|
On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic.
Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality.
|
On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality.
No, it's not based on Serral's nationality, for me at least; if TRUE were to dominate in 2018 the way Serral did and play the way he did, I wouldn't be saying anything different now on his results.
I might, however, be less enthusiastic since such a player would not be the first non korean to reach such heights and I'd be more inclined to agree with those who'd demand such a beast to play in Code S(since he would be korean).
|
I voted Serral because there are too many Protoss players whom I'd rate ahead of Classic (MC, herO, Stats, maybe Parting/Zest as well) in this contest. Also being a Serral fan and not a fan of toss in general helps. 
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic.
Most talented player ever? Maybe Ronnie is. Greatest absolutely can’t see that argument.
Ronaldinho is greater than a very good player like Frank Lampard, despite burning shortly he burned that much brighter. But say a Messi or a Zidane burned just as brightly, but for way longer.
Andy Murray is a bit unlucky with eras for sure. He has 8+ slams if you throw his peak years into the gap between Sampras and the ascent of Federer for example.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality.
Not necessarily because eras are a thing as well and in regular sports games change tons over time to the degree I generally don’t try to compare players when their careers start to be decades and decades apart.
I consider peak being not just relative to winning things, but to the actual activity itself.
GSL > everything else because it’s the highest level of play is used as a stick to hit Serral with, but if one’s metric is level of play I think Serral’s top level is better than Classic’s, I don’t see that being an odd position. Not by much mind, but I think it is.
I took a big break from SC2 entirely for a few years and missed Serral’s entire rise from one to watch to where he is now, so I was not actually around to get caught up in the hype, I’ve gone backwards through an awful lot of VoDs since my passion returned.
His outright play just impressed me a lot, he’s mechanically very good obviously, his scouting and reactions are so frequently good. He looks really good when he wins, it rarely feels he’s gambling and getting lucky, he’s taking a risk based on a good read, and when he loses it’s rare that it’s in the form of a throw. Inno at WESG and soO at Katowice had to play very well to beat the guy.
|
On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality.
Your analogy is rubbish. Classic has more longevity than Serral. And Federer has more longevity than Budge. But the similarities ends there. There are many players that have more longevity than Budge who could be substituted into this analogy instead of Federer, some of which are greater than Budge and some of which are not as great.
And Starcraft has never had a player as dominant as Federer was over tennis, and even if you had to pick one it wouldn't be Classic.
|
On May 17 2019 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality. Your analogy is rubbish. Classic has more longevity than Serral. And Federer has more longevity than Budge. But the similarities ends there. There are many players that have more longevity than Budge who could be substituted into this analogy instead of Federer, some of which are greater than Budge and some of which are not as great. And Starcraft has never had a player as dominant as Federer was over tennis, and even if you had to pick one it wouldn't be Classic.
I have no idea about tennis other than a very casual perspective, but imagine a player who wins all of the grand slams in one year and then basically does nothing compared to a player who won one grand slam per year over like 8 years. Who is greater. The guy with 4 titles but heavily clustered, or the guy with 8 spread out. In my mind it is clear, but apparently many people disagree.
|
On May 17 2019 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:On May 16 2019 21:23 Charoisaur wrote:
You could split Classic's achievements in half and he'd still be way ahead of Serral.
The fact that people here are even arguing in favor of Serral jusr shows how ridicolously deluded his fanboys are.
Let's be honest - his main achievement is "being a foreigner". Without that the poll would be as one-sided as the Leenock - INnoVation poll. The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased? If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality. Your analogy is rubbish. Classic has more longevity than Serral. And Federer has more longevity than Budge. But the similarities ends there. There are many players that have more longevity than Budge who could be substituted into this analogy instead of Federer, some of which are greater than Budge and some of which are not as great. And Starcraft has never had a player as dominant as Federer was over tennis, and even if you had to pick one it wouldn't be Classic.
It's literally not an analogy if you read either of my posts: the guy is saying that peak is more important than longevity in sports, and I'm questioning whether that's true with two examples from sports where we care more about longevity than peak.
