The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Table of content 1. Introduction 2. General methodology 3. Aligulac rank analysis 4. Match win rates analysis 5. Tournament Analysis - 5.1 Percentage of won tournaments - 5.2 Average place achieved - 5.3 Tournament score - 5.4 Efficiency score 6. Discussion 7. Weightings 8. Counter-arguments 9. Surprise
1. Introduction Following my last article, which mostly generated positive feedback on reddit and TL but also faced (constructive and destructive) criticism, I wanted to expand on my GOAT list by adding more data and addressing the most common disagreements. If I could sum them up, the most common critiques were:
a. Mvp, Rain or Life is GOAT and a list that doesn’t look at these players more thoroughly isn’t sufficient b. Including match win rates of team events is not enough to honor the accomplishments of players and team events should be included in the tournament score as well c. Serral faced the great players of the prime era 2013-2015 (Zest, sOs, TY, INnoVation, soO, Trap, stats, etc.) when they were already old and not at their best, thus he can’t be the GOAT d. Serral never won a GSL
I first thought I would merely address these 4 arguments in the follow up article but after evaluating the first one I decided to rewrite most parts completely from scratch. This decision was also triggered by the realization that despite there being no reason for a weighting in my last article as Serral placed first in each metric, there simply was no way to quantify the overall result without a normalization and weighting of the final standings.
For the overall methodology, I included data that was available until the 31st of December 2024. So far, only four Premier Tournaments have been announced for 2025 and only GSL season 1 and DreamHack have been played. The goal once again, is to analyze the available data to - as objectively as possible - give reasons as to which player is the Greatest of all Time in StarCraft II. There will be subjective multipliers to balance out metrics like era or tournament difficulty but I will do my best to give context as to why I chose certain numbers. At the end, I prepared a conciliatory compromise, so hopefully everyone is satisfied and able to choose a GOAT that fits their personal weighting or likings.
I analyzed the following players as they stood out the most among their peers (in order of entering the Top10 on Aligulac): Mvp, Rain, Life (they both entered the Top10 on List 69, Rain on the 3rd and Life on the 6th rank), INnoVation, Maru, Serral, Rogue.
2. General methodology The 3 main qualities I tried to analyze were consistency, dominance and efficiency. I used all available data until the 31st of December 2024.
Consistency - A metric that is showing if players are able to perform over long periods of time at the same level or a similar quality. A sub-category would be duration, although duration by itself doesn’t say anything about quality in reverse. Dominance - A quality that shows that a player is stronger or better than other players. Efficiency - A metric to show that a player is able to generate the best results in a short period of time or better results in the same time frame.
At first glance efficiency and consistency might seem to contradict each other. Consistency is more like a base level that needs to be cleared. Some players have more than a decade of playing at the top level. Thus, players can be more efficient than others over long periods of time, amassing more titles in similar periods. Only looking at tournament placements like other GOAT discussions did in the past would leave out important context. Thus, I evaluated the following data in order to substantiate the 3 factors consistency, dominance and efficiency.
Aligulac rank analysis This metric had a major issue incorporated in the first article, which bypassed me and everyone else. Thus, I completely reworked it. But more on that later on in that metric’s methodology. This analysis gives a direct comparison, analyzed by an algorithm as to how players fare against each other. Though struggling a bit in the early years, Aligulac’s prediction prowess shows how well designed the machine runs.
Aligulac Hall of Fame I completely got rid of this metric. One player’s dominance here simply is too big to adequately compare it to other metrics, which on top give a higher resolution to evaluate the given numbers. For anyone who is interested: The Aligulac Hall of Fame basically is a metric that displays dominance, duration and consistency through a point system that shows a player's distance to rank 7. Meaning the longer and further you are above rank 7, the more points you earn. It can be looked up on the aligulac website (-> records -> HoF).
Match win rates Pretty self-explanatory. Match win rates are a direct comparison against your peers in a given time frame. Important note: This metric could be inflated when playing in regions with weaker opponents or if players play more weekly cups or qualifiers with lower ranked players.
Tournament analysis (including an era analysis and in depth analysis of the tournaments played by these players) - Percentage of won tournaments in relation to a player’s participation (probably one of the two most important metrics and used to highlight efficiency but also dominance in a sense of veni, vidi, vici) - Average place achieved (it is hard to win everything, so looking at this statistic gives one a sense of consistency. A true skill indicator if a player is able to achieve deep runs in different tournaments and through different metas, as luck is decreased) - Tournament score (A player’s life time achievement) - Efficiency score (A score to show how efficient a player was in accumulating achievements - the longer the career, the more impressive a high efficiency score is)
It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral, the only non Korean contender, to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. As an example: His match win rate overall in 2023 was 91,67% and versus Koreans “only” 85,11%. One could correctly argue that post-2018 GSL tournaments would also need to be counter-balanced, as the best players of the world mostly did not participate. Especially in 2021, when Serral, Reynor and Clem were the Top 3 or when ShoWTimE and HeRoMaRinE played their way into the Top 10, GSL - through its inherent unappealing structure to foreigners - simply did not display all the best players on the planet. Now, in 2025 the format took yet another hit after the restructuring in 2020, as this year only 12 players compete in it. But as 2025 is not counted anyways and the end results wouldn’t change much, I decided against a further distinction. This decision helped Maru and Rogue. The only exception for the idea of not counting locked regionals is one sub-analysis (Tournament score) as I found no fair or objective way to make up for the time Serral would have lost by simply leaving out these nine tournaments completely (and for the fact that GSLs were held more frequently, allowing players to accumulate more points). I addressed this issue by devaluing these tournaments immensely, but more on that down below. All the data gathered is available online for free at aligulac.com and liqupedia.com so everyone is welcomed to double check if I made any mistakes to let me correct them in an update.
That being said, this is a very dry and theoretical approach. I incorporated a lot of thought and different perspectives in this analysis, so it will certainly have its lengths while reading. While I’m not a native speaker or professional writer, I’ve done my best to ensure this is clear and accurate. I tried to analyze the topic of GOAT in StarCraft II to the best of my ability and was attempting to look at every angle of argumentation in the discussion. To present the gathered data I included screenshots of my excel sheets as well as graphs for better visualization. It was a lot of work and I hope that you will enjoy this little discussion.
3. Aligulac rank analysis Methodology My former approach was flawed because it only related a given player against themself in measuring their share of the mentioned ranks. This didn’t make much sense as a player who occupied rank 1 for just 5 lists - but never ranked 2, 3 or even stayed in the Top 10 - would have scored higher than someone who held rank 1 for 75 lists but also appeared regularly in the top ranks. I thus revised this whole section. For the new version, I made notes of the players’ Rank 1 occupation on Aligulac and calculated what percentage of all Aligulac lists the players were at the top.This approach allows us to measure how long each player dominated (more rank 1 placements = more points) and directly compare their performances across eras.
I put together a short timeline including the 7 mentioned players:
Dec 2010/List 22 Mvp enters Top 10 Jan 2011/List 23 Mvp is the best player in the world versus all 3 races Oct 2012/List 69 Rain/Life enter Top 10 May 2013/List 83 INnoVation enters Top 10 July 2013/List 89 INnoVation claims rank 1 for the first time March 2014/List 106 Mvp leaves Top 10/ends career Jan 2015/List 127 Maru enters Top 10 Dec 2015/List 151 Rain ends his career on rank 10 Feb 2016/List 155 Life leaves Top 10/gets banned for match fixing June 2017/List 191 Serral enters Top 10 Sept 2017/List 197 Rogue enters Top 10 Dec 2017/List 203 Serral claims rank 1 for the first time. Serral occupies either Rank 1 or 2 from here on out* May 2018/List 214 Maru claims rank 1 for the first time Sept. 2019/List 249 Serral is the best player in the world versus all 3 races Dec. 2020/List 281 Serral is the best player in the world versus all 3 races Nov 2022/List 332 Rogue leaves for military service Sept 2021/List 301 INnoVation leaves for military service March 2022/List 314 Serral reclaims rank 1 and keeps it until today* March 2023/List 340 INnoVation returns from military service and reenters on rank 18 June 2023/List 348 INnoVation ends his career on rank 25 April 2024/List 368 Rogue returns from military service and reenters on rank 17 April 2024/List 369 Serral loses rank 1 due to inactivity (military service); Maru reclaims rank 1 May 2024/List 370 Maru loses rank 1 to Clem May 2024/List 371 Serral reclaims rank 1 with a 276 points rating difference to Clem July 2024/List 375 Serral is the best player in the world versus all 3 races Jan 2025/List 388 Serral is rank 1, Maru rank 5 and Rogue rank 16 *except Lists 369 and 370 where he was signed inactive due to his military service.
Some facts that stood out: 1. Only 8 players in the history of the game were able to be the best against all 3 races so far (DIMAGA, Morrow, Mvp, TaeJa, INnoVation, ByuN, Serral and Reynor). Serral is the only player to achieve this feat several times in many different metas. He was the best player versus all 3 races September 2019, December 2020, April 2022 and July 2024. Mvp occupied this spot for the longest time in a row (9 lists). DIMAGA and Morrow claimed this feat during a time when the player base on aligulac was rather small (<250 - 750) and the game was still evolving. 2. Serral held either rank 1 or 2 continuously since Dec 2017/List 2023 when he claimed rank 1 for the first time, aside from two inactive lists (he only lost it on list 369 and 370 due to the start of his military service where a break in playing signed him as inactive). 3. Serral couldn’t be pushed down by another player from his rank 1 spot since March 2022. He lost first rank only due to inactivity (military service) for 2 lists (369 and 370), but was roughly 300 points ahead of Clem and Maru at that time. Nowadays, it seems more likely than ever that Serral will finally be dethroned as Clem was in a reach of only 25 points to him at one point. 4. Maru lost rank 2 since 2018 to several people including Serral, Dark, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax. 5. Maru never reached INoVation’s rank 1 count (see tables below). 6. Rogue was never rank 1.
Findings and notable trends The table below shows what the counting and calculations ended up in. INnoVation for example played in the Top 10 for 167 Aligulac lists. Out of those 167 lists, he was ranked 1 32 times, ranked 2 38 times and ranked 3 20 times, which gives him a total of 8,27% of rank 1 in relation to all aligulac lists until the end of 2024.
Serral sits on top, occupying 39,28% of all rank 1 spots over the course of the game at the end of 2024, Mvp is nearly at half that amount at 19,90%. Notice that Serral is still ranked 1 at the moment and blew past the 40% mark in the first quarter of 2025. Below you can see a pie chart to make it more visible.
Out of interest, I included rank 2 and 3 as well, where we see Maru overtake Mvp and INnoVation, showcasing how he would easily be at the top of this list, if Serral wouldn’t have taken so many rank 1 spots from him. Although, it needs to be mentioned that Maru’s rank 1 was also taken away by others and he lost rank 2 to many other players over the years. Notably enough, Rain only reached rank 1 twice, Life seven times and Rogue never was on the summit. Here is a graph showcasing the total numbers of player occupying rank 1, 2 and 3, where it is visible that Serral holds more rank 1 spots than each individual player has rank 1,2 and 3 combined.
Which qualities does this metric address? The analysis gives credit to the player’s domination and consistency, as it takes a lot of both to stay in the top 10 - or rank 1 for that matter - for long periods of time. We can safely deduct that all seven players have a sufficient amount of time played at the top level. Mvp is an example of a player who was hyper dominant for a short period of time but then fell off pretty quickly. Context-wise, a player could theoretically occupy rank 1 for a very long time, without ever winning a single tournament and always coming in 2nd. While hypothetical, this illustrates why a multi-metric analysis is essential.
4. Match win rates Methodology I went on the Aligulac match history of a respective contender and singled out given years (for example 2013-01-01 till 2013-12-31) as well as the country (South Korean). As Serral’s score versus the others was not included in this list (as he obviously isn’t Korean), I also made notes of all encounters Mvp, Rain, Life, INnoVation, Maru and Rogue had with Serral, which I added into the equation. Many questions arise when looking at the match win rates. Would Mvp have a 76,00% match win rate in 2011, if prime Clem and Life played in that year too? How would INovAtion have fared if he faced prime Serral in 2014/2015 and not a part time StarCraft II Serral? Would Serral have reached above 85% in the prime era of SCII? No one knows and it is incredibly hard to factor all these thoughts in. On top, there is the fact that Serral mostly played only the best of the best Koreans, while the Koreans inflated their win rates with lower ranked Koreans when playing qualifiers. Another perspective includes players who rose to fame in the game rather quickly and ended their career in a similar manner (Mvp, Rain, Life, Rogue), while others (INnoVation, Maru, Serral) had a long build up or stayed as long as possible, which means lower win rates when first gaining momentum or dropping win rates when demotivation, age or injuries kick in. If we take into account all possible angles I think most of the advantages and disadvantages balance each other out enough to go without multipliers. Below, as an example, Rogue’s match win rate list for 2017 is shown. In 2017 he played a total of 127 matches vs the top Koreans and won 81 for a win rate percentage of 63,78%. Including one win over Serral that year bring his total win rate to 64,06%.
Findings and notable trends
Serral for a second time sits on top with an overall average lifetime match win rate of 70,73%. As I said before, this is only versus top Koreans and includes the years where he was not a full time pro (2014-2017). It was interesting to see that if you look at the best years that have been played, Serral occupies the first 5 spots. In 2020 and 2018 he has 85,71% (2020 is rated higher, as he played more games), in 2023 he scored 85,11% and 76,67% in 2019. Serral’s 96,30% in 2024 stands out as the single most dominant year I’ve encountered in SCII. I also never came across a more dominant year for any e-sports player. And yes, this is in a StarCraft II environment with much less competition, but it needs to be mentioned for what it is, as co-GOAT-contender Maru (68,63%) or younger beasts such as MaxPax (78,61%) or Clem (76,05%) couldn’t even remotely reach similar levels. To add: Serral achieved these match win rates while attending the military, not being able to practice nearly as much as normally.
