posts
| ||
|
Freezard
Sweden1019 Posts
| ||
|
kogeT
Poland2042 Posts
It has also been said by many pros, with current game knowledge they would win 100% of games vs "peak kespa pros". That argument is enough. A similar argument can be made about some sports, for example hammer throw, rowing etc. had their peak popularity in the past, with more people trying, more competitiveness. But the world records are being broken now, for reasons like better knowledge, technical development etc. So would you say that people of the past were the real deal..? It is a similar example but just more measurable. | ||
|
MineraIs
United States846 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19320 Posts
| ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1693 Posts
On January 29 2025 19:10 kogeT wrote: It has also been said by many pros, with current game knowledge they would win 100% of games vs "peak kespa pros". That argument is enough. There was a translated video from Zero posted years ago on TL with a similar debate, Zero was very straightforward about it. Acknowledging that strategically the game improved but as a player they were much less performant with a volume practice too low to even compare, adding that even if they would be outdated on the strat aspect kespa players would quickly adapt and it would be the end of it, and I don't think we are talking about years of adaptation here. So assuming they would win 100% of games vs peak kespa pro (which I highly doubt for mirror matches but that's all speculation from my part), the question is for how long they would win? 3 months? 6 months at best? Regardless that is beside the point of this thread, the pool players now is too small with little incentive for winning, it is an entirely different eco-system, the only reason why you could see players like Soulkey shines nowadays is exactly because it is not the Kespa era anymore. | ||
|
quaristice
114 Posts
it's was an illusion because us the foreigners were worse at the game so their execution seemed more magical. and also the skill differentials were larger between players so when someone was outplaying someone, it looked so much fancier than any modern player gets to look | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland596 Posts
On January 29 2025 20:44 iFU.pauline wrote: There was a translated video from Zero posted years ago on TL with a similar debate, Zero was very straightforward about it. Acknowledging that strategically the game improved but as a player they were much less performant with a volume practice too low to even compare, adding that even if they would be outdated on the strat aspect kespa players would quickly adapt and it would be the end of it, and I don't think we are talking about years of adaptation here. So assuming they would win 100% of games vs peak kespa pro (which I highly doubt for mirror matches but that's all speculation from my part), the question is for how long they would win? 3 months? 6 months at best? Regardless that is beside the point of this thread, the pool players now is too small with little incentive for winning, it is an entirely different eco-system, the only reason why you could see players like Soulkey shines nowadays is exactly because it is not the Kespa era anymore. If learning process was so easy, then it wouldn't take so long for people to rank up from their ranks. | ||
|
sertas
Sweden890 Posts
| ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1693 Posts
On January 29 2025 20:52 Bonyth wrote: If learning process was so easy, then it wouldn't take so long for people to rank up from their ranks. For a game that is cognitively so demanding as bw, I am confident that a younger version of yourself in a pro team training twice as more will quickly take over your current self despite the intial knowledge gap. | ||
|
quaristice
114 Posts
| ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1693 Posts
On January 29 2025 21:17 quaristice wrote: it's just straight up bad for you, psychologically and physically both. it's beyond diminishing returns, it actively makes you worse at the thing you are practicing for two reasons. the first is that you wear out your ability that you are practicing in the first place. the second is that you literally need the rest in order to improve. muscles grow not when you work out, but when you rest afterward (as a result of working out). and on the mental side, realizations and creativity happen more freely when you are not directly in front of the thing. there is a wealth of research showing this going back decades. the 12 hours practice is just bullshit, and if it worked you would see some people doing it now and getting results, but nobody does. I don't know about the wealth of reseach your are talking about, do you mind providing references? Bellow is the thread talking about this topic, unfortunately the Zero video is not available anymore. https://tl.net/forum/brood-war/551041-how-current-streamers-compare-to-past-progamers Also, Zero explicitly stated that when he switched from 30 to 20 games a day, he instantly noticed a drop in skill which doesn't align with your wealth of research. | ||
|
quaristice
114 Posts
On January 29 2025 21:25 iFU.pauline wrote: I don't know about the wealth of reseach your are talking about, do you mind providing references? Bellow is the thread talking about this topic, unfortunately the Zero video is not available anymore. https://tl.net/forum/brood-war/551041-how-current-streamers-compare-to-past-progamers Also, Zero explicitly stated that when he switched from 30 to 20 games a day, he instantly noticed a drop in skill which doesn't align with your wealth of research. i'm not in a situation atm where i can start pulling up papers but look up the terms like "overtraining syndrome", "burnout", etc. as far as 30 to 20 games, that's actually pretty different https://jackyvso.github.io/Starcraft/#A9 (i had this tab open still) shows that a zerg player's average games are going to be if we take the average of all the matchups roughly 12.7 minutes and then add say on average 4 minutes for ladder queuing and other stuff so 16.7 minutes. 16.7 times 30 games is 501 minutes. 501 minutes divided by 60 is still only 8.35 hours, not 12, which is a world of difference | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland596 Posts
| ||
|
prosatan
Romania8588 Posts
 | ||
|
kogeT
Poland2042 Posts
On January 29 2025 20:44 iFU.pauline wrote: There was a translated video from Zero posted years ago on TL with a similar debate, Zero was very straightforward about it. Acknowledging that strategically the game improved but as a player they were much less performant with a volume practice too low to even compare, adding that even if they would be outdated on the strat aspect kespa players would quickly adapt and it would be the end of it, and I don't think we are talking about years of adaptation here. So assuming they would win 100% of games vs peak kespa pro (which I highly doubt for mirror matches but that's all speculation from my part), the question is for how long they would win? 3 months? 6 months at best? Regardless that is beside the point of this thread, the pool players now is too small with little incentive for winning, it is an entirely different eco-system, the only reason why you could see players like Soulkey shines nowadays is exactly because it is not the Kespa era anymore. Yes, but you are talking the "if...". We are here answering the OP question "Who do you think had the higher peak as a Zerg player", meaning comparing current players to past players. Current players are overall better players, and if matched against their own self they would dominate with current knowledge/mechanics. Anything beyond that point is speculation. I also agree to quaristice point about watching 2008-2012 vods. There is a lot of eye sore comparing to current standards, for many reasons. It is extreamly rare to see that with current (top) players. | ||
|
Miragee
8652 Posts
On January 29 2025 20:44 iFU.pauline wrote: There was a translated video from Zero posted years ago on TL with a similar debate, Zero was very straightforward about it. Acknowledging that strategically the game improved but as a player they were much less performant with a volume practice too low to even compare, adding that even if they would be outdated on the strat aspect kespa players would quickly adapt and it would be the end of it, and I don't think we are talking about years of adaptation here. So assuming they would win 100% of games vs peak kespa pro (which I highly doubt for mirror matches but that's all speculation from my part), the question is for how long they would win? 3 months? 6 months at best? Regardless that is beside the point of this thread, the pool players now is too small with little incentive for winning, it is an entirely different eco-system, the only reason why you could see players like Soulkey shines nowadays is exactly because it is not the Kespa era anymore. Flash said something along the lines of it would take it would take his old kespa peak self about 2 weeks to adapt and then he would never lose a game against his current self again. | ||
| ||
