On July 30 2012 09:57 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 08:02 Squeegy wrote:On July 30 2012 07:01 Grumbels wrote:On July 30 2012 06:05 Squeegy wrote:On July 30 2012 03:54 Grumbels wrote:On July 30 2012 02:50 Squeegy wrote:On July 30 2012 01:51 Grumbels wrote:On July 30 2012 01:03 Squeegy wrote:On July 30 2012 00:22 maybenexttime wrote:On July 30 2012 00:03 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Hot_Bid's quote?
It doesn't say it explicitly but the article seems to imply, as evidenced by Hot_Bid's reaction to the comments, that top level BW pros will come and dominate the scene pretty quickly because of their work ethic and mechanics. It is also understood as such by most who discuss the article. The article was written when SC2 was less figured out, Korean SC2 progamers still had foreigner-like training methods (they were opposed to BW-like trainingschedules), and assuming KeSPA progamers made a clear-cut transition to SC2 at that time. It's impossible to determine whether the author was right since a vast number of SC2 progamers has adopted BW training methods and KeSPA players' transition has been dragging for months with their practice divided between BW and SC2. I don't think it is impossible to determine. We saw people pop into the scene from almost nowhere and do well at the time. We saw nobodies become kings. We saw atrocious play even at the highest level. But what was the point of the article? It sure wasn't that Flash could dominate in a month after he switches. That was an implication of the point (at the time). The point was that the scene was missing its brightest stars and therefore the competition was a farce (at the time). If Kespa players end up dominating, even if it takes a year or two, what do you think that tells us about the time before their arrival? The elephant thread was written in may, the GSL Code S at the time had: Nestea, Losira, Top, Nada, Sc, Polt, Clide, Supernova, Genius, Byun, MC, Zenio, San among others. There were also some 'awful' players like HongUn and Inca, but honestly the level of play wasn't that terrible. It got better, for sure, but a lot of the elephant thread was about how players like Nestea and MC are randoms that would lose to any competent B-teamer. And Flash was so far beyond those players that "within weeks" he would be competitive. In fact, it's been over three months now and Flash isn't even one of the better SC2 players among the KeSPA ones and so far only a few KeSPA players have been able to take games off GSL players, yet never convincingly so. (expected, since anyone can take games off anyone) I do have full confidence in Flash, but the level of the competition in SC2 certainly is at a level where it will take him maybe almost a year to become one of the best. Certainly not "a farce", not now and also not 12 months ago. But no one has claimed that the scene is a farce now and I see you arguing against that. Not so much against that it was a farce back then. Since the competition is not a farce now, to be this good that fast is nothing but impressive. I also have to point out that Flash, I dare say, according to most is one of the better Kespa players. And If I were to count, there'd probably be at least 20 cases of Kespa taking out a GSL player. Considering the limited amount of Kespa-GSL matches, it seems like many to me. Moreover, "convincingly" is nothing but a weasel word. convincingly = not PvP and not a game like Reality vs Symbol where Symbol played super awful. And if many of the same players are at the top both now and 12 months ago, how can it have been a farce back then when it isn't now according to you? So your explanation is that out of all the games that Kespa players won, it was either the GSL players playing poorly or PvP? There are probably at least 20 Kespa players that have defeated GSL players. So the amount of matches is measured in the dozens. Interesting disparity here too: The 20 or so Kespa players count to you as few. But the 7 GSL players that were in Code S in May and who are in Code S now count as many. Weasel words. Because they started playing better. The skill level rose signficantly. New players joined in. Writing weasel words like that makes it seem like you think a significant amount of KeSPA players are competitive with GSL players (unless you're just trying to be annoying), when in fact they're not - which is beyond dispute I hope. Taking the occasional series in volatile match-ups or against people have bad days says nothing, you can use the same logic to argue that foreigners are competitive with Koreans. The elephant thread said that the competition is a farce because bad BW players were winning and that a lot of the KeSPA pros could just dominate if they wanted to. Yet a significant amount of the best players currently were already very strong back then and were in fact held up as examples of bad players, including players like Nestea and MC. Obviously Code S now isn't equal to Code S one year ago, but there's still significant overlap. I could name many more players that were already good at SC2 back then, like alive, squirtle, dongraegu, mma, leenock, jjakji, puzzle, curious, puma, mvp, marineking etc. I have no doubt that there will be a significant number of kespa pros among the top sc2 players within 6 months or so, but that was always going to happen and was never enough to prove the elephant thread correct. (I'm still waiting for bisu to win his first sc2 game) I gave you the concrete number of 20 Kespa players who have beaten GSL players. Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 02:50 Squeegy wrote:
And If I were to count, there'd probably be at least 20 cases of Kespa taking out a GSL player. He asked you to go get the actual number, not continue using your randomly surmised number of 20 as if it were a statistically researched fact. He even asked you to perhaps go a step further and find the number of wins over Code A/S players, which means that Baby's win over finale would not count(but Paralyze>Vampire would). I don't even care to side in the argument, but seeing such intellectual laziness in an attempt to win your argument is so blah.
But it is a statistically researched fact. I checked. And I wasn't even very thorough, so the number could be higher. Why don't you go do what he asked for, that way you could be useful to someone. Or you could just be quiet and learn.
|
EPT
