Serral would win more GSL’s than Maru winning ESL’s if they switch places
Under your scenario, if Maru had never play any international events he would be clearly the goat, as it is likely he would have won some. Yet, he didn't because he actually did play on them.
Your statement is correct only under the circumstances of GSL still being the most prestigious tournament in the world, more valuable than ESL masters, DH and IEM. But clearly no, both in the aspect of player pool, competitiveness and something like prize pool etc. GSL was the most difficult tournament (or at least one of) to win before 2018, where players from GSL are always winning the international tournament such as IEM and WCS. However, after Serral wins WCS 2018 global finals we can see things changed completely: For IEM katowice finals: 2024 2023, 2022, 2021 are won by non-koreans and 2020 2019 2018 are won by GSL players from Korean; For WCS finals: 2018 is won by nonkorean and 2019 is won by Korean; For WESG: 2 both won by Korean; For gamers8: the only one is 2023 won by non Korean; For GVW: both won by non-koreans; For DH/ESL masters: we have 5 from Serral, 2 from Reynor and 1 from Clem, 8 combined, and we have 2 from Maru, 1 from Dark and 1 from herO, and 1 from Trap, 5 combined. So see clearly? after 2018,GSL players are not more competetive in International events than non-GSL players. Serral is the one who won the most international tournaments (11), far ahead. Therefore it’s GSL needs to show its value to Serral for him to take part in not reverse. Serral never needs a GSL to claim his position. Also, I really think assumption on Serral playing in GSL is bullshit. This is an analogy to Real Madrid defeating Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City in Champion league and winning the trophy. Then we have someone having to care whether RM is able to defeat these 3 clubs in Prime league as well, I mean, who cares? I know Prime league is more competitive, with no winter break and more high income players, but, I've already beaten you in a better, higher and more prestigious stage, why should RM join Prime league to defeat the English Club again??
Serral would win more GSL’s than Maru winning ESL’s if they switch places
Under your scenario, if Maru had never play any international events he would be clearly the goat, as it is likely he would have won some. Yet, he didn't because he actually did play on them.
You are penalizing someone for actually competing and showing results vs someone not doing so and just extrapolating instead, very silly.
Oh, my... An "if pigs could fly" hypothetical, plus a non sequitur, all in one. It's a buy one get one free!
Yeah sure, if Maru had never challenged himself against competitors from all over the globe; if he had sacrificed 70% of his earnings, by choosing to skip out on the biggest events; and if he had not only failed to be crowned champion, but also not even bother to attempt—all for no damn reason whatsoever (maybe "chicken"? that's a popular attribution apparently)—yes, he'd definitely be unanimously crowned as the GOAT, becaaause...logic.exe got corrupted and replaced by fanboyism.exe. Yes, that would be the one true matrix and timeline we should've all been uploaded to, not the lousy one we're actually in, where logic still works, boys.
Serral would win more GSL’s than Maru winning ESL’s if they switch places
Under your scenario, if Maru had never play any international events he would be clearly the goat, as it is likely he would have won some. Yet, he didn't because he actually did play on them.
You are penalizing someone for actually competing and showing results vs someone not doing so and just extrapolating instead, very silly.
Oh, my... An "if pigs could fly" hypothetical, plus a non sequitur, all in one. It's a buy one get one free!
Yeah sure, if Maru had never challenged himself against competitors from all over the globe; if he had sacrificed 70% of his earnings, by choosing to skip out on the biggest events; and if he had not only failed to be crowned champion, but also not even bother to attempt—all for no damn reason whatsoever (maybe "chicken"? that's a popular attribution apparently)—yes, he'd definitely be unanimously crowned as the GOAT, becaaause...logic.exe got corrupted and replaced by fanboyism.exe. Yes, that would be the one true matrix and timeline we should've all been uploaded to, not the lousy one we're actually in, where logic still works, boys.
lol
Isnt that my point? that this line of reasoning is crazy? it is my point.
Serral would win more GSL’s than Maru winning ESL’s if they switch places
Under your scenario, if Maru had never play any international events he would be clearly the goat, as it is likely he would have won some. Yet, he didn't because he actually did play on them.