It should further be mentioned that the Korean players' match win rates are inflated in relation to Serral, as Serral only plays the top of the Korean players. The Koreans on the other hand also play lower rated players - who are easier to beat - in qualifiers or lower Premier tier tournaments (similar to how Clem’s win rate is inflated in comparison to Serral, as he plays much more weekly tournaments). To showcase this, I looked at the adversaries rank that a given player faced in a certain year. I controlled for two categories. First, players ranked 41 - 80 and second, players ranked below 80. In the year 2018 for example, Serral played 3 Koreans from the first category (rank 52, 67 and 60). Maru played 6 Koreans (2x rank 54, 57, 56, 41, and 45) from the first and 3 Koreans (rank 88, 81, 138) from the second category. Controlling for these lower skilled players let Serral’s win rate go from 85,71% to 84,00% and Maru’s from 66,18% to 62,71%. This is because Maru not only played more lower ranked players but also lost to one. For example in 2018 the difference of win rates pre-correction is Serral’s 85,71% minus Maru’s 66,18% = 19,53%. Post-correction we have 84,00% minus 62,71% = 21,29%, meaning Maru’s rating was inflated by 21,29% - 19,53% = 1,76% in comparison to Serral’s. I didn’t include these inflations in my overall analysis, which is a penalty for Serral that ranges from 1,7 to 8% depending on the player and year. The lists were too long to include them entirely, thus this cut-off screenshot will need to do.
Out of interest, I also looked at the player’s rating after they established their spot in the top10 which led to Serral attaining a 77,94% - meaning over 3 out of 4 nearing 4 out of 5 - matches, match win rate versus the best Koreans of the world since 2017. But as this correction only helped Maru and Serral I simply wanted to include this fun fact as a side note. To highlight the aforementioned issues again: If we wanted to compare - for example - Serral’s and Rain’s end results, we would have to - negatively correct Serral’s number for facing less overall competition after 2016 - negatively control Rain’s results for playing more lower ranked players - Serral would also gain a positive correction in relation, as in comparison to Rain he had several years of pretty bad match win rates when he still wasn’t a full time pro As I said before, I think giving weight to all these thoughts would be incredibly hard and would probably only end up in unnecessary controversy, hence I decided to go without multipliers in this analysis, as most of them more or less balance each other out. Which qualities does this metric address? Dominance and consistency are measured here. If you are only good for 1 or 2 years, consistency lacks; if your domination isn’t on point, you get lower win rates. The best win rates are no good, if a player isn’t able to push through at the most important moments. Given how context-sensitive match win rates are, skipping multipliers likely disadvantaged Serral most of all.
5. Tournament analysis I want to start this section of my GOAT analysis while addressing the “era issue”, briefly summing up the game’s history before explaining methodology for this section.
Historical context of StarCraft II competition StarCraft II peaked in popularity and player count immediately following its release in 2010, particularly around 2010-2014 (some would say 2013). The game sold over three million copies within the first month, reflecting a strong and immediate interest from both old fans and new players. The competitive scene peaked at the end of this period, even going into 2015, where the professional scene saw both established legends and emerging stars competing. Challenges following this period included the match fixing scandal, competition due to the rise of other popular e-sports titles like League of Legends and the disbandment of KeSPA, which marked the end of an era. Many professional teams associated with KeSPA either disbanded or shifted their focus to other games. The competitive scene in Korea underwent significant changes, with a shift towards more decentralized and independent tournament organization and a greater reliance on international competitions. Between 2016 and 2018, several notable StarCraft II professional players retired or significantly reduced their competitive activity. This period saw the departure of some legendary figures from the scene, such as Life, MC and Bomber while others like Mvp or Rain already retired in 2015. Reasons for retirement were manifold, including increased competition through new talents, the desire for a new career path, financial challenges through the KeSPA disbandment, alongside personal reasons like health or family issues or burn out. Despite these challenges, the StarCraft II community remained resilient. Independent tournaments, such as those organized by AfreecaTV and other international events, continued to support the competitive scene. The departure of the above-mentioned players in congruence with the disbandment of KeSPA marked the end of an era but also highlighted the evolving nature of the StarCraft II scene. New players continued to rise and maintain the competitive spirit of the game, ensuring its ongoing legacy in the e-sports world. Non-Korean players like Serral and Reynor, as well as later on MaxPax and Clem rose to prominence, demonstrating that the game still had a strong and competitive player base. On top, many names that already were competing at the start of the game or the peak of competitiveness were still around such as sOs, Zest, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, Classic, TY, soO, herO, Cure, Dark, ByuN, Stats, Solar, Maru and INnoVation. The structure, pacing and international nature of competition changed. The goal of this section thus is not to diminish past eras, but to show that high skill persisted across generations, just under different conditions. These long-standing players hailing from pre-2015 who stayed in the game demonstrated an ability to adapt to changes in the game’s meta and maintain high skill levels. They not only continued to compete but also often achieved significant results, showcasing the enduring appeal and competitive nature of StarCraft II with their careers spanning multiple eras of the game and them contributing to the game’s legacy in the e-sports history.
Was the prime era harder? A key question in regards to the “era-issue” is whether it was harder to win titles back then or today. At first glance, this question is easy to answer as the depth of talent in Korea was immense, with many top-tier players vying for titles, making it extremely challenging to win major tournaments. This notion is supported by the argument that the bigger the player pool is, the more likely it is that talents and top-tier players emerge. But a second look might give other reasons why there were so many different title winners back then. The WCS system was complex, with separate regions and premier tournaments like GSL and SSL having extremely high stakes and intense competition. Players often competed in multiple leagues simultaneously, adding to the difficulty due to a packed schedule and constant high-level competition - at times it was simply impossible to compete in every event. Further, frequent balance patches and meta shifts meant players had to constantly adapt to new strategies and changes. The intensity of competition, especially in Korean leagues, was arguably at its peak in 2015. From 2018 onward, the WCS system was more streamlined, with clearer paths to qualification for global events. By this time, the game also had reached a more stable meta with fewer drastic changes, allowing players to develop and refine their strategies more consistently. While the strategic depth reached ever newer heights, players had more time to adapt and perfect their playstyles in a relatively stable environment - a different quality of its own. Players like Serral and Reynor rose to prominence, and winning titles required overcoming a broader array of international talent, which added a different layer of difficulty, which many players struggled to overcome.
Players spanning multiple eras It needs to be pointed out that it is my opinion that the issues of scheduling events, burn out, injuries and the structure of tournaments like Code S are the main reasons why winning titles was so much harder. There are many players that penetrated the top 10 as soon as 2012 or held rank 2 at completely different eras/metas. It is illogical to assume that all these players suddenly got worse, once the new generation arrived. For example we have INnoVation who entered the top 10 in 2013, Scarlett being ranked 9 in July 2014 or herO who was ranked 1 at that time. Or even Maru who was entering the top 10 in early 2015. I doubt anyone would argue that Maru was worse in 2018 than he was in 2015, as he matured as a player and as most players got better with age. Also herO, aged 32, at the time of writing this section, is only 30 points trailing behind Clem, aged 23 on Aligulac. He also is a solid 120 points ahead of 20 year old fellow Protoss MaxPax. These players simply adapted to the new environment better than others, who realized that they couldn’t compete anymore.
Debunking the “Korean decline”-theory To give statistical evidence to these thoughts, I collected data from the two comparable eras. I wanted to see if there is any substance to the idea that Koreans collectively got worse in the time spans from 2013-2015 to 2018/2019, as some fans and experts argue. I thus created a sample of the best Korean players of that time and looked at their match win rates among all Koreans and against their top tier peers on average. This data set includes sOs, TY, PartinG, Zest, herO, Classic, Dark, TaeJa,INnoVation, Maru, soO, Trap, Creator, Solar and Stats. Mvp, Life , Zoun and Rain either didn’t play in one or both of these periods. Below is a table of TY’s record of 2013-2015 and 2018-2019.
After gathering all this data, the picture was as mixed as you’d imagine. Some players got worse, some got better. The overall sentiment was that players got slightly better. The match win rates versus Koreans or their peers had no correlation to them getting worse collectively. As I discussed these findings on Team Liquid, a user uttered the thought that it is obvious that I wouldn’t find lower percentages in win rates as ALL Koreans got collectively worse at similar rates. While I don’t think that this is a very rational line of thought, I accepted the challenge and found another way to test this idea. There are also players like Scarlett, Neeb, Elazer, Nerchio and MaNa - non-Koreans - who wouldn’t be affected by the declining environment of the Korean scene. If we assume that all Koreans collectively got worse, these five should logically perform much better in comparison. We can also compare their numbers against another foreigner who exploded in 2018 - Serral - and see if Serral’s rise to power correlates with a peak of win rate for these players. So I looked at MaNa, Scarlett, Nerchio, Elazer and Neeb and singled out their performance against Koreans for the years 2010 - 2024. Arguably not the biggest sample size, but there aren't many foreigners that qualify for such an investigation. We would either need to see a boost in their win rates because of “Korean deterioration” and/or them becoming better is correlating with Serral’s upcoming years.
Scarlett had her strongest years versus Koreans in 2012 (55%), 2013 (55%), 2014 (48%) and 2015 (48%). 2018 and 2019, when Serral rose to power were already weaker (47 and 44%) and her win rates, except for 2021 (another strong 48% - ironically, Serral’s worst year) even dropped down to 32%. Neeb’s strongest year by far: 2016 (72,13%). He fell off after that to 60,00% in 2017 and 50% in 2018, when Serral became strong. 2019 looked even worse at 31,82%. Nerchio had a strong year in 2013 (58%) and peaked in 2017 (68%) and 2018 (67%) before dropping down to 33% in 2020. MaNa had his strongest year in 2016 (51%) and his weakest in 2018 (18%). Elazer also peaked in 2017 (56,26%), while having a slightly worse 2018 (54,10%) before falling down to 31,58% in 2019. In short, this data offers no support for the idea that Korean players have experienced widespread skill deterioration. Some of these foreign players even had their best year in the prime era, which goes completely against the idea. Even less is there any visible correlation between Serral’s rise and these player’s results. Thus, the skill deterioration argument against Serral’s claim, from my point of view, is shakier than ever. However, this does not mean that individual players didn’t get worse because of age, demotivation, etc.
To sum up this history lesson and the data analysis: In my opinion,StarCraft II’s competitiveness was peaking in 2015, but player’s skill levels which are portrayed through the ranking system were not much influenced by a decline in the number of active professionals. This theory is supported by the fact that match win rates or tournament win rates didn’t suddenly go through the roof for a lot of players or their results versus foreigners. We saw a constant change from older to newer players like it has been the case throughout the game’s history.
Implication for the tournament score Because of their inherently more difficult structure as well as the peak competitiveness pre-2018, all post-2018 tournaments in this analysis will be given a handicap. In my first article, this handicap was the same for all further metrics, but while thinking more deeply about this topic, I noticed that this procedure was flawed. First of all, the tournament score already had an inherent correction, as older tournaments were significantly ranked higher in terms of multipliers than newer ones. Further, doubling the player pool doesn’t affect all metrics in the same way. For example: If we have double the player pool in a tournament, it would only lead to one more knockout round. Quadrupling the player pool would lead to potentially more or bigger groups. This wouldn’t really be that much of an issue for our GOAT-contenders as they’d be the favourites to win anyhow. Yes, doubling the player pool/having one more round per tournament would probably lead to less overall titles, but not to 50% less. Hence the tournament-participation-win-ratio would not be as much affected as for example average place. The tournament-participation-win-ratio is an either/or metric, while the average place is a quantifiable metric. Meaning, if you have one more group stage and get knocked out earlier you are suddenly not in the Ro32 but in the Ro64. This significantly lowers a player’s average placement, making a stronger correction necessary for that metric. In the methodology part for each of the metrics, I explained in detail why I arrived at the multipliers I did.
5.1 Percentage of won tournaments Methodology For the percentage of won tournaments lists I counted every tournament a given player was participating in - for Serral only the ones with top Korean participation. Then, I counted the number of tournament wins and calculated the percentage relative to total participation.
For the era-multiplier it was essential to work out whether or not it was reasonable that good players would have won more tournaments post 2018 and if so, by how much. Here we have three major conflicting thoughts. The first fact is that there - as said before - was much more competition pre-2018. Although it would have been necessary to assign an even greater penalty to Mvp’s era, as the quality of competition was worse than in the prime SCII-era, I wanted to save myself from unnecessary quarrels (and a massive amount of extra work) and decided to give him the same buff as the other pre-2018 players. The 2nd thought is the number of tournaments. The more competitive player pool of the prime-era was spread among many more tournaments. For example there were more Premier Tournaments in 2011 (34), 2012 (41), 2013 (34), 2014 (35) and 2015 (35) than in the combined numbers of 2022, 2023 and 2024 (15, 10 and 8). Conflicting schedules of qualifiers or main events lead to many more players winning and being considered top tier than that could have been the case in the modern era. There, with only as little as eight tournaments (or 2025 four) per year, you could only win if you defeated the best of the best, because all the top notch players were participating in these scarce money grabs. The third idea stems from the reversal notion. The idea is that, for example, Serral or Rogue would probably have won less tournaments, had they played in the prime era. But the reverse is true too, because having two more strong Zergs in the prime era, would have obviously dropped Life’s or Rain’s tournament win rate as well. Factoring these ideas in, the era-multiplier for this metric was put at 1.2, meaning a 20% bonus for every year pre-2018. It needs to be mentioned that such blank multipliers in general help players who had short, dominant careers the most. It is of course harder to maintain a high rating in this metric over long periods of time. Meaning, it is easier for a player to win for example 30% of their participated tournaments in one year, than to do so over five years. This default bonus most benefits Mvp, Rain and Life, as their short, dominant careers align with the boosted era itself. INnoVation’s career was longer but also mostly present in the era that received the bonus. Maru benefits from this correction in two years, Rogue in one, Serral in no year. Here is a screenshot from the data analysis.
