EPTOn April 03 2010 23:28 lolnoty wrote:
No. You cannot compare those situations. You are not good at this.
I should not argue with people on this website.
Show nested quote +
On April 03 2010 23:25 AppleTart wrote:
Look at it this way:
back in the day if the only weapons you had was either your fist or a rock or stick, its easy to dominate in a fight if you whip out a new weapon called a spear or sword
But if everyone today knows how to use knives, swords, guns, rocks, and swords and spears and etc etc, its MUCH harder to dominate and MUCH harder to come up with something new
On April 03 2010 23:23 lolnoty wrote:
If someone from 1930 does not have the same tools to work with as someone from 2010, then it is incorrect to say that it is more impressive that a man from 2010 went around the world twice where a man from 1930 went around the world once.
Do you get what I'm saying? Players are operating with different amounts of information and knowledge when they are in their respective times, therefore you can never truly say that one has done something more impressive than the other. They did not have equal circumstances. Because of this, to say that Flash beating people today is more impressive than Oov beating people in 2003 is a fruitless argument because the factors are so far away from being equal that you cannot compare them.
On April 03 2010 23:17 AppleTart wrote:
But its not moot to consider skill gaps within time frames you are the one who doesn't get it. Take ANY sport (and yes SC is a sport) and look back in the day and today, if someone managed to pull a Jordan or a Pele today that would be ridiculously impresive
On April 03 2010 23:16 lolnoty wrote:
Yes it is because it literally cannot prove a damn thing. That is the definition of something being moot. It is a worthless argument.
On April 03 2010 23:15 AppleTart wrote:
But its not moot to consider skill gaps within timeframes
On April 03 2010 23:14 lolnoty wrote:
You still don't get it, skill will always go up. To say that Flash is the best because he is better at the current skill level, you have to believe that the skill level in BW has capped out and cannot possibly rise further. It will continue to rise. That means that comparing skill levels relative to the average skill level at the time is a stupid thing to do and proves nothing.
The way skill levels evolve over time in BW means that each of the legends is equally impressive for being better than everyone else at the time. Flash is only as good as he is beter he had access to the knowledge that they created, and he has now expanded on it and matched them in being better than everyone else at the time. None of these players can be compared in a head to head match-up because the skill levels they played in are not equal. It is a completely moot argument to compare people of different times head to head.
On April 03 2010 23:06 AppleTart wrote:
It's not moot because its harder to dominate when everyone is better... its easier to dominate when people are worse... Today in the NBA its alot harder for one player to own it up as it was back in the day, I'm not going to deny the skill of those who owned it up back in the day, they are LEGENDS! but if anyone WAS able to own it up like they did its all the more impressive... also read my edit as well.
On April 03 2010 23:05 lolnoty wrote:
This is a dumb argument because it applies to EVERY era of dominance. Seriously, this applies to Boxer in his era, Nada in his, Oov in his, savior in his etc etc. Guess what, if BW is around for a few more years and Flash isn't as dominant, this same argument will be used for him as well.
This is like saying that every Boxer from before 1950 wasn't really good because if they faced today's average competition they'd get stomped. It's completely moot.
On April 03 2010 23:00 AppleTart wrote:
[quote]
you also have to realize that the average skill of players is ridiculously higher than back then and its much harder to maintain this sort of dominance when everyone is so damn good. Back when Savior beasted everyone and became Bonjwa, people were not even nearly as skilled in SC. Thats why the "Era of Bonjwa" occurred during times of innovation when the game was more "Fresh" so to speak. The fact that Flash can maintain that winrate in today's environment is just insane and imo more impressive
[quote]
you also have to realize that the average skill of players is ridiculously higher than back then and its much harder to maintain this sort of dominance when everyone is so damn good. Back when Savior beasted everyone and became Bonjwa, people were not even nearly as skilled in SC. Thats why the "Era of Bonjwa" occurred during times of innovation when the game was more "Fresh" so to speak. The fact that Flash can maintain that winrate in today's environment is just insane and imo more impressive
This is a dumb argument because it applies to EVERY era of dominance. Seriously, this applies to Boxer in his era, Nada in his, Oov in his, savior in his etc etc. Guess what, if BW is around for a few more years and Flash isn't as dominant, this same argument will be used for him as well.
This is like saying that every Boxer from before 1950 wasn't really good because if they faced today's average competition they'd get stomped. It's completely moot.
It's not moot because its harder to dominate when everyone is better... its easier to dominate when people are worse... Today in the NBA its alot harder for one player to own it up as it was back in the day, I'm not going to deny the skill of those who owned it up back in the day, they are LEGENDS! but if anyone WAS able to own it up like they did its all the more impressive... also read my edit as well.
You still don't get it, skill will always go up. To say that Flash is the best because he is better at the current skill level, you have to believe that the skill level in BW has capped out and cannot possibly rise further. It will continue to rise. That means that comparing skill levels relative to the average skill level at the time is a stupid thing to do and proves nothing.
The way skill levels evolve over time in BW means that each of the legends is equally impressive for being better than everyone else at the time. Flash is only as good as he is beter he had access to the knowledge that they created, and he has now expanded on it and matched them in being better than everyone else at the time. None of these players can be compared in a head to head match-up because the skill levels they played in are not equal. It is a completely moot argument to compare people of different times head to head.
But its not moot to consider skill gaps within timeframes
Yes it is because it literally cannot prove a damn thing. That is the definition of something being moot. It is a worthless argument.
But its not moot to consider skill gaps within time frames you are the one who doesn't get it. Take ANY sport (and yes SC is a sport) and look back in the day and today, if someone managed to pull a Jordan or a Pele today that would be ridiculously impresive
If someone from 1930 does not have the same tools to work with as someone from 2010, then it is incorrect to say that it is more impressive that a man from 2010 went around the world twice where a man from 1930 went around the world once.
Do you get what I'm saying? Players are operating with different amounts of information and knowledge when they are in their respective times, therefore you can never truly say that one has done something more impressive than the other. They did not have equal circumstances. Because of this, to say that Flash beating people today is more impressive than Oov beating people in 2003 is a fruitless argument because the factors are so far away from being equal that you cannot compare them.
Look at it this way:
back in the day if the only weapons you had was either your fist or a rock or stick, its easy to dominate in a fight if you whip out a new weapon called a spear or sword
But if everyone today knows how to use knives, swords, guns, rocks, and swords and spears and etc etc, its MUCH harder to dominate and MUCH harder to come up with something new
No. You cannot compare those situations. You are not good at this.
I should not argue with people on this website.
I would have to say the same. For someone who doesn't realize how much harder it is to be dominant in ANYTHING today than it was in the past. Maybe you will realize it later. It takes a lot more to stand out than it did years ago both on an absolute and relative scale.
Anyways since the commentators originally invented the word, and they threw it out today, I'll give credit where its due over the arguments of us both