You are penalizing someone for actually competing and showing results vs someone not doing so and just extrapolating instead, very silly.
Oh, my... An "if pigs could fly" hypothetical, plus a non sequitur, all in one. It's a buy one get one free!
Yeah sure, if Maru had never challenged himself against competitors from all over the globe; if he had sacrificed 70% of his earnings, by choosing to skip out on the biggest events; and if he had not only failed to be crowned champion, but also not even bother to attempt—all for no damn reason whatsoever (maybe "chicken"? that's a popular attribution apparently)—yes, he'd definitely be unanimously crowned as the GOAT, becaaause...logic.exe got corrupted and replaced by fanboyism.exe. Yes, that would be the one true matrix and timeline we should've all been uploaded to, not the lousy one we're actually in, where logic still works, boys.
lol
Isnt that my point? that this line of reasoning is crazy? it is my point.
I'm so confused. I may have misunderstood your comment, or the one you were replying to. Maybe you can clarify.
You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
Serral would win more GSL’s than Maru winning ESL’s if they switch places
Under your scenario, if Maru had never play any international events he would be clearly the goat, as it is likely he would have won some. Yet, he didn't because he actually did play on them.
You are penalizing someone for actually competing and showing results vs someone not doing so and just extrapolating instead, very silly.
Oh, my... An "if pigs could fly" hypothetical, plus a non sequitur, all in one. It's a buy one get one free!
Yeah sure, if Maru had never challenged himself against competitors from all over the globe; if he had sacrificed 70% of his earnings, by choosing to skip out on the biggest events; and if he had not only failed to be crowned champion, but also not even bother to attempt—all for no damn reason whatsoever (maybe "chicken"? that's a popular attribution apparently)—yes, he'd definitely be unanimously crowned as the GOAT, becaaause...logic.exe got corrupted and replaced by fanboyism.exe. Yes, that would be the one true matrix and timeline we should've all been uploaded to, not the lousy one we're actually in, where logic still works, boys.
lol
Isnt that my point? that this line of reasoning is crazy? it is my point.
I'm so confused. I may have misunderstood your comment, or the one you were replying to. Maybe you can clarify.
I,want just point out how ridiculous it was the line of reasoning of : Serral woudl have probably won, of even dominate, GSLs thus we can act as he did. I have seen some posters here suggesting that over the month already we have been having this discussion and I just jumped on it. Perhaps I didn't comment on the exact post, my bad.
Edit: I think the post above this one has a more nuanced and better articulate take in general except in its conclusion.
On June 08 2024 16:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
You can't punish people for events they didn't play because A) they might have been incapable of doing so (age/region lock) and B) This leads towards way too many hypothetical situations because you've already left objectivity behind. your third paragraph is getting there, but that was in the intro portion of the article that was posted like 5 months ago.
I am admittedly a very very casual sc2 person but can someone ELI5 how Maru is considered better than Serral when their head to head is 43-19 (from what I could see) in Serral’s favour?
On June 08 2024 21:48 RowdierBob wrote: I am admittedly a very very casual sc2 person but can someone ELI5 how Maru is considered better than Serral when their head to head is 43-19 (from what I could see) in Serral’s favour?
I'll keep it short. Most people that consider Maru the goat will admit Serral is better than him for years, but they argue Maru is the greatest of all times because he was around for far longer and had some success then too. He was always very good, and you can't blame anyone for saying Maru is the GOAT even when he is doing worse than Serral for years.
On June 08 2024 16:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
I see a similar phenomenon happening when it comes to longevity as well, players who were forced to retire for various reasons often get judged by the hypothetical ‘what if’ versus the reality of the guy who stuck around for 10 years or whatever.
On June 08 2024 16:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
I see a similar phenomenon happening when it comes to longevity as well, players who were forced to retire for various reasons often get judged by the hypothetical ‘what if’ versus the reality of the guy who stuck around for 10 years or whatever.
It’s tricky to mentally disentangle!
Why is it tricky? One thing happened. The other didn't. Done.
However,(!) one of the GOAT lists I researched was a top 40 NBA careers. One of the most confounding players to rank is Larry Bird. He didn't play very long compared to other all time greats due to injury, but he posted ridiculous numbers and won basically everything while he did. I decided early on in my process that I wanted to include players with Larry Bird esque careers in my analysis.