Findings and notable trends With the methodology applied, here’s what the results revealed:
And for better visualization, here as a graph:
After the adjustment, we have a shared 1st place of 33,33% by Life and Serral. When I first calculated Life’s numbers in August 2024, Serral was still slightly ahead with 34,00%. But then I extended the list to the whole of 2024 and as Serral didn’t win EWC, his ratio got downgraded. Life is mentioned first, as he appeared chronologically before Serral in SC II. To add some context: In a sport where even winning 10 - 15% of events places a player among the game’s best of all time, Life and Serral’s 33% win rate is absolutely staggering. We could weigh Life’s presence in the more competitive era versus Serral’s longer career, but as both have an insane resumée in this metric a shared first place seems fine to me. Mvp is on their heels with 30,00% but it needs to be noted that his result should probably be corrected a little bit downward, as he received the same multiplier as Rain and Life, even though the overall competitive level during his era was likely lower. In comparison to the non-era adjustment, not much has happened ranking-wise, as Rain still is in the last spot. Just to be clear about this: As Serral participated in one Premier Tournament that he did not win in 2025, Life will be the sole leader in this category in an update that includes 2025.
Which qualities does this metric address? This metric clearly highlights dominance. To score a high percentage on this list, one needs to be better than other players in the same tournament. The longer a player achieves this, the more consistent he is as well, meaning one could weigh in - for example - Maru’s or Serral’s longer careers versus Life’s or Mvp’s rather short careers. This is probably one of the most important metrics, as long as a certain threshold number of participations is achieved. A 100% win rate from a single tournament appearance wouldn’t be meaningful without a significant participation sample. The higher the score, the more you simply won, when showing up.
5.2 Average place achieved Methodology For the calculation of the average place achieved in Premium Tournaments, I began by identifying each player’s prime years. I did this for two reasons: 1. To safe time, as looking through all of these hundreds of tournaments and making notes of each player's placement was excruciatingly time-consuming. 2. To give INnoVation and Maru with their long lasting careers a fighting chance. This correction helped INnoVation and Maru by a very large margin more than it did help Mvp, Serral and Rogue who didn’t benefit much, as there weren’t too many recorded tournaments before they had their prime. Rain and Life benefit the least from this decision. After figuring out the players’ prime years (Mvp 2011-2013, Rain 2012-2015, Life 2012-2015, INnoVation 2014-2017, Maru 2018-2024, Serral 2018-2024 and Rogue 2017-2022) I was looking up every tournament placement of a player in these years (For Serral only in tournaments with top Korean participation) and then averaged their placements. The era-multiplier needs to be higher than in the won tournament percentage, as explained earlier. One more group stage means that a player potentially gets knocked out of a Ro64 instead of a Ro32, meaning an average going from 24,5 to 48,5. Hence a bigger correction is necessary for these earlier dropout rounds. To set these off, all pre-2018 places were divided by three and multiplied by two, roughly giving the affected players an entire free round in 2 out of 3 tournaments. This is admittedly a generous correction, but it was applied intentionally to honor the greater structural difficulty of earlier eras. This helps Mvp, Rain, Life and INnoVation the most and Rogue in one year. Maru and Serral do not benefit from this correction. Below is Rogue’s counting sheet where 2017 was adjusted by a factor of 1.5 , resulting in an average placement of 8,56 over his six counted years.
Findings and notable trends And here the results for this metric:
Remarkably, Serral leads this metric despite receiving no era-based correction, highlighting his consistent top-level performance. He stands at an average placement of 3,20 in his prime, meaning on average Serral reaches the semi-finals when he goes into a Premier Tournament. INnoVation comes in 2nd (3,83) and Maru 3rd (5,29). Keep in mind that INnoVation’s score is highly inflated due to 2013, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 not being counted and him playing a lot of tournaments. Maru played a phenomenal 2024 and would have taken 1st place in best years ever played, but Serral - despite his military service - had an average placement of 1,25 in the same year. Serral won 3 out of 4 tournaments he played and finished 2nd in the one he did not win.
Which qualities does this metric address? We once again have a result that showcases dominance. To be able to place high in these top level events simply shows how a player is stronger than his adversaries in given tournaments. Achieving this over longer periods of course is more impressive. Again, a high score in this metric doesn’t necessarily mean a player won many tournaments, which is why other metrics - like tournament wine rate or tournament score - are needed for deeper insight.
5.3 Tournament score Methodology Era multiplier This metric took different multipliers to determine a score in order to evaluate the worth for Premier Tournaments. First we already have the era-multiplier I mentioned before. Pre-2018 tournaments received a multiplier of 1,5, post-2018 tournaments have 1. Due to more competition and more rounds in tournaments, it was simply harder to win pre-2018. Thus, all tournaments played in that time-frame received a bonus of 50%. Relative to average placement multiplier, this one should arguably be lower, but I feared for calls of favoritism for Serral, so I left it as originally designed. Placement multiplier The rank multiplier is next. In my opinion, to be the greatest of all time, winning a tournament matters a lot more than coming in 2nd, let alone placing 3rd or 4th. I tried to think of a fair distribution to not penalize one or another player too much. As I couldn’t come up with good explanations, I settled for a solution that would mean even more work for the update. Organizers of big tournaments will know best how to award places in tournaments, so I counted the distributed prize money of all the Premier Tournaments for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd/4th and 4th place since the beginning of the game. The averages of these ratios were used for the rank multiplier and the following ratios manifested. 1st place: 2,29 2nd place: 1,00 3rd place: 0,49 3rd/4th place: 0,47 4th place: 0,44 Tournament multiplier The next multiplier was considering the tournament and was by far the statistic which took the longest time to put together (I sincerely thought about going full subjective here, as it took literal months to go through them all). Tournaments are built differently with each tournament containing unique structures and diverse players that participate in it. I looked at all (yes, all… this took forever) tournaments where the contenders placed first and second. Then, I looked at the aligulac page of the final of a given tournament. It was too much work to do for every step for non-weekenders, so I settled for this compromise; it shouldn’t influence the result too much though. I further made notes of the ranks of all players who got into Ro16 and Ro8. I made averages and compared the tournaments while also considering structure and prestige. This is how my excel sheets for the tournament count look like (I get nightmares by simply looking at this sheet):
This procedure led to 7 categories that were established which are mostly similar to the ranking that Mizenhauer pointed out as well, although I cannot say anything about the actual weighting he gave these tournaments. 1. World Championships and World Championship Level events. This category includes WCS Global Finals, BlizzCons and IEM World Championships after 2018, representing the most prestigious events of the world, where the best of the best compete. This category has a multiplier of 1,1. 2. GSL Code S, OSL, SSL until 2020 come in at a value of 1. The separation to later GSLs was made due to the restructuring of the tournament after 2020 Code S season 3 where player amount and difficulty of advancing was diminished a lot. 3. ESL Masters as well as DreamHack Season Finals from 2020 onwards, Master’s Coliseum. In contrast to Mizenhauer I devalued these events slightly in comparison to Code S, OSL and SSL. Although DH Last Chance 2022 (won by Maru), DH Last Chance 2021 (Serral 2nd place) as well as Master’s Coliseum 6 and 7 (both won by Serral) could have easily been upgraded to category 2 as the average player rank was simply absurd. MC6 had an Ro8 average of 4,75 and MC7 of 5,75 with 4,5 being the lowest possible score. These two tournaments were simply filled with the best the world had to offer until the very last moment. But out of respect to the old era (which again is a small added buff to this time) I devalued this category slightly at 0,95. This decision again disfavors Serral the most. 4. GSL Code S 2021 and following, GSL vs the World, WESG. The WESG should have been positioned in category 5 according to the involved players in Ro16 and Ro8 but was given an upward correction to category 4, as the prize pool was insane. GSL vs the world was corrected downward from category 3. Although the best of the world competed, the tournament structure was rather simple and it is widely regarded as a “show tournament” despite the best of the world attending. This category is a good example of my thought processes as for example 2013 DreamHack Open: Bucharest was corrected upward as only one player lowered the average score immensely. Lastly: 2013 WCS Season 1 was corrected upwards for era-reasonings, as it would have been placed in category 6 following the average player count. Category 4 is valued 0,8. 5. Category 5 includes random events such as King of Battles, miscellaneous Afreeca TV tournaments or ESL Masters locked regionals. Value: 0,85. 6. Mostly region-locked ESLs and HomeStoryCups which see another sharp decrease in value: 0,7. 7. This category only includes the Gold Professional Championship 2019 Season 1, which has the worst Ro16 and Ro8 ratings (86,38 and 44,75) as well as low price money. This tournament offered little competitive value - unfortunately for INnoVation. I can only multiply this tournament only at 0,5. Team result handling For the team result multipliers that were newly added, I did the following: I checked the win rate of a given player. If it was below 50% then the tournament was not counted for that player, because if everyone had this player's win rate, the team would have never gotten an upper placement in the league. This result is an indicator that a player was lifted up by his team-mates and thus, there should be no points handed out. It serves as an entrance barrier and as a marker for contribution. It also takes away one of my concerns for including team-results. One could argue that the entrance barrier should be higher, but adding more to a team than being neutral or a burden is fine for me. There will be another new multiplier, named participation-multiplier. Why is that necessary? For example: A team played 60 games in a given season and the player only participated in 2 games, his contribution is extremely small. The fairest and most practical idea I had was to incorporate a participation rate.
An example is INnoVation's 2012–2013 SK Planet Proleague. He has a 68% win rate thus clearing him for the further calculation, which is:
2,29 (place) X 1,5 (era) X 1 (tournament) X 0,2386 (participation) for a total of 0,82 points.
I further calculated the final score for each participant.
Findings and notable trends
As most would have probably suspected, the long careers of Maru and Serral and their inhuman penetration of ultra high tier tournaments over long periods of time left the other contenders no chance. Serral comes out on top by only a very slight margin (67,09 vs 64,14). In the first article, I valued this metric as a draw, but by including team results and a more objective 1st to 2nd place ratio which gave this metric a lot more resolution, it is safe to say that with a 4% higher score than Maru, Serral is the clear winner here. The aggregated tournament placements across both solo and team events - despite not benefiting from era-multipliers - establish Serral as the most consistently dominant tournament performer in StarCraft II history. By including other contenders, Rogue managed to leave the last rank, as he performed better than Mvp and Rain. Life barely missed a spot on the podium as he is only a couple of points behind INnoVation. Comparing my findings with Miz’s extensive GOAT list (which is roughly the equivalent of this tournament score), I get the impression that Life possibly was not mentioned due to the match fixing scandal. His accomplishments are simply too big to not even make Top 10 and from my understanding I don’t see him placing behind Rogue or Mvp.
Which qualities does this metric address? The tournament score is a clear indicator of consistency and dominance, similar to the Aligulac Hall of Fame, although the HoF has a different resolution as it incorporates a ranking difference as a measure of dominance. Here, the dominance aspect is shown through a player being able to penetrate high placements consistently. Alongside percentage of tournaments won, I consider this the most important metric due to its depth, granularity and inclusion of both consistency and dominance. Both of them together give a valid basis for evaluating long term success and efficiency at it.
5.4. Efficiency-score Methodology To calculate the efficiency score, I divided each player’s total tournament score by the number of years in which they reached a final. The higher the score, the better. Findings and notable trends
We have a new leader in this category. Life’s extraordinarily efficient career puts him two full points ahead of Serral, securing the top spot in this category. Bursting onto the scene at a very young age during the most competitive period in StarCraft II History, he delivered a phenomenal display of skill. While we will never know whether he could have sustained this brilliance over a longer career, it’s only fair to give honor where honor is due - to StarCraft II's failed prodigy. Rogue moves up one position, leaving INnoVation at the bottom of efficiency. It’s worth noting that maintaining a high efficiency score is generally easier for players with shorter careers - especially those who peaked during a concentrated period of dominance. Life’s lead in this metric reinforces his peak-level dominance, but also highlights why efficiency alone cannot determine GOAT status. Players like Serral or Maru who remained competitive for more than double Life’s career, naturally face diminishing efficiency returns over time. Which qualities does this metric address? This metric directly reflects a player’s ability to convert competitive seasons into high tournament value. While efficiency is somewhat important, it is probably the least important metric in my opinion, as it is harder to achieve efficiency in longer careers, which often carry more weight in GOAT discussions.
6. Discussion First of all, let me show you the final rankings that came together. This section will summarize the updated rankings across all six metrics and highlights how each player’s performance evolved - particularly after adjustments such as era multipliers and the inclusion of team results.
In the reworked Aligulac Rank analysis, Serral extends his lead as he stayed at rank 1 consistently and Maru dropped out of the Top 4 since the last article. INnoVation still maintains two more rank 1 spots over Maru. Including Mvp, Rain and Life shows why Mvp is held in such high regard even after so many years, as he occupies a very impressive 2nd place. This of course also is due to Serral’s dominance, Maru could have caught up, if he had more rank 1, if Serral hadn’t been so consistent over the years.