GSL > everything else because it’s the highest level of play is used as a stick to hit Serral with, but if one’s metric is level of play I think Serral’s top level is better than Classic’s, I don’t see that being an odd position. Not by much mind, but I think it is.
I took a big break from SC2 entirely for a few years and missed Serral’s entire rise from one to watch to where he is now, so I was not actually around to get caught up in the hype, I’ve gone backwards through an awful lot of VoDs since my passion returned.
His outright play just impressed me a lot, he’s mechanically very good obviously, his scouting and reactions are so frequently good. He looks really good when he wins, it rarely feels he’s gambling and getting lucky, he’s taking a risk based on a good read, and when he loses it’s rare that it’s in the form of a throw. Inno at WESG and soO at Katowice had to play very well to beat the guy.
But "outright play" isn't something which exists out of context. A mid-masters player playing against a platinum player makes very few mechanical mistakes, rarely looks like they're gambling, and rarely throws games. For those things to happen, there needs to be a genuine challenge, and when Serral wasn't playing low-tier players in WCS, he did start to make mistakes and lose games.
You can't just look at some of his games and pull out some idea of "greatness" from them, it's a two-player game and it matters who the second player is.
|
On May 17 2019 07:19 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:
[quote]
The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased?
If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:
[quote]
The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased?
If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality. Your analogy is rubbish. Classic has more longevity than Serral. And Federer has more longevity than Budge. But the similarities ends there. There are many players that have more longevity than Budge who could be substituted into this analogy instead of Federer, some of which are greater than Budge and some of which are not as great. And Starcraft has never had a player as dominant as Federer was over tennis, and even if you had to pick one it wouldn't be Classic. It's literally not an analogy if you read either of my posts: the guy is saying that peak is more important than longevity in sports, and I'm questioning whether that's true with two examples from sports where we care more about longevity than peak. Show nested quote +GSL > everything else because it’s the highest level of play is used as a stick to hit Serral with, but if one’s metric is level of play I think Serral’s top level is better than Classic’s, I don’t see that being an odd position. Not by much mind, but I think it is.
I took a big break from SC2 entirely for a few years and missed Serral’s entire rise from one to watch to where he is now, so I was not actually around to get caught up in the hype, I’ve gone backwards through an awful lot of VoDs since my passion returned.
His outright play just impressed me a lot, he’s mechanically very good obviously, his scouting and reactions are so frequently good. He looks really good when he wins, it rarely feels he’s gambling and getting lucky, he’s taking a risk based on a good read, and when he loses it’s rare that it’s in the form of a throw. Inno at WESG and soO at Katowice had to play very well to beat the guy. But "outright play" isn't something which exists out of context. A mid-masters player playing against a platinum player makes very few mechanical mistakes, rarely looks like they're gambling, and rarely throws games. For those things to happen, there needs to be a genuine challenge, and when Serral wasn't playing low-tier players in WCS, he did start to make mistakes and lose games. You can't just look at some of his games and pull out some idea of "greatness" from them, it's a two-player game and it matters who the second player is.
No, that's simply false. Serral reached his peak at BlizzCon when he seemed unstoppable steamrolling top koreans: he only played against koreans and his score was the best ever in the competition(14-3 in maps overall); if possible, he looked better against a stronger field, while he faltered at WCS Montreal.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On May 17 2019 05:30 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 04:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On May 17 2019 00:57 Yonnua wrote:On May 17 2019 00:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 00:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 00:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 23:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:
[quote]
The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased?
If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. On May 16 2019 22:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 16 2019 21:49 Xain0n wrote:
[quote]
The good old dilemma: are Serral fanboys deluded or korean elitists embarassingly biased?
