|
Ranking based upon current performance
This is just using current ELO. This is not representative of whether the player was dominant X months/years ago or how many gold medals a player has. All these classifications do if give a rough estimate of how dangerous the player is at this point in time. We all know BoxeR is basically the hero of everyone here, but that doesn't mean we expect him to go on a 30 game winning streak any time soon.
+ Show Spoiler +
Arbitrary classifications based upon current ELO
* 2250 + : Senior Master
* 2200 - 2249: Master
* 2150 - 2199: Expert
* 2100 - 2149: Class A
* 2050 - 2099: Class B
* 2000 - 2049: Class C
* 1950 - 1999: Class D
* 1900 - 1949: Class E
* 0 - 1899: Class F
Terran
+ Show Spoiler +
Zerg
+ Show Spoiler +
Protoss
+ Show Spoiler +
Some  Stats (lol) from the above:
+ Show Spoiler +
BONUS:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
BoxeR is D,therefor i dont take this rank seriously.
Tossgirl is F? Shouldnt she be B ..>>
|
|
|
this should be based on peaks not current ELO
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
|
u gotta skate8152 Posts
Savior should be senior master wtf FLAWED!
|
SaviOr, NaDa, iloveoov, Boxer, etc way too low... dont like it.. I know its arbitrary.. but I still gotta hate on it 
|
I THINK MVP SHOULD BE SENIOR MASTER
There's already so many other ranking systems, and this one just seems kinda flawed.
|
Ranking based upon current performance
Ranking based upon current performance
Ranking based upon current performance
Ranking based upon current performance
It's simply a presentation of information, it can't be flawed. Only your interpretation of it can be flawed.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
What is the point in dividing up ELO into classes? Why this instead of just the raw number?
|
On November 28 2008 11:18 heyoka wrote:
What is the point in dividing up ELO into classes? Why this instead of just the raw number?
Lumps of players/data are easier to look at and talk about than just a fat list.
|
On November 28 2008 11:18 heyoka wrote:
What is the point in dividing up ELO into classes? Why this instead of just the raw number?
to make us click more spoilers
|
On November 28 2008 11:25 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2008 11:18 heyoka wrote:
What is the point in dividing up ELO into classes? Why this instead of just the raw number? to make us click more spoilers
hahaha
|
hah the skill gap between jaedong and the other zerg players is kinda ridiculous based on this.
|
does anybody else not like the title senior master?
edit: I think Class S should be incorporated somewhere.
|
On November 28 2008 11:37 kNyTTyM wrote:
does anybody else not like the title senior master?
edit: I think Class S should be incorporated somewhere.
I took the naming conventions from The United States Chess Federation (USCF).
I only added Class F for the handful of players who couldn't even get 1900.
|
I think it overall looks pretty good, but they are all pro-gamers and godly much better than us -.-
|
On November 28 2008 11:26 CommanderFluffy wrote:
hah the skill gap between jaedong and the other zerg players is kinda ridiculous based on this.
It's just as ridiculous if you start watching the games where zerg gets destroyed again and again.
|
On November 28 2008 11:07 InfeSteD wrote:SaviOr, NaDa, iloveoov, Boxer, etc way too low... dont like it.. I know its arbitrary.. but I still gotta hate on it
You stopped watching SC two years ago?
|
United States2186 Posts
This is pretty amusing, thanks.
Pretty surprising to see that Flash, who has just very recently come out of a period of total suckiness, is the #1 elo, especially after Stork/Bisu's huge runs. Well I guess Stork was higher after the osl win but the osl curse sure took fast effect heh.
Would be nice to see an all time one too if you have the chance.
|
it's funny how the 16 year old is senior master. -_-a
|
nice thread;)
flash senior master GOGO
jaedong pretty lone at the top atm
|
On November 28 2008 18:39 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2008 11:07 InfeSteD wrote:SaviOr, NaDa, iloveoov, Boxer, etc way too low... dont like it.. I know its arbitrary.. but I still gotta hate on it You stopped watching SC two years ago?