Y'all are focusing on the wrong debate. Serral is the undisputed Zerg GOAT. Maru is the undisputed Terran GOAT. Everything about the races they play- units, mechanics, offensive and defensive capabilities, scouting capabilities, general strengths/weaknesses - are wildly different.
There is no point trying to settle which race's GOAT is better until you determine which race has historically been strongest, and which race the map pools have historically favored.
Why don't people admit that guys like Serral is just genetically superior. Its like asking who's more handsome naturally, Brad Pitt or Adam Driver. Its all genetics. Life is ALL about genetics. Its all Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Its like how women genuinely desire to breed with alphamales and not betamales.
Right now Serral is the alpha of SC2. Everyone else is a beta. They can practice all they want but they will NEVER be able to match true good genetics. It is what it is.
On June 08 2024 16:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
I see a similar phenomenon happening when it comes to longevity as well, players who were forced to retire for various reasons often get judged by the hypothetical ‘what if’ versus the reality of the guy who stuck around for 10 years or whatever.
It’s tricky to mentally disentangle!
Why is it tricky? One thing happened. The other didn't. Done.
However,(!) one of the GOAT lists I researched was a top 40 NBA careers. One of the most confounding players to rank is Larry Bird. He didn't play very long compared to other all time greats due to injury, but he posted ridiculous numbers and won basically everything while he did. I decided early on in my process that I wanted to include players with Larry Bird esque careers in my analysis.
Having actually read your articles and rationales aye you did account for such folks pretty reasonably IMO, also many of my responses are to expressed sentiment of others as it pertains to their GOAT lists, rather than any particular observation of yours.
In a more general sense you do see the truncated but glorious career somewhat get a bit of a perception boost versus the similar glorious peak/years of mediocrity comparison
One only has to look at previous GOAT listings and threads and Innovation dropping off a lot in many perceptions. Where I think if he’d played 3/4 years and just retired people would more remember ‘The Machine’ than his long stretch of being mortal.
A career when you win a lot and are crushing fools, only to drop a level for an extended period seems to be regarded less favourably than a player who took a while to do anything of much note and then hit the heights.
Not sure why it is, but it does seem to influence perception.
Rogue was not remotely a bad player in the Kespa era, but he was no Innovation. But in many eyes, I’d perhaps wager the majority of the community Rogue > Inno. Even though I’d say a few years of Inno relative mediocrity should be weighed the same as Rogue’s, they just happened to occur at the end/start of their careers respectively.
At least as it pertains to GOAT lists Neil Young might have been onto something with his ‘it’s better to burn out than to fade away’ sentiment
On June 09 2024 01:58 frustratedsc2user wrote: Why don't people admit that guys like Serral is just genetically superior. Its like asking who's more handsome naturally, Brad Pitt or Adam Driver. Its all genetics. Life is ALL about genetics. Its all Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Its like how women genuinely desire to breed with alphamales and not betamales.
Right now Serral is the alpha of SC2. Everyone else is a beta. They can practice all they want but they will NEVER be able to match true good genetics. It is what it is.
Because we aren't Nazis and recognize genetics are NOT everything. They absolutely play a critical role, but genetics by themselves never tell the full story.
On June 08 2024 16:11 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You can't reward someone for something they didn't try. They didn't compete at all. You can punish someone for competing in something that ends up hurting their record / case for GOAT.
How much do you punish them by? Well, you shouldn't punish them so harshly for trying. However, if someone competes in something and it hurts their record, then it's only fair that it hurt their record.
Now, what about someone who didn't compete in something? You can't just assume that they would perform the same as what their current record would indicate. So, you shouldn't harshly punish nor reward them based on hypotheticals.
However, in the case that international tournaments have higher competition and higher prize money than GSL tournaments, Maru competing in international tournaments and getting lower places than he does in GSL doesn't really help elevate his record. It only solidifies that while he can dominate GSL tournaments, he can't dominate the international stage, and that GSLs are less competitive than international tournaments (DH/Masters and World Championship tier events at the least).