If you try to argue that serral is already a top 10 contender with the results he has at this point? Yeah I'll go with the former. That only makes sense if you think that WCS is incredibly close to tournaments where top koreans can compete, which is ridiculous. No WCS isn't worthless either, one should try to weigh it reasonably though. By far most of serral's success comes from WCS tournaments. If we only look at tournaments with korean competition (i hope one doesn't have to explain why that takes priority? It was done over and over again) we get these results: Ro8: Katowice 2017, IEM PyeongChang, Katowice 2019 ro4: Katowice 2018, 3rd WESG 2017 2nd: WESG 2018 1st: GSL vs the world 2018, blizzcon 2018 Which is a nice résumé, but let's look at classic now. ro8: IEM cologne 2014,IEM taipei 2015, Kespa cup s2 2015, gsl s3 2015, ssl s1 2016, gsl st2 2017, gsl s1 2018, gsl vs the world 2018 ro4: kespa cup 2014, blizzcon 2014, blizzcon 2015, ssl s2 2016, WESG 2017 4th, gsl s2 2017, ssl s2 2017 3rd, gsl st1 2018, gsl s2 2018 2nd: Katowice 2018, gsl s1 2019 1st: gsl s2 2014, ssl s2 2015, iem Shenzhen 2015, gsl st2 2018, gsl st1 2019 The difference is huge, now if you want to make a case that the wcs results serral got can make up the difference, go for it. The difference is also 3 years, which is kind of a big deal, and hard to catch up on, or directly compare anyway. Just less tournaments all round makes it harder to judge players, we don’t have the additional SSL anymore, or more international tournaments, or Proleague either. Annoying as a fan of the game but also annoying for discussing legacies haha I think the weighing is that it was 4 in a row and also came in a streak of another two tournaments including the biggest singular one there is. Despite the crushing heartbreak I imagine it gave the guy I’d still rate soO’s Kong streak as more impressive than folks who got singular GSLs and fell off. It’s his peak form and peak achievements that I rate Serral more on, but his consistency the tier beneath that is also pretty crazy. In every GSL season there is usually a top tier player or two who goes out in the Ro32, and almost always this necessitates losing to a player who isn’t on your level in at least one of your matches. In other eSports never mind ye olde regular sports this is less commonplace, it’s only really impressive to me in something like SC2 to be that consistent at a lower level. Serral was playing in 2012 already, it might not have been full time which is something to remember and consider, but he was playing in tournaments still. Now if we neglect that and say he had less time, ok but why does that matter? This is the goat discussion, the greatest of all time. You don't become the greatest of all time by having a nice streak (dominance), you become the greatest of all time by being on the top of the playing field for a very long time, simply because you have to surpass players who came before you and already did that as well. Success/results matter, not what if scenarios which happen in your mind. Serral isn't even close to classic's success, partly because he can't be at this point (if we really neglect his career prior to say 2017), but that's just how it is. Maybe he'll be able to change that in the years to come. Right now voting for serral is ludicrous under any rational pov. By your personal criteria of greatness, which isn’t necessarily everyone’s. I use my metrics I do I suppose because I’m a big sports nut and it comes from there. I weight peaks more highly than longevity, if the peaks are similar I’ll factor in longevity to break a tie. Maybe it’s not the metric to use for SC, I apply it for sports because avoiding serious injury and being lucky in that regard is often the difference between burning brightly for a short period and falling from the top relatively quickly. But even with SC injuries and military service come in as a factor. I mean hypothetically if Serral posts similar results to Classic for the next five years, Classic decides not to return to SC and do something else with his life, then Serral will end up having more results because he’s played longer at the top of the game, which is just the reverse of now How can you justify this though? Usually competitors play for a similar amount of time in their respective fields and thus comparing them based on their actual results and merits makes a lot of sense. Imagine a football player coming out of nowhere, having the greatest year in football history, winning the WC, winning championsleague, winning national championship with his club, scoring the most goals and assists but then over the next 10 years he is mediocre. Is he the greatest of all time? I'd say almost noone would make that case, it is that ridiculous to weigh that peak so much more than constant greatness. Why are clustered results worth more than the same results over a longer period of time? Or even worth more than better results over a longer period of time. I don't think you can justify it. Sounds like Ronaldinho to me. And there are people who legitimately think he is the greatest player ever (I don't). As for the tennis: Classic isn't Federer. Innovation *might* be Federer. Classic is more like Andy Murray as someone said above. And Serral isn't really a Don Budge, but if that's who you're going for? Yes, sure. Don Budge is definitely a greater player than Andy Murray. E: just to be clear, I don't think Serral is the GOAT. I just think he's greater than Classic. Poster above is saying that greatness is about peak and streak, not about overall longevity. Federer has better longevity than Budge, but less peak/streak. If the poster's logic is going to hold, they need to believe that Federer is worse than Budge. But they won't believe that, because their opinion isn't based on that logic, it's based on Serral's nationality. Your analogy is rubbish. Classic has more longevity than Serral. And Federer has more longevity than Budge. But the similarities ends there. There are many players that have more longevity than Budge who could be substituted into this analogy instead of Federer, some of which are greater than Budge and some of which are not as great. And Starcraft has never had a player as dominant as Federer was over tennis, and even if you had to pick one it wouldn't be Classic. I have no idea about tennis other than a very casual perspective, but imagine a player who wins all of the grand slams in one year and then basically does nothing compared to a player who won one grand slam per year over like 8 years. Who is greater. The guy with 4 titles but heavily clustered, or the guy with 8 spread out. In my mind it is clear, but apparently many people disagree.