The Match Win Rates saw Serral’s inhuman 2024 extend the distance to Maru. In 2024, Serral lost to only two players: Clem and Maru. To Maru he lost once (the game versus him was an insignificant group stage loss, where Serral later on won the whole tournament). This unheard-of dominance translated into a staggering 96,30% (!) win rate versus Koreans in 2024. His previous records of over 85% already surpassed his professional peers by 10-15%, but in 2024 Serral simply took his game to an even higher level. If not for Clem, Serral’s dominance in 2024 would have been virtually untouchable. I even thought about putting in Serral’s overall match win rate (so the matches against Clem would be included), as over 95% sounds simply unbelievable, but even when including non-Koreans he still stands at an all time best of over 88%. As Maru’s win rate would also drop if I did that (79,07 to 74,67) and the outcome didn’t change much, I left things as my methodology was set up in the first place. Including Maru’s win rate versus Serral puts him at 68,63%. Serral after the update now holds the 5 best years, as his 2024 kicks out Maru’s 2021.
Tournament Win Percentages have Serral deliver an absolutely insane 75% in 2024, with finishing the one event he did not win in second place. Including Mvp and Life puts Rogue, INnoVation and Maru 2 spots back each, as these two come very close to Serral’s performance. Rain finished last. Note, that I included all of Serral’s active years from 2014 onward - even before he turned full-time pro.
In comparison to my last article, Serral’s Average Place in 2024 dropped from 1,00 to 1,25 as he (only) placed second at EWC. Maru followed along, as EWC saw him finishing 6th/7th. I also corrected a mistake from my last article:
In the Tournament Score Serral compensated the points Maru gained through the adding of team events by placing 2nd at EWC and winning WTL. Maru’s team score is 4,39 and Serral’s 1,87. In total, the new tournament score sees Maru at 64,14 and Serral at 67,09, ultimately placing Serral ahead of Maru.
Including team tournaments of course also affected the Efficiency Score, as more points were gained in the same period of time. Life is the uncontested winner of this metric, distancing Serral and Mvp by roughly 2 points, although it needs to be mentioned that Serral’s efficiency score in the context of his much longer career is really impressive. Rogue, Rain, Maru and INnoVation trail behind another 3 points.
Overall, it needs to be pointed out that Serral is either in 1st (4 metrics alone, 1 metric shared) or 2nd place (1 metric). His distance to the average of this super elite sample is in large parts extremely impressive.
But why not only go for the Tournament Score, the percentage of tournaments won and the Aligulac rank analysis if these are the most important metrics to check for GOAT-qualities? In my opinion, the more significant metrics one adds to the discussion, the more resolution is given to crown the GOAT. For example, analyzing who survived the most cannon rushes would be trivial - because broader, more telling performance metrics already are in place. But the other 3 metrics also give context that is important for a GOAT to boost.
Now while these six metrics offer a robust and multidimensional view of greatness, not all should be weighted equally. In the next section, I’ll explain how I approached the question of relative importance and why each metric carries a different weight in the final evaluation.
7. Normalization and Weighting Normalization As we are dealing with different scales and units, I further needed to normalize them, before applying these weighted averages. Thus, the metrics were normalized to a common 0-100 scale (min-max normalization). For positive metrics (the higher, the better): normalized_score = ((value-min)/(max-min))*100 For inverse metrics (lower is better): normalized_score = ((max-value)/(max-min))*100
Below are the normalized but unweighted scores for each player across all six metrics:
Serral, through his top placements in all metrics is far ahead of the rest of the field with 565,69 points to Life’s 320,34, meaning 76,59% more than the 2nd contender. His distance to Rogue’s 58,27 points is 870,56%.
Weighting the metrics Last time, I thought that weighing the seven metrics against each other made no sense, as Serral placed first in all of them anyway and different weightings could not have changed the overall result. At this point, one could argue that efficiency outweighs all other metrics or we ignore all other qualities to crown Life as the GOAT - but on its own, efficiency obviously isn’t sufficient to determine the GOAT.
Equal weighting would flatten the importance of more comprehensive metrics like tournament score, Aligulac rank or percentage of won tournaments, which capture sustained dominance better than efficiency alone. As I had a lot of trouble weighing the different metrics, I asked ChatGTP for support in evaluating the relative importance of each metric.
“I put together data to establish the greatest StarCraft II player of all time. To check for dominance, consistency and efficiency, I collected numbers for the following metrics: 1. Aligulac Rank analysis to see if a player was better and for how long than their peers through the page’s algorithm. 2. Match win rates - a direct comparison between peers. Needs to be controlled for inflated numbers through weaker regions or players. 3. Tournament win percentages as a sort of veni, vidi, vici. A high score indicates that a player showed dominance when playing tournaments. A 20% buff for the pre-2018 era was given, as the competition was harder in that time frame. 4. Average place as a true skill indicator. It singles out players who mostly relied on one meta to achieve a good tournament win percentage. A 50% was given to pre-2018 years. 5. The tournament score. The lifetime achievement of a player, where subjective multipliers for the tournaments and era (50%) were given. The placement-multiplier was created according to the prize money ratio. 6. Efficiency score. Here I divided the tournament score by the years a given player has reached the finals. Thus, this score benefits also pre-2018 tournaments by the 50% boost. Can you analyze these 6 metrics for their worth for the debate and give a weighting? If all should be weighted equally, let me know as well.”
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Final ranking and interpretation
As I never went through the trouble of normalizing and weighting the results in the first article, I was actually pretty shocked by the results. Seeing Serral’s lead visualized made me realize how insanely well he fares even among the elite of the game. Serral’s lead widens under the ChatGPT-recommended weighting scheme, further solidifying his overall position. He stands at nearly double the result of Life, distancing the 2nd place by a very large margin. After the weighting, Maru closes the distance to Life, so a shared 2nd place seems fine to me. Coming back to Miz’ list: I would like to understand how Maru was ahead of Serral before Miz’ update, as with the data I collected, Maru - without an era-multiplier, that I used but Miz didn’t - is notably behind Serral in the tournament score; even before I altered the 1st-2nd-place-ratio to community standards. Other than that, Rogue seems to fall off, once more resolution is added to the debate. Serral simply is too consistent among several metrics that show us the qualities a GOAT needs to display. Even under extreme hypothetical adjustments, the most that can be achieved is Serral dropping to second - or at most third - place in isolated metrics. But other players will be held back by suboptimal results in different fields, which won’t lead to Serral losing his overall #1 spot.
On metric sensitivity and the resilience of the verdict One might still ask: what if we tweak the subjective metrics to favor a different GOAT candidate? For example, increasing the era-adjusted weight to push Life even further ahead on the efficiency score, or let Mvp get ahead of Serral as well. Any such adjustment would necessarily harm the other contenders in the same move. Life’s lead in this metric alone is not sufficient to close the overall gap without heavily overweighing it - which would in turn catastrophically penalize other GOAT contenders like Rain, INnoVation, Maru or Rogue, who rank significantly lower in this dimension. Also, Maru or Rogue’s relation would be utterly disastrous as their achievements mostly overlap in time with Serral. The scoring system would then become a binary fight between two outliers among outliers: Serral and Life.
Likewise, Serral’s dominance is not solely dependent on any single metric. Apart from efficiency - where is ahead - there is no category in which another player surpasses him. Even if one were to increase the era amplification in that category to boost Life significantly, the unintended effect would be to collapse the GOAT argument for Maru and Rogue, who would fall dramatically in the final score, as the era boost would also need to be changed in the tournament score for Mvp, Rain, Life and INnoVation. Such one-dimensional inflation is analytically fragile and undermines multi-metric integrity, as the score landscape is tightly interlinked.
A related hypothetical: Some argue Maru cannot be the GOAT due to never having won a World Championship. Should he win EWC 2025, would that change the verdict? Probably not, as winning EWC would improve his standing only marginally and the gap to Serral remains vast under all balanced scoring approaches. Much of Maru's GOAT case against Serral relies on subjective sentiment - his unmatched longevity, him having played in the prime era but also his very real trophy count that shadows anyone except Serral. But this analysis shows that Serral’s performance, even when weighted and adjusted for era-based volatility, remains objectively superior by an insanely wide margin. If we would boost the era multiplier so much that Maru gets ahead of Serral (only possible with the tournament score), we would also need to apply the same boost to the other metrics, which in turn would make Life grow his distance in the overall lead over Maru and would let INnoVation overtake Maru as well. In the end, Serral's final weighted score is nearly 100% ahead of both second and third place, a gap no plausible rebalancing can close without invalidating the rest of the field. Any push to lower Serral’s standing by emphasizing a single category necessarily undermines the consistency and fairness of the broader comparison. The more one tries to shift the framework to favor a different contender, the more one simultaneously unravels the legitimacy of all remaining ones.
While talking with Chat GTP about the article, it told me that listing achievements like winning streaks or other achievements that these players got could be interesting. But other than the achievements that are listed on liquipedia and the ones I already mentioned, there are mostly things where Serral absolutely dominates (like winning streaks versus certain races, overall winning streaks, streaks of occupying ranks, streaks of reaching semis or finals, etc.). So I decided to leave that part out. Ultimately, the data-driven analysis confirms what many already suspected: Serral’s dominance, consistency and efficiency across multiple metrics make him the strongest candidate for the StarCraft II GOAT title.
8. Counter-Arguments Mvp, Rain and Life as well as team events were included. These were some of the most consistent critiques of the original article and all have been incorporated.
As explained in the history section, I don’t believe the data supports the argument that Serral only faced prime players when they were measurably weaker. While it’s true that players like Rogue in 2025 aren’t identical to their 2017 selves, Serral’s victories between 2018 and 2020 were not limited to weakened opposition. Many of his contemporaries - including Maru, Rogue, and other top Koreans - were still at or near their peak and yet were not able to match his results. As Serral further fended off upcoming beasts like Reynor, Clem and MaxPax and stayed consistent for such a long time, I don’t see any reasonable notion why this argument could further be used to attack his GOAT-claim.
The point that Serral never won a GSL, while historically true, is largely irrelevant. Serral won on Korean soil, and in preparation-style formats - just not both at the same time. He is arguably the strongest preparation player of all time. His record against top Koreans, in similarly demanding formats, is undisputed. He had over 85% win rates versus Koreans (and even higher overall), and had he participated in all 21 GSLs from 2018 until 2024, statistical models suggest he would likely have won at least one - if not several - and taken titles away from Koreans at the same time. But while this is only a hypothetical with absurdly high chances, we know other things for certain: Only Life was more efficient than Serral. Maru never won a world championship despite trying several times and couldn’t match Serral in any metric. The other contenders never reached Serral’s inhuman win ratios versus Koreans and overall. No one except Life achieved Serral’s tournament-participation-win-ratios. No one ever achieved higher average placements. No one dominated more. And 2nd or 3rd places of the observed metrics were distributed among the other 6 players. No one of the others was as consistent as Serral among several important metrics and factors that display greatness. If Serral won a GSL in my opinion is utterly irrelevant according to the data as well as the tournament simply being a semi-lock for foreigners, whether Arty likes it or not. Since 2018 the best of the world are not participating in it (with some minor exceptions), because the strongest players were non-Koreans from that point in time and GSL to these non-Koreans simply had an unappealing structure and price pool.
Overall, including the old article, I think I did my best to cover differing metrics that each call for distinguished qualities. I adjusted for era differences and with the update, the most pressing criticisms were addressed. Looking at other players wouldn’t lead to much, as first and second places wouldn’t change in any metric. Thus, I am happy to say that I don’t have much more to add to the GOAT debate. Serral by a large margin simply has inhuman numbers contributing to his claim. It is undeniable. One can debate whether or not Life can be GOAT because he only played really well in three years or if he is unfit because of the match fixing scandal. Whether Rogue’s inconsistency or winning GSL mostly in a setting where the best of the world did not compete is worthy of being a GOAT or whether Maru can be GOAT despite him being outperformed by other GOAT-contenders through-out most of his career and never winning a world championship. Whether Serral can be denied this claim because he never played a GSL or if Clem might be able to establish a Serral-like years-long dominance and reach his statistical numbers after denying Serral a perfect year 2024. There are pros and cons against and for any contender and we won’t have a perfect one. In my opinion, the data up to this point is clear who the closest which checks the most and most important boxes is.
Thought experiment: If we get rid of Serral in this whole debate… But let’s give it a try and imagine a StarCraft II world without Serral: Mvp wins the Aligulac rank analysis by a large margin but places 6th in tournament score and win rate, and last in average placement. Rain dominates match win rate but is last in tournament win percentage and tournament score. Life wins tournament percentage and efficiency but is only mid-tier in most other metrics. INnoVation wins average placement but finishes last in efficiency and low in win percentage. Maru wins tournament score handily but underperforms in win percentage and efficiency. Rogue never places first in any metric.
Each of these legends has strengths - but also key weaknesses. There is only one outlier: Serral, who places first in nearly every category and second only in efficiency, which naturally favors shorter careers. If consistency, dominance, and adaptability over time matter, Serral is simply untouchable. The more resolution one adds (in the form of yearly accomplishments), the more insane his numbers are. At the only metric where he placed second (efficiency), his much longer career is only bested by Life’s rather short career, which is a big issue as there is a correlation between a longer career and a lower efficiency score. This is to be expected, as it is plausible that short, strong careers are easier to achieve than to maintain longer ones efficiently. But even there, Serral outperforms the short career players Mvp and Rain. Life or Maru, depending on where your personal priorities lie (efficiency and best performance in the prime era versus longevity), are both eligible for 2nd place overall.
With this update, I've addressed the key criticisms of the previous article, introduced era-adjusted metrics, normalized scores, and added team event contributions. No further changes to the metric set would alter the top spot. Serral’s lead is not fragile - it is resilient across almost every analytical dimension. Even aggressive statistical manipulation (for example doubling era multipliers) only briefly shifts him to second or third in isolated categories. No other player maintains such an all-around elite profile.
And while ChatGTP suggested I list streaks or records, most of those - like winning streaks by race, longest time at rank 1, or consecutive top finishes - are also dominated mostly by Serral. Including them would only reinforce what is already statistically clear.
Summed up, I don’t think anyone can make a plausible case against Serral. He simply, by far, is the best player this game has ever seen and his accomplishments are more than enough to crown him the Greatest Player of All Time in StarCraft II.