Class =/= Skill imo... they are always gonna be legends,,
its like calling Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Maradona, or in a future Michael Phelps or Tiger woods a Class D just because of their current skills o_O
[edit] I guess I think of class in a diff way O_O
|
|
|
9070 Posts
reminds me of the Worms Single Player Missions. I used to be super star there
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
damn nada is class C LOL hahaha
o well i guess he isn't doing that great
but still
nada.. c.. T_T
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
My incredible respect and bias I have for past legends lead me to hate this list. I can't afford to see Nada as C. Nope, that I cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
stupid no senior master in toss xD
bisu and stork > flash ATM xD
|
bullshit ranking.. specially if they are using it on gears of war 2 .. pisses me off
specially if you use that system to set a "Class" for a progamer O_o
|
|
|
On November 28 2008 19:51 InfeSteD wrote:bullshit ranking.. specially if they are using it on gears of war 2 .. pisses me off specially if you use that system to set a "Class" for a progamer O_o
Well.. could you recommend any other method? Sure it has its flaws, but most of the time ELO does it job. For example, tossgirl is at F.. thats so fucking true.
|
On November 28 2008 19:51 InfeSteD wrote:bullshit ranking.. specially if they are using it on gears of war 2 .. pisses me off
lol you are an idiot. It was made for chess by professor of physics and master chess player more than 100 years ago. And over that 100 year period statisticians have proposed several minor improvements and variations. But never have they been able to come up with something better.
Used on Gears of War 2 so it sucks? WTF man?
specially if you use that system to set a "Class" for a progamer O_o
I also find it annoying how he used the spoiler tags. Doesn't mean ELO is not good. If you want to calculate the ELO of Boxer at his peak or something then do that.
|
NaDa is C class...ELO peaks would be alot better to be used as reference instead of their current ELO ranking.
|
This thread goes beyond pointless.
I already know what numbers are bigger than what numbers. Thanks for making these cutoffs just in case I couldn't count.
And to the people replying: oh no, see a class put to a number and get offended, yeah, i think i'll do that
|
On November 28 2008 19:30 SilverskY wrote:
My incredible respect and bias I have for past legends lead me to hate this list. I can't afford to see Nada as C. Nope, that I cannot.
What he said.
|
France231 Posts
|
How come every time someone comes with statistics, no matter how pointless or stupid, there are 10 others to say "no that's not right my favourite players should be higher". Completely missing the point.
So if you still don't understand what this ranking is I'll tell you: it's a waste of time.
|
so Jangbi is "master" being 2nd in MSL and fantasy is only "A" as 2nd in OSL? if we are talking about recent performance thats some bs right there
|
Fail list is fail.
Nada , iloveoov , Boxer , Yellow , Reach , NaI_rA ... list goes on.
These are the best of the best. You can't judge him just by looking ELO shit.
|
On November 28 2008 22:34 darkemperor wrote:
Fail list is fail.
Nada , iloveoov , Boxer , Yellow , Reach , NaI_rA ... list goes on.
These are the best of the best. You can't judge him just by looking ELO shit.
No, your the retard who forgot to read the op. Nobody fucking cares if boxer is your god, if you read and understood the op you'll clearly realize why he isnt on top of the list.
|
I think Klazart put it best. There's a difference between form and class. There might be some players that are showing great form like Jangbi or firebathero, but ultimately people like Boxer, Nada, Oov, and Savior are just in a much higher class. Thus, I don't like this system to determine class.
|
On November 28 2008 22:16 myIRE wrote:
so Jangbi is "master" being 2nd in MSL and fantasy is only "A" as 2nd in OSL? if we are talking about recent performance thats some bs right there
Doesn't matter in what setting you win or lose. What matters is your opponent's ELO and yours. This is why you can win an OSL final and drop in ELO because you won 3-2 vs an opponent with a way lower ELO. Also, Jangbi wins more often overall. So it's no surprise. Fantasy is only 6-4 in proleague.
Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is an objective system. Not some opinion like some people think.