Which is an interesting question but not one that’s really that applicable to Serral yet
Let’s say Serral’s 2018 happened in 2015, and he’s done nothing since. If that were the case I’d vote for Classic. as it is he hasn’t yet to do so, even his falloff from 2018 to 2019, the 2019 results are still pretty good
You might actually disagree with me that peak Serral > Stats but it’s ky rationale on it. It’s a 51-49 kind of split though it’s not super heavy on either side.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question.
|
On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question.
If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done.
You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet.
Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done.
If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's).
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's).
Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes.
At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World).
WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due.
Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state.
And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018.
|
On May 17 2019 17:58 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's). Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes. At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World). WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due. Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state. And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018.
As I have said multiple times, if Serral were in Korea he could have won more games against lesser korean opponents in qualifiers, even if his streak may have ended sooner.
Serral's 2018 was better than Maru's, ask TL's writers!
To think otherwise, you have to value WCS slightly more than a mere Major tournament...
|
On May 17 2019 18:38 Xain0n wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 17:58 deacon.frost wrote:On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's). Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes. At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World). WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due. Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state. And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018. As I have said multiple times, if Serral were in Korea he could have won more games against lesser korean opponents in qualifiers, even if his streak may have ended sooner. Serral's 2018 was better than Maru's, ask TL's writers! To think otherwise, you have to value WCS slightly more than a mere Major tournament...
I don't think anyone doubts Serral could have beaten "lesser Korean opponents": the point is that he wouldn't have beaten as many top players (regardless of nationality), and that he didn't beat as many top players.
Even if you charitably read the top foreigners that Serral did beat as being on the same level, and even if you count every Korean that Serral beat as a top Korean, he still beat less top players on his run than Classic has done. The details are at the top of page 35.
|
On May 17 2019 17:58 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's). Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes. At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World). WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due. Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state. And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018.
You seem to be rating Classic a lot higher than I do. I'd say Classic is definitely one of the top 32 greatest SC2 players of all time. I don't think he breaks top 10. Hell, he doesn't even break top 3 protoss.
Serral is also definitely one of the top 32 greatest SC2 players of all time. But he's closer to the top 10, and I could make an argument that he is top 3 zerg if we leave Life out. That's partially due to a lack of generally impressive Zerg players, but maybe that should just be all the more argument that Serral truly is great?
|
On May 17 2019 18:45 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 18:38 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 17:58 deacon.frost wrote:On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's). Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes. At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World). WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due. Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state. And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018. As I have said multiple times, if Serral were in Korea he could have won more games against lesser korean opponents in qualifiers, even if his streak may have ended sooner. Serral's 2018 was better than Maru's, ask TL's writers! To think otherwise, you have to value WCS slightly more than a mere Major tournament... I don't think anyone doubts Serral could have beaten "lesser Korean opponents": the point is that he wouldn't have beaten as many top players (regardless of nationality), and that he didn't beat as many top players. Even if you charitably read the top foreigners that Serral did beat as being on the same level, and even if you count every Korean that Serral beat as a top Korean, he still beat less top players on his run than Classic has done. The details are at the top of page 35.