But I want to end all this in a conciliatory tone for all those that think, Serral is not the GOAT. Thus I present to you…
9. Pick-your-GOAT / thoughts about Clem Because different weightings yield different outcomes, it's possible to justify alternative GOATs - if one prioritizes specific metrics disproportionately. So if you value...
… efficiency above all else, your GOAT is Life. … career duration and sheer persistence, your GOAT is Maru. … accomplishments in the prime era, your GOAT might be INnoVation. … winning GSLs (or your name is Artosis), your GOAT is Rogue. … any subjective skill, personal charisma, or emotional weight, your GOAT is whoever resonates with you the most.
I’m proud of this work and the depth of analysis it represents. It was a lot of effort to put together - so if you have feedback, please keep it civil and constructive. I’ll do my best to answer any questions. If you’re interested in experimenting with multipliers, adjustments, or different value systems, feel free to DM me. And if you spot errors - especially in the data - please let me know so I can fix them.
PS: One last thing Some users - especially after Clem’s dominant 3-0 and 5-0 victories over Serral at EWC 2024 - asked whether he’s now a GOAT candidate. It’s a fair question. And the comparison is much easier to perform as Clem and Serral hail from the same region, which removes the need for complex Korea/non-Korea balancing. However, Clem is not yet a true GOAT contender. He has eight Premier Tournament wins - but seven were region-locked. The only globally contested win was EWC 2024, which did indeed crown him world champion. By contrast, Reynor has nine Premier wins, with only two of them being locked. He also scores better across most metrics and is still far behind Serral. It’s true that Clem could soon overtake Serral on Aligulac - at the moment they are some 50 points apart, the closest margin since Serral’s reign began in 2022. But to catch up, Clem would need over 160 additional weeks at rank 1, not to mention a significant leap in win percentage, tournament placements, and career consistency.
In short: Clem is one of the world’s best players right now - but not yet a GOAT candidate. Perhaps in 3 to 5 more years, with sustained dominance, he could enter that conversation. Being the GOAT isn't about momentary victories or isolated losses. It's about building a legacy - across eras, through consistency, dominance, and excellence - measured not in moments, but in metrics over time. If Serral continues performing as he has, it may never be possible for anyone to match his legacy and dominance.
Thanks for your time and I hope you found this article somewhat useful and/or interesting!
My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
so.. you used arbitrary weights that you yourself said you disagreed with but because chatgpt suggested it you went with it? I think Artosis did a much better job weighing the accomplishments. Also, rogue could not compete for a few years because of military service while serral could continue practicing and competing. Rogue has been in an artificial "slump" for the past 3 some odd years because of it. Not just military, but coming back you've seen time and time again players need at least a year to regain their old form. Furthermore, many of Serrals wins were in less competitive events. I mean, Serral MAY be the goat, and he PROBABLY IS as of right now, BUT those weights and the chart you showed is heavily off base. I mean Life as your top 2 is insane. Life was the goat in the late wings-end of hots era. But of all time? LOTV has almost been out for 10 years come on man...
also i did not read the entire thing, but at least the bottom half is almost certainly 99% ai written. I mean... "With this update, I've addressed the key criticisms of the previous article, introduced era-adjusted metrics, normalized scores, and added team event contributions. No further changes to the metric set would alter the top spot. Serral’s lead is not fragile - it is resilient across almost every analytical dimension. Even aggressive statistical manipulation (for example doubling era multipliers) only briefly shifts him to second or third in isolated categories. No other player maintains such an all-around elite profile"
I know you said u got your weights from chatgpt, and control f shows you offhandedly reference it in your contributions 5 times, but i am also leaning towards 99% of this entire article is just AI jargon and you posted it because it reaffirms your belief as serral being the goat.
Thanks mate... now that the upload is complete, I will read your newest article on GSL I really wanted to talk to you about it too, as vice-versa, I wasn't really able to understand your ranking. As your list is mostly congruent to my tournament score, where Rogue also placed significantly below Maru and some points below INnoVation, we could compare the actual weightings of tournaments and/or era.
Things that could come to mind: I perhaps devalued 2020 GSLs more than you (Rogue having 3 wins there), but that wouldn't explain why he places so far behind Maru who also has lots of Tournaments points in that time frame. In the comparison to INno, the era-multiplier could be an issue. 1.5 is a lot and I guess, leaving that away would lead to Rogue placing 3, which would nearly perfectly align with your result.
I don't think ChatGTP has something to do with it. I used excel sheets and the AI was mostly there to give stylistic suggestions (the article was much longer before it got rid of some repetitions). The weighting was the biggest influence ChatGTP had. And as the weighting only slightly shifted the final result, it isn't all that influential.
Say, as some users criticized the Aligulac-metric in its entirety: What is your opinion on it? I know, that it had issues cross-regionally in the beginning, but my impression was that its prediction tool and the overall ranking system were pretty stable and reliable since at least 30 years.
On June 01 2025 16:29 PremoBeats wrote: Thanks mate... now that the upload is complete, I will read your newest article on GSL I really wanted to talk to you about it too, as vice-versa, I wasn't really able to understand your ranking. As your list is mostly congruent to my tournament score, where Rogue also placed significantly below Maru and some points below INnoVation, we could compare the actual weightings of tournaments and/or era.
Things that could come to mind: I perhaps devalued 2020 GSLs more than you (Rogue having 3 wins there), but that wouldn't explain why he places so far behind Maru who also has lots of Tournaments points in that time frame. In the comparison to INno, the era-multiplier could be an issue. 1.5 is a lot and I guess, leaving that away would lead to Rogue placing 3, which would nearly perfectly align with your result.
Say, as some users criticized the Aligulac-metric in its entirety: What is your opinion on it? I know, that it had issues cross-regionally in the beginning, but my impression was that its prediction tool and the overall ranking system were pretty stable and reliable since at least 30 years.
1) I didn't do era adjustments or anything similar because it's grossly subjective and causes the entire thing to fall apart.
2) Aligulac is inherently flawed and I don't think it's really an indication of much at all.
If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
Maru is the GOAT of SC2. He played in the first GSL in 2010 and became a royal roader by winning his first OSL in 2013. During the golden era (2014–2016), he was hands down the best Proleague player with an absurd win rate and also captured an SSL title. Then came the LOTV —widely considered Zerg-favored—and Maru still dominated, winning four GSLs in a row from 2018 to 2019. That streak, in my opinion, is the greatest performance in SC2 history. And the craziest part? He’s still at the top, winning a DreamHack in 2025—15 years after his debut. Across SC2’s entire history (2010–2025), Maru stands as the GOAT. That said, people can have different views—some might see Rogue or Serral as #1 depending on what they value or focus on.
On June 01 2025 16:23 CicadaSC wrote: so.. you used arbitrary weights that you yourself said you disagreed with but because chatgpt suggested it you went with it? I think Artosis did a much better job weighing the accomplishments. Also, rogue could not compete for a few years because of military service while serral could continue practicing and competing. Rogue has been in an artificial "slump" for the past 3 some odd years because of it. Not just military, but coming back you've seen time and time again players need at least a year to regain their old form. Furthermore, many of Serrals wins were in less competitive events. I mean, Serral MAY be the goat, and he PROBABLY IS as of right now, BUT those weights and the chart you showed is heavily off base. I mean Life as your top 2 is insane. Life was the goat in the late wings-end of hots era. But of all time? LOTV has almost been out for 10 years come on man...
I wanted to go for full transparency. And although the weightings would tilt slightly (my instinct was to switch Aligulac and Tournament win %), the end result would hardly change. Life is not MY top2. He is the top 2 according to these metrics that I think reflect GOAT qualities the best. But I agree, that by modifying the era-multiplier, he would probably land behind Maru... I simply didn't want people to accuse me of favoring the modern era too much.
On June 01 2025 16:27 CicadaSC wrote: also i did not read the entire thing, but at least the bottom half is almost certainly 99% ai written. I mean... "With this update, I've addressed the key criticisms of the previous article, introduced era-adjusted metrics, normalized scores, and added team event contributions. No further changes to the metric set would alter the top spot. Serral’s lead is not fragile - it is resilient across almost every analytical dimension. Even aggressive statistical manipulation (for example doubling era multipliers) only briefly shifts him to second or third in isolated categories. No other player maintains such an all-around elite profile"
I know you said u got your weights from chatgpt, and control f shows you offhandedly reference it in your contributions 5 times, but i am also leaning towards 99% of this entire article is just AI jargon and you posted it because it reaffirms your belief as serral being the goat.
It was not 99% AI written, although I am fully transparent that the 1-page-summary on reddit was mostly AI-written as I didn't have anymore energy to do it too. I "talked" a lot with Chat GTP about the results though and asked for logical errors or things the machine would add/leave away, always reminding it to make a fair case for GOAT characteristics. And just a heads-up: There is pretty easy way to see if a text is AI-generated or corrected. You see this on many posts, but mine is not one of them.
EDIT: One other thought.. what if the text was 100% AI? Would it invalidate the data I gathered in any sense?
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Reynor was addressed slightly when I touched Clem. Dark... well, does he stand a chance in comparison to Maru?
Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
On June 01 2025 16:35 dedede wrote: Maru is the GOAT of SC2. He played in the first GSL in 2010 and became a royal roader by winning his first OSL in 2013. During the golden era (2014–2016), he was hands down the best Proleague player with an absurd win rate and also captured an SSL title. Then came the LOTV —widely considered Zerg-favored—and Maru still dominated, winning four GSLs in a row from 2018 to 2019. That streak, in my opinion, is the greatest performance in SC2 history. And the craziest part? He’s still at the top, winning a DreamHack in 2025—15 years after his debut. Across SC2’s entire history (2010–2025), Maru stands as the GOAT. That said, people can have different views—some might see Rogue or Serral as #1 depending on what they value or focus on.
Subjectively, that is how it feels. But if one normalizes and weighs several qualities and metrics that a GOAT should sport, the result is clear. Although - as I wrote at the end - one can make this subjective case perfectly fine. Maru's extremely long career and penetration of the top at a very young age and more than a decade after, are a perfectly viable substantiation of him being a GOAT.
On June 01 2025 16:29 PremoBeats wrote: Thanks mate... now that the upload is complete, I will read your newest article on GSL I really wanted to talk to you about it too, as vice-versa, I wasn't really able to understand your ranking. As your list is mostly congruent to my tournament score, where Rogue also placed significantly below Maru and some points below INnoVation, we could compare the actual weightings of tournaments and/or era.
Things that could come to mind: I perhaps devalued 2020 GSLs more than you (Rogue having 3 wins there), but that wouldn't explain why he places so far behind Maru who also has lots of Tournaments points in that time frame. In the comparison to INno, the era-multiplier could be an issue. 1.5 is a lot and I guess, leaving that away would lead to Rogue placing 3, which would nearly perfectly align with your result.
Say, as some users criticized the Aligulac-metric in its entirety: What is your opinion on it? I know, that it had issues cross-regionally in the beginning, but my impression was that its prediction tool and the overall ranking system were pretty stable and reliable since at least 30 years.
1) I didn't do era adjustments or anything similar because it's grossly subjective and causes the entire thing to fall apart.
2) Aligulac is inherently flawed and I don't think it's really an indication of much at all.
1) What would you reply to people who push back on this modus operandi by saying that you devalue the peak competitiveness of 2013-2015 in doing so?
2) How come? Can you explain that further? As I said: I know the cross-regional comparison was pretty off in the beginning, but even now? The inflation by weeklies (for example Showtime, Clem) can be discussed, but does that really affect any of the mentioned players? Especially when Serral, who rarely played anything except the biggest tournaments in the last years, sits on top for so long.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
Rogue simply has subpar results, except when he dominated certain tournaments. His match win rates are simply not close to the others. He was not once on first rank at Aligulac. There is no statistic where he truly shines. That is exactly why I looked at different qualities and metrics. If one simply wants to look at the tournament score, Rogue is in the top 4. Getting rid of the era-multiplier should put him in the third spot above INno... then I would have the exact same top 5 as Miz after the update, as my tournament score is roughly the same as his overall list (ignoring Life, who probably wasn't on Miz list due to the match-fixing).
According to your suggestion only 1 metric would be influenced. And remember, that Serral's region locks are discarded anyway for Match win rates, average place, tournament win%, and Aligulac.
But I like the idea of a survey... I'll get to it once I find the time.
EDIT: Wouldn't you agree though, that the offline-online ratio is unfair to Europeans or North Americans? There are 2-4 offline-GSLs in Seoul per year, which geographically simply is not possible in Europe or the NA, due to geophraphical reasons and the players being way more dispersed over a larger area. It is simply a necessity. But as these offline-tournaments mostly overlap with region locks, which are devalued in my score anyway, I could imagine Maru taking the first place from Serral again (as I on top have an era-multiplier which Miz didn't use) but it doing not too much for Rogue in the overall result. Anyway: I am open to reevaluating the tournament multiplier after having gathered the findings of a survey
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
Rogue simply has subpar results, except when he dominated certain tournaments. His match win rates are simply not close to the others. He was not once on first rank at Aligulac. There is no statistic where he truly shines. That is exactly why I looked at different qualities and metrics. If one simply wants to look at the tournament score, Rogue is in the top 4. Getting rid of the era-multiplier should put him in the third spot above INno... then I would have the exact same top 5 as Miz after the update, as my tournament score is roughly the same as his overall list (ignoring Life, who probably wasn't on Miz list due to the match-fixing).
According to your suggestion only 1 metric would be influenced. And remember, that Serral's region locks are discarded anyway for Match win rates, average place, tournament win%, and Aligulac.
But I like the idea of a survey... I'll get to it once I find the time.