For Serral, since he is already dominating the more competitive internationals, you can assume that he would do well at an easier tournament like modern GSLs. If he were to compete and then underperform, only then would it hurt his record. While the lack of GSL performances in his record does keep us from elevating his record even higher than it already is, you can't really punish him for it because he's already so active in the most competitive international tournaments.
Another way to put it is - punishing Serral for his lack of GSL, while excusing Maru's lack of international wins, is incredibly favoring Maru, and IMO seems like a way of coping. A more fair assessment would be to not reward nor punish Serral for his lack of GSLs, while also not rewarding or punishing Maru (since he still does perform well at international stage, getting multiple 2nd places). The result we're left with, is a player who performs the best at the biggest tournaments and might dominate the GSL or might only be a top performer in the GSL, and a player who does dominate GSL but is only a top performer at the biggest tournaments. It is a situation where Serral's record is more favorable than Maru's.
I see a similar phenomenon happening when it comes to longevity as well, players who were forced to retire for various reasons often get judged by the hypothetical ‘what if’ versus the reality of the guy who stuck around for 10 years or whatever.
It’s tricky to mentally disentangle!
Why is it tricky? One thing happened. The other didn't. Done.
However,(!) one of the GOAT lists I researched was a top 40 NBA careers. One of the most confounding players to rank is Larry Bird. He didn't play very long compared to other all time greats due to injury, but he posted ridiculous numbers and won basically everything while he did. I decided early on in my process that I wanted to include players with Larry Bird esque careers in my analysis.
Having actually read your articles and rationales aye you did account for such folks pretty reasonably IMO, also many of my responses are to expressed sentiment of others as it pertains to their GOAT lists, rather than any particular observation of yours.
In a more general sense you do see the truncated but glorious career somewhat get a bit of a perception boost versus the similar glorious peak/years of mediocrity comparison
One only has to look at previous GOAT listings and threads and Innovation dropping off a lot in many perceptions. Where I think if he’d played 3/4 years and just retired people would more remember ‘The Machine’ than his long stretch of being mortal.
A career when you win a lot and are crushing fools, only to drop a level for an extended period seems to be regarded less favourably than a player who took a while to do anything of much note and then hit the heights.
Not sure why it is, but it does seem to influence perception.
Rogue was not remotely a bad player in the Kespa era, but he was no Innovation. But in many eyes, I’d perhaps wager the majority of the community Rogue > Inno. Even though I’d say a few years of Inno relative mediocrity should be weighed the same as Rogue’s, they just happened to occur at the end/start of their careers respectively.
At least as it pertains to GOAT lists Neil Young might have been onto something with his ‘it’s better to burn out than to fade away’ sentiment
I feel like I was pretty favorable to players who had really solid 3 and 5 year peaks in the 2012-2017ish era and then kinda wound down over the years. sOs, soO, Zest, Rain all made the list PARTLY because they did things no one had done at that point in time.
As for, INnoVation, his greatest accomplishment is becoming the first person to win 4 Korean Individual Leagues. It's a massive achievement and I think if you want to compare a player to Inno, they better have done something similarly great
Regarding, Mvp and Inno, I feel like they have been attached to one another ever since Inno passed him for KIL wins. And I thought it was very amusing that they ended up like that in my rankings.
I feel like Mvp and Inno have been neck and neck with one another in the goat ranking since 2017. They've slid down because that's what always happens as the years go on and players get the opportunity to win more while you're those two are sitting at home.
It was curious to see that they still ended up back to back when I put everything together. I also think it's perfectly reasonable that they were passed. Inno's big pitch is that he was the first player to win 4 Korean Individual Leagues. It makes sense that players surpassed him for long enough and to a large enough
On June 04 2024 01:31 goldensail wrote: I don't remember if it was this topic or the Addendum topic where I made the statement that IMO, if Serral had played Terran, he would be behind Maru, Inno, Clem, and a few others. This pissed off some people, who either said I was absurd or baseless. I admit I had no evidence, and it was little more than a hunch.
Lo and behold I just came across this video of Serral playing Terran against a nobody Zerg in a Finnish contest. I'll let you watch the series and draw your own conclusion on whether my hunch is justified. Remember this happened around end of '18 when Serral was already placed on a pedestal by many.
This is dumb.