Also, I don't get all those people that equivocate 'class' just to argue their ELO should be higher than it is. It doesn't matter if they have 'class' or are 'classy'. Just replace 'class' with 'category' or 'tier' or something.
But maybe the OP can disclose the numbers and the math and the games used.
|
On November 28 2008 22:46 Legume wrote:
I think Klazart put it best. There's a difference between form and class. There might be some players that are showing great form like Jangbi or firebathero, but ultimately people like Boxer, Nada, Oov, and Savior are just in a much higher class. Thus, I don't like this system to determine class.
Boxer, nada, oov would have been at the top of the list in their respective career peaks, but since the op is talking about the present, its obvious why they arent on top of the list.
Maybe some of the names dont fit in their own category, but overall i think its pretty accurate. btw, people should stop being retards and give the op some credit imo.
|
Well, people should give credit to the op, but talking about the current is robbing them of the Godliness that they are
This argument will just go on forever....
|
someone organize a showmatch for NonY and ToSsGirL
|
On November 28 2008 22:46 Legume wrote:
I think Klazart put it best. There's a difference between form and class. There might be some players that are showing great form like Jangbi or firebathero, but ultimately people like Boxer, Nada, Oov, and Savior are just in a much higher class. Thus, I don't like this system to determine class.
it would be best not to take klazarts views on anything starcraft related.
if nada oov boxer and savior were someone inherently superior to all other players they would still be dominant. they were the best of their time, they have faded to various extents, these new players are now the dominant (and highest class) players.
|
On November 28 2008 23:16 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2008 22:46 Legume wrote:
I think Klazart put it best. There's a difference between form and class. There might be some players that are showing great form like Jangbi or firebathero, but ultimately people like Boxer, Nada, Oov, and Savior are just in a much higher class. Thus, I don't like this system to determine class. it would be best not to take klazarts views on anything starcraft related. if nada oov boxer and savior were someone inherently superior to all other players they would still be dominant. they were the best of their time, they have faded to various extents, these new players are now the dominant (and highest class) players.
Agreed, and if boxer,savior oov would have been the most superior players , they wouldn't have stoped play like they did. Just keep on dominating would be their work
|
Some of you are such dense fanboys that as soon as you see your favourites unacceptably low on a list, you toss logic and basic comprehension out the window and spew out complete bullshit. All you have to do is read the goddamned first line of the OP to realise how utterly retarded your posts are.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I can't beleive how stupid the users on this forum have become =/
|
South Africa4316 Posts
I can't believe people are giving the OP shit about this list, it's a great list that he just used to show some stats about current strengths. If you want to use ELO peaks, then make your own list, the purpose of this list is to show the current player strengths.
It also verified some things that I've had discussions with my friend about, for instance that Zerg has absolutely no depth in ace players, and that Protoss, while lacking a clear best, has the most depth in ace players.
It's also interesting to compare the success of the teams with the strength of their top players. SKT, for instance, has the strongest line-up in the PL, player for player, and yet they ended up second from the bottom last season, while Woongjin has one of the weakest line-ups, yet they ended up quite high. It's a very interesting list 
On November 28 2008 23:46 Plexa wrote:
I can't beleive how stupid the users on this forum have become =/
Yes, stop being fucking retards people.
|
yet another flash fanboy?
|
Braavos36379 Posts
i can't get over the arbitrary classification names and elo number separators, i'd like to know why this list is any better than me creating a list dividing by every 100 ELO points and calling the ranks:
2300+ Super Duper Awesome Senior Master
2200-2299 Duper Awesome Senior Master
2173-2199 Awesome Senior Master
2133-2172 Good Senior Master
2112-2132 Less Good Master
2101-2111 Less Less Good Master
2044-2099 Even Less Good Master
2025-2043 Junior Master
2003-2024 Regular Master
2000-2002 Master
1999-1999 Class 1999 A
1998-1998 Class 1999 B
1997-1997 Class 1998
etc.
edit: as you can see there are more masters in mine
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Oh come on Hotbid  you can't be serious...
while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance).