And also on page 35 is the fact that he simply *played* vs less top Koreans. Hell, we could probably pick Losira and show that Losira has *more* wins vs top Koreans than Serral does. Are you going to argue that Losira is a greater player than Serral?
PS. Aligulac being down is really not helping.
|
It's okay guys. Both of them will lose to Inno next round
|
On May 17 2019 18:45 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 18:38 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 17:58 deacon.frost wrote:On May 17 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On May 17 2019 16:17 deacon.frost wrote:
If Serral was Korean Classic would be winning without a question, but since he's foregienr Classic is losing, really? Imagine Rogue v Classic(and Rogue has 2 big titles, Serral has just 1 big title), it wouldn't be even a question. If Serral were Korean, he would have been region locked in Korea. But let's say he had moved to Finland, and had gone on a 9-month winning spree. I agree there might be some doubt as to why he fled Korea, but no, I'd still be arguing that streak is as great or better than anything Classic has done. You just seem to think that a (very) good player putting in consistently good results is greater than a player having a short period of greatness that doesn't look like it's over yet. Meanwhile some people think that any win that isn't a GSL is worthless, so Serral's peak is actually just mediocre. Which is the eternal debate here: how much weight to give to WCS wins? I weigh them as about half a GSL. So Serral won the equivalent of 3 GSLs, a GSL vs the World and a HSC in a single year, without dropping an offline series. That to me is a feat greater than what Classic has done. If Maru had come out of nowhere and had his 2018 I'd also be arguing he was greater than Classic, btw. He didn't, he has a long history of being good and winning some things, which puts him pretty much unequivocally ahead of Classic, but I'd say he'd be there based on 2018 *alone*. And so is Serral (whose 2018 was greater than Maru's). Classic won GSL, got 2nd place in GSL & IEM, won two ST, won IEM and SSL. And multiple RO4s finishes. At this time Classic has bigger and better acomplishments among the best players(5 out of 5 titles) in the world while Serral has mostly WCS success(4 out of 6 titles). Even the patch zerg Rogue has bigger titles from the top competition than Serral(IEM & Blizzcon over Blizzcon & GSL vs The World). WCS has some weight, but FFS Classic is winning and taking top finishes in the best leagues of the world, give credit where it's due. Edit> Also the more you play against the best the bigger the chance they will learn to play against you and win against you. If Serral was in Korea he had lost more games. While the streak is impressive it was abusing his foreigner state. And no, wasn't better than MAru's, especially not in 2018. As I have said multiple times, if Serral were in Korea he could have won more games against lesser korean opponents in qualifiers, even if his streak may have ended sooner. Serral's 2018 was better than Maru's, ask TL's writers! To think otherwise, you have to value WCS slightly more than a mere Major tournament... I don't think anyone doubts Serral could have beaten "lesser Korean opponents": the point is that he wouldn't have beaten as many top players (regardless of nationality), and that he didn't beat as many top players. Even if you charitably read the top foreigners that Serral did beat as being on the same level, and even if you count every Korean that Serral beat as a top Korean, he still beat less top players on his run than Classic has done. The details are at the top of page 35.
These are different levels of discussion: frost is doubting Serral's streak itself, you are comparing it to Classic's.
Actually, excluding HSC XVIII(not officially a Premier tournament) and IEM 2019(which Serral lost) you are taking out the most consistent part of Serral's streak of invincibility against Koreans(21-0 iirc, with the only "non top" being TaeJa and Bunny at HSC and maybe Ragnarok F IEM; Serral's opponents all had very high Aligulac ranking on average).
Classic and Serral are reasonably close in achievements to me but that drastically changes if you value WCS very low; there really isn't anything to add.
|
On May 17 2019 19:00 Harris1st wrote:It's okay guys. Both of them will lose to Inno next round
Not sure if Nakajin is doing the placement poll. If he is, then whoever wins might be matched with someone closer in greatness (again), and we can have this discussion about Serral/Classic vs. Solar, Dark/herO or Polt... ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