EDIT: Wouldn't you agree though, that the offline-online ratio is unfair to Europeans or North Americans? There are 2-4 offline-GSLs in Seoul per year, which geographically simply is not possible in Europe or the NA, due to geophraphical reasons and the players being way more dispersed over a larger area. It is simply a necessity. But as these offline-tournaments mostly overlap with region locks, which are devalued in my score anyway, I could imagine Maru taking the first place from Serral again (as I on top have an era-multiplier which Miz didn't use) but it doing not too much for Rogue in the overall result. Anyway: I am open to reevaluating the tournament multiplier after having gathered the findings of a survey
Rogue has excellent results compared to every StarCraft II player not named Maru and Serral (and it's close between those three). The difference between Rogue and the aforementioned pair is that they have won a ton and they've exhibited far more consistency during their careers. No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings and the gap is so large that Rogue's inconsistencies don't matter when comparing him against anyone other than Maru/Serral (though the most staunch fan could present a reasonable-ish case that Mvp should be on the same tier.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
Rogue simply has subpar results, except when he dominated certain tournaments. His match win rates are simply not close to the others. He was not once on first rank at Aligulac. There is no statistic where he truly shines. That is exactly why I looked at different qualities and metrics. If one simply wants to look at the tournament score, Rogue is in the top 4. Getting rid of the era-multiplier should put him in the third spot above INno... then I would have the exact same top 5 as Miz after the update, as my tournament score is roughly the same as his overall list (ignoring Life, who probably wasn't on Miz list due to the match-fixing).
According to your suggestion only 1 metric would be influenced. And remember, that Serral's region locks are discarded anyway for Match win rates, average place, tournament win%, and Aligulac.
But I like the idea of a survey... I'll get to it once I find the time.
EDIT: Wouldn't you agree though, that the offline-online ratio is unfair to Europeans or North Americans? There are 2-4 offline-GSLs in Seoul per year, which geographically simply is not possible in Europe or the NA, due to geophraphical reasons and the players being way more dispersed over a larger area. It is simply a necessity. But as these offline-tournaments mostly overlap with region locks, which are devalued in my score anyway, I could imagine Maru taking the first place from Serral again (as I on top have an era-multiplier which Miz didn't use) but it doing not too much for Rogue in the overall result. Anyway: I am open to reevaluating the tournament multiplier after having gathered the findings of a survey
Rogue has excellent results compared to every StarCraft II player not named Maru and Serral (and it's close between those three). The difference between Rogue and the aforementioned pair is that they have won a ton and they've exhibited far more consistency during their careers. No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings and the gap is so large that Rogue's inconsistencies don't matter when comparing him against anyone other than Maru/Serral (though the most staunch fan could present a reasonable-ish case that Mvp should be on the same tier.
It wasn't my intention to undermine Rogue's legacy in any way. He has excellent results in high tier tournaments, thus in the tournament score. My statement was made in contrast to the other metrics that were analyzed and where he has subpar results and which cumulated in his last place. His overall match win rates are way below the others. He was never ranked 1 on Aligulac, which all other contenders achieved. His tournament win percentage was only comparable in 2017 to the best results of other players. His average places from 2018-2020 were not that good. He was moderately efficient.
I specifically looked at several relevant metrics to scan for GOAT qualities to not fall prey to blindspots. Rogue had insane peaks, but his consistency among several metrics simply is not that good. And no, his results versus Mvp, Inno, Life and Rain also are not excellent, if one broadens their vision. I agree with you saying that he won the most and most prestigious events, aside from Maru and Serral though, that is a fact (11 PT wins, most GSL wins, World Champion, etc). And hat is also the reason why he will be 3rd place in the tournament score (which is basically the same as your GOAT list), if I deactivate the era-multiplier in my excel sheet.
I didn't read much so far; mostly the the methodology part.
As mizenhauer mentioned maybe there's something ~wrong with your methodology. For me it's not that rogue did so bad in your rankings (even though this too) but rather that the final list includes 3 players that were only active for quite a short time. (mvp, life and rain.) If 3 of the 7 top ranking goat candidates of your final list in the year 2025 have not been active for longer than 5 years even though sc2 has been around for 15 than I personally get the distinct feeling that your test is not very valid, i.e. does not test what it supposed to. at least in my eyes.
edit: i guess it all comes down to what a GOAT is to you. Probably we simply have different expectations. Which your 3 factors kind of show to me. For example, I don't think consistency in the course of 15 years of a game is mega relevant to be the GOAT. But it's quite interesting to see the ranking when it comes to the factors you applied and I also can relate that somebody bases the GOAT title on these
On June 01 2025 21:12 jodljodl wrote: I didn't read much so far; mostly the the methodology part.
As mizenhauer mentioned maybe there's something ~wrong with your methodology. For me it's not that rogue did so bad in your rankings (even though this too) but rather that the final list includes 3 players that were only active for quite a short time. (mvp, life and rain.) If 3 of the 7 top ranking goat candidates of your final list in the year 2025 have not been active for longer than 5 years even though sc2 has been around for 15 than I personally get the distinct feeling that your test is not very valid, i.e. does not test what it supposed to. at least in my eyes.
edit: i guess it all comes down to what a GOAT is to you. Probably we simply have different expectations. Which your 3 factors kind of show to me. For example, I don't think consistency in the course of 15 years of a game is mega relevant to be the GOAT. But it's quite interesting to see the ranking when it comes to the factors you applied and I also can relate that somebody bases the GOAT title on these
I only evaluated these 7 players, not all players. As I don't see anyone else being better than these 7 and as they are the ones being mentioned the most in GOAT discussions, I focused only on them (the data gathering for such an extensive evaluation was immensely time consuming even for these 7 alone). Most other names lack title count, win rates or prestige.
Which metrics would you like to see if not the ones I used? Or what factors/qualities should a GOAT have in your opinion?
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
Rogue simply has subpar results, except when he dominated certain tournaments. His match win rates are simply not close to the others. He was not once on first rank at Aligulac. There is no statistic where he truly shines. That is exactly why I looked at different qualities and metrics. If one simply wants to look at the tournament score, Rogue is in the top 4. Getting rid of the era-multiplier should put him in the third spot above INno... then I would have the exact same top 5 as Miz after the update, as my tournament score is roughly the same as his overall list (ignoring Life, who probably wasn't on Miz list due to the match-fixing).
According to your suggestion only 1 metric would be influenced. And remember, that Serral's region locks are discarded anyway for Match win rates, average place, tournament win%, and Aligulac.
But I like the idea of a survey... I'll get to it once I find the time.
EDIT: Wouldn't you agree though, that the offline-online ratio is unfair to Europeans or North Americans? There are 2-4 offline-GSLs in Seoul per year, which geographically simply is not possible in Europe or the NA, due to geophraphical reasons and the players being way more dispersed over a larger area. It is simply a necessity. But as these offline-tournaments mostly overlap with region locks, which are devalued in my score anyway, I could imagine Maru taking the first place from Serral again (as I on top have an era-multiplier which Miz didn't use) but it doing not too much for Rogue in the overall result. Anyway: I am open to reevaluating the tournament multiplier after having gathered the findings of a survey
Rogue has excellent results compared to every StarCraft II player not named Maru and Serral (and it's close between those three). The difference between Rogue and the aforementioned pair is that they have won a ton and they've exhibited far more consistency during their careers. No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings and the gap is so large that Rogue's inconsistencies don't matter when comparing him against anyone other than Maru/Serral (though the most staunch fan could present a reasonable-ish case that Mvp should be on the same tier.
"No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings". I genuinely don't understand how you keep coming to this conclusion. Dark not only compares, he beats Rogue on nearly any metric that isn't only just counting GSL + WC golds (and it's not like Dark doesn't have wins in those). Especially since you specifically say high placings, Dark blows Rogue out of the water there.
I'll let everyone decide for themselves based on their resumes below, and I've even removed Dark's Cross Finals finishes, 4th place finishes when there was a definitive 3rd, and taken out A tier silvers for both players (which would also benefit Dark). But for me personally, who values consistently high placings in competitive tournaments as the number 1 metric when considering a GOAT list, Dark comfortably beats Rogue. To say that Dark can't even compare and that Rogue's inconsistencies don't matter is wild.
Rogue: Gold • 2022 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S • TeamLiquid StarLeague 8 • 2021 Global StarCraft II League Season 1 • 2020 Global StarCraft II League Season 2 • IEM Katowice 2020 • 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 3: Code S • IEM Season XII - World Championship • 2017 WCS Global Finals • 2017 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • IEM Season XII – Shanghai Silver • DH SC2 Masters 2021 Winter: Season Finals Bronze • IEM Katowice 2022 • 2021 Global StarCraft II League Season 3 • DH SC2 Masters 2021 Summer: Season Finals • 2020 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • 2018 WCS Global Finals • HomeStory Cup XIV • 2015 WCS Global Finals • MSI Beat IT 2014 A tier gold: • NeXT 2020 Summer • Ting Open Season 1
Dark: Gold • 2024 Global StarCraft II League Season 2: Code S • DH SC2 Masters 2022 Valencia • 2021 Global StarCraft II League Season 2 • TeamLiquid StarLeague 6 • 2019 WCS Global Finals • 2019 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 2: Code S • 2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 1: Main Event Silver • ESL SC2 Masters 2023 Winter • 2023 Global StarCraft II League Season 2: Code S • 2022 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • 2022 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 1 • 2020 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 1 • 2018 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 1 • World Electronic Sports Games 2017 • 2017 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 2 – Premier • 2016 WCS Global Playoffs and Finals • 2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 2: Main Event • LOTTE Homeshopping 2015 KeSPA Cup Season 2 • GiGA internet 2015 KeSPA Cup Season 1 Bronze • Esports World Cup 2024 • ESL SC2 Masters 2024 Spring • IEM Katowice 2024 • 2023 Global StarCraft II League Season 3: Code S • 2022 Global StarCraft II League Season 2: Code S • 2022 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S • King of Battles 2 • 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 3: Code S • 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S • IEM Season XIII – Katowice • 2018 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • 2018 GSL vs the World • 2018 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S • 2017 AfreecaTV GSL Super Tournament 2 • 2017 Global StarCraft II League Season 3: Code S • IEM Season XI - World Championship • IEM Season XI – Gyeonggi • IEM Season IX - World Championship A Tier Gold • WardiTV Korean Royale Season 3 • OSC Championship Season 11 • WardiTV 2023 • WardiTV Spring Championship 2023 • AfreecaTV Champions Cup (had Serral, Maru, Reynor, Maxpax, Clem, herO) • Gladiators' Cup (had Serral, Reynor, Maxpax, Rogue, herO)
Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
Rogue absolutely was the best player in the world in late 2017 - early 2018. There's absolutely no argument about it, he won IEM Shanghai, GSL Super tournament and Blizzcon back-to-back-to-back, then got eliminated from GSL but won IEM Katowice right after. It's one of the most dominant streaks any player ever had
All those words and analysis and then it leads into this.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency.
If you want to be taken serious, you should have a better reasoning for your weightings than because chatgpt said so.
Personally I don't see any reason why any score besides tournament score should count AT ALL. tournament score is what players have achieved during their career which is what the Goat is about imo. The rest are just extremely subjective determinators of things like 'dominance'. But I don't see any good reason why dominance should count more then longevity aka why should it count more when a player wins 8 tournaments during two years (and thus has good scores in your chosen criteria) versus when he needs 15 years to win 8 tournaments. The latter shows extreme longevity staying competitive for so long, and succeeding in vastly different metas, environments and competition, which to me is just as impressive as being dominant during one stint but failing to keep that performance for a longer period. But 5 out of your 6 criteria heavily favor dominance in a shortish period over longevity which I just can't agree with. Rating the actual tournament results of a player with only 22.5% seems completely asinine to me
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
Tournaments should all be adjusted for difficulty. Aligulac ratings could be used for that. If a tournament is relatively easy to win for Serral as most top 10-15 players aren't competiting it should reward fewer points. Hence Serral would get less points for that - all things equal.
But noone aside from MVP would really benefit that much as I also rate "dominance" much higher than most other people do. And noone was really clearly dominant for a very long time during those periods.
However, assuming say someone was equally dominant from 2011 to 2013 as Serral has been past 7 years, he would rank above Serral in my book.
I don't know exactly which tournaments in korea 2011-2014 that would get a lot of points assuming they are adjusted for skill which you don't think should receive that many points?
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
On June 02 2025 02:15 Charoisaur wrote: All those words and analysis and then it leads into this.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency.
If you want to be taken serious, you should have a better reasoning for your weightings than because chatgpt said so.
Personally I don't see any reason why any score besides tournament score should count AT ALL. tournament score is what players have achieved during their career which is what the Goat is about imo. The rest are just extremely subjective determinators of things like 'dominance'. But I don't see any good reason why dominance should count more then longevity aka why should it count more when a player wins 8 tournaments during two years (and thus has good scores in your chosen criteria) versus when he needs 15 years to win 8 tournaments. The latter shows extreme longevity staying competitive for so long, and succeeding in vastly different metas, environments and competition, which to me is just as impressive as being dominant during one stint but failing to keep that performance for a longer period. But 5 out of your 6 criteria heavily favor dominance in a shortish period over longevity which I just can't agree with. Rating the actual tournament results of a player with only 22.5% seems completely asinine to me
1 criteria is for efficiency, as the name suggests. Aligulac is for dominance and longevity. Tournament win % does not exclude longevity, as Serral shows. Average placement also does not exclude it. Neither do match win rates. Tournament score is also both.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
But you do realize that the weighting is mostly irrelevant, unless we hyper-overtune efficiency, so Life would come out on top? Serral simply is good in all of them. For all I care give each of them 0,05 and the rest to the tournament score. Then Maru and Rogue would be at the same place as in Miz' list.