The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval.
|
savior class A.
i d put him as master! Fuck, at least expert!
this list FAILS
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 29 2008 00:31 St0rmRush wrote:
savior class A.
i d put him as master! Fuck, at least expert!
this list FAILS Your intelligence and respectability fails
This list, however, does not
|
|
|
Good list, don't listen to all these haters.
There is already a list somewhere on TL of the players with the highest ELO....this isn't that.
I think it is interesting that Flash still has the highest ELO overall....
Good Stuff
|
On November 29 2008 00:11 Plexa wrote:Oh come on Hotbid you can't be serious... while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance). The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval.
I think Hotbid knows what ELO is. He's saying the classes are completely pointless if you know how to read numbers
|
|
|
Oh man it pains me to see Nada down in the C class, didn't think he was doing THAT bad.
Also lol at one of the youngest players being the only senior master.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 29 2008 03:25 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2008 00:11 Plexa wrote:Oh come on Hotbid you can't be serious... while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance). The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval. I think Hotbid knows what ELO is. He's saying the classes are completely pointless if you know how to read numbers Isn't any ranking pointless? Why do we assign titles to chess players? It allows similar players to be grouped together is why.
|
On November 29 2008 04:00 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2008 03:25 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:On November 29 2008 00:11 Plexa wrote:Oh come on Hotbid you can't be serious... while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance). The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval. I think Hotbid knows what ELO is. He's saying the classes are completely pointless if you know how to read numbers Isn't any ranking pointless? Why do we assign titles to chess players? It allows similar players to be grouped together is why.
good question!
|
On November 29 2008 04:00 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2008 03:25 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:On November 29 2008 00:11 Plexa wrote:Oh come on Hotbid you can't be serious... while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance). The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval. I think Hotbid knows what ELO is. He's saying the classes are completely pointless if you know how to read numbers Isn't any ranking pointless? Why do we assign titles to chess players? It allows similar players to be grouped together is why.
The ranking isn't pointless, the grouping is.
It's like a teacher writing the following on the board for an unscaled test:
90-100 = A
80-89 = B
.
.
Pretty pointless, though not as pointless as the kids yelling that their 75 was really an A but they were slumping during the test.
|
On November 29 2008 04:18 simon311A wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2008 04:00 Plexa wrote:On November 29 2008 03:25 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:On November 29 2008 00:11 Plexa wrote:Oh come on Hotbid you can't be serious... while the 50 point separation is rather arbitrary, the elo ratings are designed such that players with separation of 100 points, then the high ranked gamer should win a vast majority of games (can't remember the actual figure). The 50 points is halve that, and fairly good at using the inbuilt features of elo to separate the games (ie you'd expect a class B to sometimes catch an A off guard and win maybe 30/70, and only say 5/95 against an expert for instance). The titles come from the fide ranking, which assigns these titles to intervals of 200 points. They have a bigger range of elo scores so they can use 200, we do not, so are forced to use a smaller interval. I think Hotbid knows what ELO is. He's saying the classes are completely pointless if you know how to read numbers Isn't any ranking pointless? Why do we assign titles to chess players? It allows similar players to be grouped together is why. The ranking isn't pointless, the grouping is. It's like a teacher writing the following on the board for an unscaled test: 90-100 = A 80-89 = B . . Pretty pointless, though not as pointless as the kids yelling that their 75 was really an A but they were slumping during the test.
It's not pointless otherwise they wouldn't do it on such a huge scale in school systems genius.
It simplifies things, gives a better view on the whole, makes things easier for us to remember and understand. Things we have a better understanding of are way more likely to enter our long term memory. Just a number like 90-100 is pretty abstract, especially for kids.
|
 ToSsGirL an F? I mean come on. I know she aint the best looking korean girl out there, nor the brightest (she plays terran, not toss after all), but she certainly aint ugly you know? Not like GanZi ugly. Besides, Rekrul never sexed her, so I'd give her at least a C... seems fair to me yes?
|
On November 29 2008 04:35 nemY wrote:ToSsGirL an F? I mean come on. I know she aint the best looking korean girl out there, nor the brightest (she plays terran, not toss after all), but she certainly aint ugly you know? Not like GanZi ugly. Besides, Rekrul never sexed her, so I'd give her at least a C... seems fair to me yes?