A) You can't take offracing seriously. They invest thousands of hours into the race they play and let the other two atrophy.
B) Back when soO was 6.6k (2017) he was between 5.8 and and 5.5 as Terran on the KR Server. This is a case by case basis type deal.
C) He'll forever be the first foreigner to win Blizzcon butm as for his actual tournament resume goes, he was nowhere near the most decorated player in the world/SC2 history.
D) You just outed yourself, dude. Did you actually refer to ZhuGeLiang a random Zerg nobody? When did you start following SC2 and, do you only watch Serral matches?
I started watching SC2 with a caster named HDStarcraft, he was one of the pioneers in this space and some of the readers probably remember him.
I'm aware that Zhugeliang is one of the best players in Finland but that's not saying a whole lot. I was probably too harsh to call him "nobody", but if you watched the series it should be obvious that he played poorly.
I acknowledge that Serral offracing in Terran is not the same as playing Terran full time. However: 1) Serral clearly felt confident enough about playing Terran that he chose to use it in a tournament 2) it wasn't just his micro that's mediocre, but also his multi-tasking. The latter is a transferrable skill between races.
We'll never really know how good Serral would've become as Terran, but his performance in this series indirectly supports my original opinion that he wouldn't be as good as Maru, Inno, etc. if he had chosen to play this race. Is it proof? No. But to say he would've become one of the best Terrans is a baseless conjecture.
Again, I know I read somewhere that Serral orginally played Terran but later switched to Zerg. I can't find the source now. I hope someone with actual knowledge of this can confirm or disaffirm.
On June 04 2024 01:31 goldensail wrote: I don't remember if it was this topic or the Addendum topic where I made the statement that IMO, if Serral had played Terran, he would be behind Maru, Inno, Clem, and a few others. This pissed off some people, who either said I was absurd or baseless. I admit I had no evidence, and it was little more than a hunch.
Lo and behold I just came across this video of Serral playing Terran against a nobody Zerg in a Finnish contest. I'll let you watch the series and draw your own conclusion on whether my hunch is justified. Remember this happened around end of '18 when Serral was already placed on a pedestal by many.
A) You can't take offracing seriously. They invest thousands of hours into the race they play and let the other two atrophy.
B) Back when soO was 6.6k (2017) he was between 5.8 and and 5.5 as Terran on the KR Server. This is a case by case basis type deal.
C) He'll forever be the first foreigner to win Blizzcon butm as for his actual tournament resume goes, he was nowhere near the most decorated player in the world/SC2 history.
D) You just outed yourself, dude. Did you actually refer to ZhuGeLiang a random Zerg nobody? When did you start following SC2 and, do you only watch Serral matches?
2) it wasn't just his micro that's mediocre, but also his multi-tasking. The latter is a transferrable skill between races.
I don't care about the conjecture regarding whether he'd fare well as a terran main, but this point here is painfully assumptive. There are endless minutiae about one's main race that one must have knowledge of in order to effectivly multi-task. Those minutiae are gained through hundreds of hours of practicing that race, and are not gained just by virtue of being skilled in another race. How much multi-tasking and epic micro do you expect from a 6.2k, anyway? 6.2 is 6.2. If his terran micro and multi-tasking were outstanding (for a pro) he wouldn't be 6.2k, unless he has no grasp of terran strategy whatsoever.
On June 09 2024 01:58 frustratedsc2user wrote: Why don't people admit that guys like Serral is just genetically superior. Its like asking who's more handsome naturally, Brad Pitt or Adam Driver. Its all genetics. Life is ALL about genetics. Its all Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Its like how women genuinely desire to breed with alphamales and not betamales.
Right now Serral is the alpha of SC2. Everyone else is a beta. They can practice all they want but they will NEVER be able to match true good genetics. It is what it is.
Because we aren't Nazis and recognize genetics are NOT everything. They absolutely play a critical role, but genetics by themselves never tell the full story.
Maru and the Koreans practice day in and day out. Serral barely practices and spends more time doing things like yoga. You cant say he won without pure genetics. You don't have to be a Nazi to know that some people are genetically superior to others. For example, Brad Pitt is 100% genetically superior to Adam Sandler.
EPT