@Hider: That is exactly what I did though. I looked at each (!!!) tournament and looked at the Ro8 and Ro16, noted down every player and checked the corresponding list in order to be able to build an average. According to this average and more subjective factors like prestige and prize money I established 7 categories.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
Yeah, that's the point. It just heavily punishes players who have high longevity but were never really dominant (like Dark), compared to players who only shined during a brief period but were very dominant (like Mvp). I don't see any objective reasons why the achievements of someone like Dark should be worth less, just because he needed more time to accomplish them. In the opposite, he proved he can succeed in many more different metas and fields of competition than Mvp, which should count for something.
It's a good ranking for most dominant player of all time, but at least for me that's not (solely) what Greatest of all time means.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
Yeah, that's the point. It just heavily punishes players who have high longevity but were never really dominant (like Dark), compared to players who only shined during a brief period but were very dominant (like Mvp). I don't see any objective reasons why the achievements of someone like Dark should be worth less, just because he needed more time to accomplish them. In the opposite, he proved he can succeed in many more different metas and fields of competition than Mvp, which should count for something.
It's a good ranking for most dominant player of all time, but at least for me that's not (solely) what Greatest of all time means.
So what's the suggestion? Only look at prime years for a comparison? Wouldn't that be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who kickstarted into the scene?
Also, why should it be done in the first place, when we have a player who demonstrates that it is possible to do. Could be interpretated as favoritism towards Inno and Maru. Do we subsequently also discount those years in the tournament score though?
I could do it for a comparison though... this wouldn’t take too much time I guess, as I'd simply have to redo the prime years, which shouldn't take too long.
Edit: I already did for average place anyways, as those data sets were super bothersome to gather.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
Yeah, that's the point. It just heavily punishes players who have high longevity but were never really dominant (like Dark), compared to players who only shined during a brief period but were very dominant (like Mvp). I don't see any objective reasons why the achievements of someone like Dark should be worth less, just because he needed more time to accomplish them. In the opposite, he proved he can succeed in many more different metas and fields of competition than Mvp, which should count for something.
It's a good ranking for most dominant player of all time, but at least for me that's not (solely) what Greatest of all time means.
So what's the suggestion? Only look at prime years for a comparison? Wouldn't that be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who kickstarted into the scene?
Also, why should it be done in the first place, when we have a player who demonstrates that it is possible to do. Could be interpretated as favoritism towards Inno and Maru. Do we subsequently also discount those years in the tournament score though?
I could do it for a comparison though... this wouldn’t take too much time I guess, as I'd simply have to redo the prime years, which shouldn't take too long.
Edit: I already did for average place anyways, as those data sets were super bothersome to gather.
I already said it, for me the tournament score is the only metric that's relevant because those are the actual achievements a player has accomplished during their career. I don't see why this score needs to be adjusted with other, very subjective metrics. Accomplishments for me don't become less impressive because players needed longer to accomplish them or had worse aligulac rating during them, worse winrates etc.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
100% agree. This way of thinking about GOATs inevitably leads to such bizarre results. It’s the kind of process that for sure leaves Muhammad Ali no where near the top 10 on a boxing GOAT list (that’s not conjecture, stats-based boxing rankings have consistently produced this result). Basically a deep, conceptual misunderstanding of what “greatness” means.
It’s interesting that this is framed as having taken seriously critiques of the previous analysis when it ironically reproduces this conceptual error so glaringly and fails to even attempt to address it.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
28 series isn’t a small amount of series at all. It’s enough to win 4 GSLs if you sweep the board and don’t drop one.
Looking at his victims that year, it’s also a veritable who’s-who of the crème de la crème of that time from Korea.
I could see it dropping if he only played those same pool of opponents over and over again.
On the flipside, it’s not even a versus Korean win rate really, it’s almost a win rate specifically against top, top tier Koreans. I think there’s a case that the form he was in, 2018 Serral could have raised his win rate if he was unleashed on a bunch of perpetual GSL Ro32/Ro16 at best level Koreans
In some subsequent years I think that’s less the case, in 2018 the opposition really was somewhat filtered that way.
I’m not sure you take Serral’s opponents that year, have another Korean play those sets and have any of them get that win rate.
He has quite a few years that are streets ahead of most by that specific metric, and he’s rarely playing the lower tier Koreans.
@Premo nice one, great job, should stir some debate anyway! Saw it on Reddit too said he’ll there
I appreciate you showing the raw numbers alongside your adjustments too. Makes things less opaque. It irks me when people show their adjusted scores without the raw data, it makes it hard to sorta judge at a glance, as well as assess the weightings themselves.
I think you can’t win some battles, some crit is fine, some is a bit harsh.
I think factoring in ELO, good idea. People bring up Aligulac’s flaws. I also agree it has flaws. But there isn’t an alternative ELO ranking set to use, so what do?
I’d rather you just threw it in, it’s some interesting data anyway, one can take it or leave it.
People will claim x era is weaker or stronger, but then if you weight for it, ‘hey you can’t do that that’s arbitrary!’
Overall I think it’s a great read, and I think a reader can take what they want from it, bar hostility which I think is unwarranted. Worst case it’s some numbers someone has pulled, saves me going through Aligulac! I skimmed it mostly just looking at the numbers and some of your rationales but I’ll return to really pore over the whole thing properly.
We cycle back to my usual point on this. And I’m referring to fans of particular players or positions, not people who write things like this.
You can either say x is the GOAT because various things I value and intangibles, or do something in the realms of cold hard numbers. Or blend the two to some degree.
You can’t just pick and choose which to ignore, or highlight when it suits. You know like player x > y because y doesn’t have a particular thing ticked off. But for player z them not having a particular thing doesn’t matter.
Thus Rogue cannot be the GOAT IMO :p To take one example.
I kid, I think he can, but it has to be a claim heavily based on the intangible, things like his clutchness, his fiendish plays at times etc.
That’s absolutely A-OK by me. I still have Inno up at #3 for me, many, many disagree with that. But the peak Machine was the most terrifying player, relative to the level of his peers that I’ve ever seen, and I imagine we will see. Wasn’t long til folks caught up, but it’s was like watch a semi-pro like mid-GM against a good pro now. It wasn’t that he was better, it was like another level.
If people want to do that for Rogue too, that’s bloody swell if you ask me. But just do that
Once people try to do it by qualifiers and caveats it becomes a mess.
You end up with absurd situations where like someone will have Inno > Serral because he won most of his titles in the Kespa era, but also Rogue > Serral because he’s got Starleagues to tiebreak their WCs, but also Rogue > Maru despite Maru having more Starleagues because Rogue’s got WCs, but also Rogue > sOs because he won more titles overall.
Now, to clarify I don’t mind people using qualifiers whatsoever, I’m taking about sorta chaining them up and applying them in different head-to-heads differently
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
On the flipside, it’s not even a versus Korean win rate really, it’s almost a win rate specifically against top, top tier Koreans. I think there’s a case that the form he was in, 2018 Serral could have raised his win rate if he was unleashed on a bunch of perpetual GSL Ro32/Ro16 at best level Koreans
In some subsequent years I think that’s less the case, in 2018 the opposition really was somewhat filtered that way.
I’m not sure you take Serral’s opponents that year, have another Korean play those sets and have any of them get that win rate.
He has quite a few years that are streets ahead of most by that specific metric, and he’s rarely playing the lower tier Koreans.
What ifs are always tricky, but I'm not sold he'd increase his winrate if he had played in gsl that year. It's just likely he would've been given the reynor treatment and kicked out in groups. For all the talk about his good winrate against koreans, in 2018 his matches against koreans (in his best case scenario of no gsl level prep) were competitive but he wasn't dominating them.
Iem 2018: went 3-2 against trap in the ro8 and 0-3 against classic in the semis
Wesg 2018: went 0-3 against maru in the semis
His best result by far that whole year was blizzcon, and even then stats took 2 games off of him.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
Yeah, that's the point. It just heavily punishes players who have high longevity but were never really dominant (like Dark), compared to players who only shined during a brief period but were very dominant (like Mvp). I don't see any objective reasons why the achievements of someone like Dark should be worth less, just because he needed more time to accomplish them. In the opposite, he proved he can succeed in many more different metas and fields of competition than Mvp, which should count for something.
It's a good ranking for most dominant player of all time, but at least for me that's not (solely) what Greatest of all time means.
I think people sleep on Dark a lot anyway myself, I actually think he’d probably score quite well with these metrics anyway too, not that I wish Premo more Excel pain!
It doesn’t necessarily punish players for longevity, they’re punished for not being the best for a span versus someone who might have been, for me anyway.
For sake of argument, and I’m stripping Rain of a Starleague to equalise. I’m a huge, huge fan of Gumigod. Is anyone not tbh, aside from his opponents when he’s doing something funky? Anyway yeah, they’ve both now got a single GSL. Which would you pick of Rain or Gumigod first in a GOAT list? I think the speed you accomplish things does matter, to some degree. Although really I only factor it in if player x left the scene prematurely
I can’t really think of many sports for example, where names frequently put into the GOAT hat weren’t dominant. In individual sports they gotta win big, in team sports they may just be excelling individually, winning a lot of trophies, or both.
Boxing is probably one, but that’s super specific to the way the sport is run (i.e. total bullshit often).
I think as well, SC2’s truly dominant players all have some other X factor as well, those greatness intangibles.
Mvp - Ahead of the curve in a new game. He put the flesh on the bones of how Terran played, which is for me pretty underrated for a strategy game. Most others were merely standing on the shoulders of giants and iterating. Also Old Man MVP’s last silver, for me maybe more ‘great’ than his wins, battling against the ravages of injury, and scraping by with his wits.
Innovation - Raised the bar, very quickly. Faster than his Kespa cohorts could match, and ultimately higher than many of the previous pros could keep up with. For a relatively brief period he was playing StarCraft at a level we’d simply not seen.
Serral - The first foreigner to break the glass ceiling proper. And he didn’t just break it, he leapt so high he punched through the next couple. He didn’t just peak to get that WC for the foreigners with a miracle, TIME-style run, this dude was now the guy to beat. Absurd consistency and shattered basically every stat record going.
Maru - I mean it’s Maru. He’s, at some point mastered every facet of the game, from cheeky cheese, to brutal pushes and timings, to unparalleled levels of defensive late-game slugfests. ‘Wait, other players use vikings to counter colossus?’ Perhaps Clem may one day catch up, but if there’s a player with the best micro moments highlight reel it’s Maru and it’s not even particularly close.
Voldemort - Incredible player at an incredibly young age. We’d seen many good ones, we hadn’t really seen one, however briefly be the best.
Rogue - His tournament goals are not to win it, they are to reach the final because if he does that, he’s already won.
Anyway, not to ramble too much. I rate Dark super high as well, and I think you make a great point about him adapting not just to metas, but across games. I do have to say I think a period of dominance really does matter. Not just for its own sake but it’s usually accompanied by some other facet of greatness.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
On the flipside, it’s not even a versus Korean win rate really, it’s almost a win rate specifically against top, top tier Koreans. I think there’s a case that the form he was in, 2018 Serral could have raised his win rate if he was unleashed on a bunch of perpetual GSL Ro32/Ro16 at best level Koreans
In some subsequent years I think that’s less the case, in 2018 the opposition really was somewhat filtered that way.
I’m not sure you take Serral’s opponents that year, have another Korean play those sets and have any of them get that win rate.
He has quite a few years that are streets ahead of most by that specific metric, and he’s rarely playing the lower tier Koreans.
What ifs are always tricky, but I'm not sold he'd increase his winrate if he had played in gsl that year. It's just likely he would've been given the reynor treatment and kicked out in groups. For all the talk about his good winrate against koreans, in 2018 his matches against koreans (in his best case scenario of no gsl level prep) were competitive but he wasn't dominating them.
Iem 2018: went 3-2 against trap in the ro8 and 0-3 against classic in the semis
Wesg 2018: went 0-3 against maru in the semis
His best result by far that whole year was blizzcon, and even then stats took 2 games off of him.
GSL is tough, as Reynor has indeed found although I’ve long thought Serral’s just that little bit better at being consistent and hanging in there.
Regardless, whether Serral would/wouldn’t do well in GSL, my point was more he doesn’t tend to play the lower calibre of that cohort. Which Korean players do get to do more often. Not just in GSL itself but qualifiers, and qualifiers for international tournaments as well
I mean if we actually logged a versus foreigner metric and Maru’s basically only playing Serral, Clem, Reynor and a few others from the tier down, it’ll look quite a bit different than the range he gets now. And would be bigger still if he played those further down.
On June 02 2025 12:09 goody153 wrote: Interesting post.
Did not know Rain had that high winrate tbqh
Guy was pretty damn good, he’s gotta be up there as amongst the most talented overall RTS players considering his success across two quite different titles.
On June 02 2025 12:09 goody153 wrote: Interesting post.
Did not know Rain had that high winrate tbqh
Guy was pretty damn good, he’s gotta be up there as amongst the most talented overall RTS players considering his success across two quite different titles.
Of the players who won the most KIL from the period of time stretching from KeSPA switching to SC2 to the end of Hots (summer of 2012-2015), (Classic, Inno, Maru, Rain and Life all won two) only Inno and Rain also reached a third KIL final. Such a short career, but surely an excellent one.
Is being the greatest of all time in the worst expansion of all time with the worst balance council of all time and the least supported professional scene of all time and the most stagnant professional scene of all time even important?
I'm being facetious, I just don't think there's anything to gain from repeating this analysis ad nauseam...
Thanks for that great write-up and summary @PremoBeats
Rogue’s stats are a prime example of how extremely high peak performance, paired with low consistency, can create the illusion of long-term dominance. His clutch wins in big moments really stand out, but they can also distort our perception of sustained excellence. That said, Rogue is undeniably one of the all-time greats, especially under pressure, where his mental resilience often outshines his peers. Still, I wouldn’t put him in the GOAT conversation across the full span of the game.