Tossgirl is SO overrated. Ugly as F
|
she looks great wtf are you talking about -.-
|
On November 29 2008 07:07 myIRE wrote:
she looks great wtf are you talking about -.-
Congratulations, you have encountered a girl/guy posing as a girl on the internet! Please choose one of the following options:
A) Reply with: "Damnit you guys she is so beautiful!! How dare you guys insult the way she looks!" aka the white knight
B) Reply with: "She is way below my standards, what an ugly ho! I've turned down way hotter chicks than her!" aka the stereotypical nerd who has never talked to a girl
C) Bonus option: Shrug it off and masturbate to porn. aka the other 99%
Thank you for using the internet, have a pleasant day.
|
I should have never posted in this thread
bunch of bs starting with me and I still think the whole grouping thing is kinda like .... '' oO alright.. kool''
|
On November 29 2008 08:42 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2008 07:07 myIRE wrote:
she looks great wtf are you talking about -.-
Congratulations, you have encountered a girl/guy posing as a girl on the internet! Please choose one of the following options: A) Reply with: "Damnit you guys she is so beautiful!! How dare you guys insult the way she looks!" aka the white knight B) Reply with: "She is way below my standards, what an ugly ho! I've turned down way hotter chicks than her!" aka the stereotypical nerd who has never talked to a girl C) Bonus option: Shrug it off and masturbate to porn. aka the other 99% Thank you for using the internet, have a pleasant day.
C, definitely.
|
lawl now thats a bit harsh, putting tossgirl in Class F. You cant exactly say the same about her looks but Flash ftw!
|
too many spoilers holy shit
|
I think rankings like this are very accurate.
Just another opinion of course, notice the 'I think'. I find rankings like this interesting as well, although I think each race should have its own criteria compared to itself. Meaning the value of the elo is adjusted for each race. I really thought Groups A and B for zerg were intersting, I had no clue savior's elo is higher then julyzergs, also looking at the lists like this makes sense to me.
I enjoyed this, thanks op!
|
On November 27 2008 09:27 a bunch of people wrote:
SPOILERS
I did this when I was really bored. The clicking honestly gave me something to do.
On November 28 2008 09:27 some TL failtards wrote:
zomg my fav player is NOT Class D!!!
read the intro paragraph.
On November 29 2008 09:27 some others wrote:
Waste of time, I know how to read a list of numbers.
Congratulations, you just wasted even more time by posting. I purposely did this to waste time.
Thank you, and good night.
|
Interesting statistics. I liked the bonus where you made a "best" lineup for each team. Pretty accurate compared to their recent lineups with some exceptions.
Thanks
|
On November 28 2008 23:49 Daigomi wrote:
I can't believe people are giving the OP shit about this list, it's a great list that he just used to show some stats about current strengths.
The basic idea is ok but 50 points is a pretty small difference (equivalent to a 57%-43% advantage for the stronger player). Realistically you can probably only group pros into 3-4 categories at most, rather than the 9 given here - the reason why chess has so many categories is because the rating system includes all competitive players, from the best pros to primary schoolers. The TLPD ratings only include full-time pros.
|
United States3824 Posts
Don't we normally say S class on TL? Or are these chess classes?
|
How is July not expert? that's dumb
|
Braavos36379 Posts
On November 30 2008 09:05 NeoMesh wrote:
How is July not expert? that's dumb
if its really hard for you to wrap your head around this, maybe substitute "Expert" with "Not between 2150 and 2199 ELO"
your post would then look like this:
On November 30 2008 09:05 NeoMesh wrote:
How is July not between 2150 and 2199 ELO? that's dumb
answer: he's not winning enough games
edit: answer#2: OR he's winning TOO many games
|
No S class? Cause we all know that S is the letter in the alphabet that comes before A
|
I always thought that every so-called objective ranking suck.
Actually, the PR is much more accurate than any other ranking I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
Thezerg Class C