Now, here's where I go full heretic: Has anyone ever done a similar breakdown for Flash in Brood War? Looking at his Liquipedia page, his overall match win rate is listed at 72.3%—though I’m not sure how current that stat is. If we compare that to the best of SC2 using PremoBeats’ data: Serral sits at 70.73%, Rain at 68.15%, and Maru (already trailing more noticeably) at 65.9%. Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
This is the correct take. I mean no disrespect to the EU qualifier this weekend but look at who serral had to play:
Letalex, shameless, arrogfire, krystianer, goblin and reynor.
That is not comparable to tournaments at the peak of bw or SC2. Even if he's having an off day imo none of those players besides reynor have a chance.
Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
At least one community figure was calling serral the goat in 2018, when serral had no business being even in the conversation. You can justify serral's achievements however you want, but claiming he's underrated is wild.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable, albeit close to impossible to directly compare for my money. But the natural inclination to compare the two respective GOATs in a game and its sequel wouldn’t be inappropriate for me, just would be inconclusive
I’ll give Flash the points for ruthless competition levels, he gets that one.
Serral has some pluses in his column as well: - To all intents and purposes, he’s just some bloke playing from his house, and his competition are alumni of full-time gaming houses full of talent. Indeed, Jin Air still maintained their setup for a fair while. We see in contemporary BW quite how hard it is for folks without experience within the Kespa system to break through even now.
Some more neutral/incomparable IMO points. I don’t know if any of these are better/worse for a comparison in the direction of either player: - Until post-Kespa Flash played the vast majority of his games in prep formats and leveraging his teammates, although ofc his opposition gets that benefit as well. The majority of Serral’s career is showing up at a tournament and figuring out how to navigate whoever the bracket throws up at him. - SC2 keeps getting changed, and BW does not minus the maps. Serral has to navigate that flux and stay on top. On the flipside Flash has to deal with a scene that knows his tendencies and are always seeking some edge. - SC2 is arguably easier for a mid player to beat a top player, but harder to dominate in terms of huge win rates for that exact reason. This was almost the consensus from my memory back in the day. To paraphrase, ‘you won’t see Flash win rates because even the best players will lose the dice roll to the occasional inferior player doing an all-in or cheese.’ This was actually my stance too, and really would have remained so except Serral just went and did it.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable, albeit close to impossible to directly compare for my money. But the natural inclination to compare the two respective GOATs in a game and its sequel wouldn’t be inappropriate for me, just would be inconclusive
I’ll give Flash the points for ruthless competition levels, he gets that one.
Serral has some pluses in his column as well: - To all intents and purposes, he’s just some bloke playing from his house, and his competition are alumni of full-time gaming houses full of talent. Indeed, Jin Air still maintained their setup for a fair while. We see in contemporary BW quite how hard it is for folks without experience within the Kespa system to break through even now.
Some more neutral/incomparable IMO points. I don’t know if any of these are better/worse for a comparison in the direction of either player: - Until post-Kespa Flash played the vast majority of his games in prep formats and leveraging his teammates, although ofc his opposition gets that benefit as well. The majority of Serral’s career is showing up at a tournament and figuring out how to navigate whoever the bracket throws up at him. - SC2 keeps getting changed, and BW does not minus the maps. Serral has to navigate that flux and stay on top. On the flipside Flash has to deal with a scene that knows his tendencies and are always seeking some edge. - SC2 is arguably easier for a mid player to beat a top player, but harder to dominate in terms of huge win rates for that exact reason. This was almost the consensus from my memory back in the day. To paraphrase, ‘you won’t see Flash win rates because even the best players will lose the dice roll to the occasional inferior player doing an all-in or cheese.’ This was actually my stance too, and really would have remained so except Serral just went and did it.
Flash was dominant during the peak of BW competition.
Flash has been equally-if-not-more dominant post-KeSPA.
We could therefore say that Flash's dominance post-KeSPA is the icing on the cake.
Taking the analogy further, Serral's cake consists of nothing but icing.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
At least one community figure was calling serral the goat in 2018, when serral had no business being even in the conversation. You can justify serral's achievements however you want, but claiming he's underrated is wild.
They’re not claiming he’s underrated I don’t think, they’re saying they disagree with the segments of the community who say he can’t be the GOAT without GSLs, just that specific cohort.
Yeah 2018 was pretty premature with that call I’d 100% agree there.
For me, Serral is too good at too much to need a GSL, at least based on his competition. Other opinions may differ!
Where Serral has his strong claims, they’re very strong. Trophies, win rates, average placement etc.
Where others may have claims he doesn’t have, such as Maru’s Starleagues, they tend to lack something else, or, are subject to the same criticisms that are levied at Serral. Maru still doesn’t have a WC. If he picked up a couple, added to him winning in the Strongest EraTM, then I think Serral has to get him some Starleagues.
Rogue, does have those but also doesn’t have wins in the strongest era, which is the biggest criticism of Serral’s claim. He’s got Starleagues, but loses a lot of head-to-head comparisons in other metrics. I think by sufficient margin to outweigh the Starleagues, some may disagree.
For me there isn’t a GOAT candidate with the complete package, trophies, dominance, longevity, Starleagues and World Champs, and doing it at the peak of competition.
Serral is probably the closest for me, overall. But also not a claim without flaws.
I also think the window where him winning some GSLs would have changed the minds of some has passed. Perhaps passed long ago.
Although the flipside to that is I think one can argue that GSL pretty much every season has lacked one of the top 4 players in the world.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
- SC2 is arguably easier for a mid player to beat a top player, but harder to dominate in terms of huge win rates for that exact reason. This was almost the consensus from my memory back in the day. To paraphrase, ‘you won’t see Flash win rates because even the best players will lose the dice roll to the occasional inferior player doing an all-in or cheese.’ This was actually my stance too, and really would have remained so except Serral just went and did it.
That was the consensus when the game was less figured it out. But Serral is not only one who reached insane winrates in sc2, I'd argue Maru did it before Serral against top competition when he won WESG + 3 GSL in 2018. Nowadays Clem is also up there.
In fact content creators like Artosis and PiG think that the opposite is true in todays sc2, that it's too hard to score upsets against superior players which makes the scene too predictable.
Some have had insane years, Maru’s 2018 being a great example of ‘Flash-like’ numbers. I think generally when people are talking about a comparison here, it’s career versus career, not best years versus best years.
For the record, no I don’t think Serral is Flash or whatever, different games etc. He is, however the only player with similar career win rate numbers.
I agree and disagree with the Notorious PiG on this one. I think it’s a problem, it does take the hype down a little. Things do get samey
On the flipside, some of these dominant players are just too good. How far do you have to change things to neuter Serral, a peak Clem a Maru?
Outside of really, a very, very select few, the game is quite volatile still. Things are super tight, most players can beat most others on the day. Dallas was pretty exciting, specially as Clem and Serral lost earlier than one could generally expect, GSL’s been hard to predict, the EWC qualifiers (esp Korea) the same.
I’ll see if I can dig up a rare case of me actually looking at numbers re win rates.
A lot of Kespa players actually have pretty similar win rates in the Kespa era, and after. Some improved a little, some dropped a little. Maru was one of the few who bumped his up by quite a lot actually from memory.
Let’s say we had a lot of title contender types with a 5-10% better win rate post-Kespa. Then, I think Serral, who played most of his top-level career in that era, you could crudely guesstimate that his Kespa era win rates would be in the ballpark of 5-10% lower. Or whatever
I think it WOULD be lower, of course. I’m not insane, but it has to drop a lot to bring him down in that metric.
Another observation I’d make is you haven’t really seen a big fluctuation in wider Korean/foreign relations.
If the Korean level had dropped considerably, I think you’d see that reflected more. The hierarchy and numbers are pretty similar than before.
The TLDR is, I think ofc the level’s dropped, but not all that much based on what I’ve observed anyway. Things you’d expect to see if Korea fell off a cliff largely have not.
My personal opinion is that Serral, and to a lesser degree Reynor and Clem are a glimpse at what a new Kespa player would look like now.
Start from a young age, the scene’s already established and the fundamentals are fleshed out, you’re not switching from another game, SC2 is what you’ve played almost exclusively and you get to go pro.
This is partly why Serral is so damn strong. He’s the next step, the difference is he’s not Korean, and there aren’t other Serrals in Korea that came through.
I think people have it a bit backwards by solely looking at the Kespa era, sometimes it’s interesting to flip it.
We don’t have to think how oov would do versus previous greats. We saw it, he wrecked them, and was part of that lineage which ended up in God himself.
I am not saying at all that Serral is, himself, on a totally other plane or anything like that. But I think he’s a glimpse of that future timeline. Wonder what could have come next?
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Thanks for that great write-up and summary @PremoBeats
Rogue’s stats are a prime example of how extremely high peak performance, paired with low consistency, can create the illusion of long-term dominance. His clutch wins in big moments really stand out, but they can also distort our perception of sustained excellence. That said, Rogue is undeniably one of the all-time greats, especially under pressure, where his mental resilience often outshines his peers. Still, I wouldn’t put him in the GOAT conversation across the full span of the game.
Now, here's where I go full heretic: Has anyone ever done a similar breakdown for Flash in Brood War? Looking at his Liquipedia page, his overall match win rate is listed at 72.3%—though I’m not sure how current that stat is. If we compare that to the best of SC2 using PremoBeats’ data: Serral sits at 70.73%, Rain at 68.15%, and Maru (already trailing more noticeably) at 65.9%. Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Thanks, mate
I just want to repeat it, as I get the impression that many people fail to understand this: This is Serral's lifetime win rate ONLY versus the top Koreans. Meaning Serral mostly played the best of the best, while the lifetime win rate of the Koreans in this article also include many more games versus tier 3, 4 or 5 Koreans from qualifiers and smaller tournaments. I touched this subject in the article, but if I would take a sample of 20 players and averaged this inflation out, a low estimate is that Serral would at least gain additional 2%. His lifetime match win rate overall is 79,14%.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
But how is that the case with my methodology? It would decrease their efficiency and they wouldn't rack in points in the tournament score. Not qualifying for big events would mean that you cannot score tournament score points and your efficiency would drop. And I did not quite understand your example, sorry. I don't get what "winning with the same top 4 placements" means... If you won, you get awarded the placement-multiplier for first place. All other things are related to the era and tournament difficulty.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
On the flipside, it’s not even a versus Korean win rate really, it’s almost a win rate specifically against top, top tier Koreans. I think there’s a case that the form he was in, 2018 Serral could have raised his win rate if he was unleashed on a bunch of perpetual GSL Ro32/Ro16 at best level Koreans
In some subsequent years I think that’s less the case, in 2018 the opposition really was somewhat filtered that way.
I’m not sure you take Serral’s opponents that year, have another Korean play those sets and have any of them get that win rate.
He has quite a few years that are streets ahead of most by that specific metric, and he’s rarely playing the lower tier Koreans.
What ifs are always tricky, but I'm not sold he'd increase his winrate if he had played in gsl that year. It's just likely he would've been given the reynor treatment and kicked out in groups. For all the talk about his good winrate against koreans, in 2018 his matches against koreans (in his best case scenario of no gsl level prep) were competitive but he wasn't dominating them.
Iem 2018: went 3-2 against trap in the ro8 and 0-3 against classic in the semis
Wesg 2018: went 0-3 against maru in the semis
His best result by far that whole year was blizzcon, and even then stats took 2 games off of him.
my point was more he doesn’t tend to play the lower calibre of that cohort. Which Korean players do get to do more often. Not just in GSL itself but qualifiers, and qualifiers for international tournaments as well
Exactly right. Serral mostly played the best of the best in major tournaments, as explained in the article and made visible at the 2018 comparison against Maru.
On June 02 2025 09:58 WombaT wrote: @Premo nice one, great job, should stir some debate anyway! Saw it on Reddit too said he’ll there
I appreciate you showing the raw numbers alongside your adjustments too. Makes things less opaque. It irks me when people show their adjusted scores without the raw data, it makes it hard to sorta judge at a glance, as well as assess the weightings themselves.
I think you can’t win some battles, some crit is fine, some is a bit harsh.
I think factoring in ELO, good idea. People bring up Aligulac’s flaws. I also agree it has flaws. But there isn’t an alternative ELO ranking set to use, so what do?
I’d rather you just threw it in, it’s some interesting data anyway, one can take it or leave it.
People will claim x era is weaker or stronger, but then if you weight for it, ‘hey you can’t do that that’s arbitrary!’
Overall I think it’s a great read, and I think a reader can take what they want from it, bar hostility which I think is unwarranted. Worst case it’s some numbers someone has pulled, saves me going through Aligulac! I skimmed it mostly just looking at the numbers and some of your rationales but I’ll return to really pore over the whole thing properly.
We cycle back to my usual point on this. And I’m referring to fans of particular players or positions, not people who write things like this.
You can either say x is the GOAT because various things I value and intangibles, or do something in the realms of cold hard numbers. Or blend the two to some degree.
You can’t just pick and choose which to ignore, or highlight when it suits. You know like player x > y because y doesn’t have a particular thing ticked off. But for player z them not having a particular thing doesn’t matter.
Thus Rogue cannot be the GOAT IMO :p To take one example.
I kid, I think he can, but it has to be a claim heavily based on the intangible, things like his clutchness, his fiendish plays at times etc.
That’s absolutely A-OK by me. I still have Inno up at #3 for me, many, many disagree with that. But the peak Machine was the most terrifying player, relative to the level of his peers that I’ve ever seen, and I imagine we will see. Wasn’t long til folks caught up, but it’s was like watch a semi-pro like mid-GM against a good pro now. It wasn’t that he was better, it was like another level.
If people want to do that for Rogue too, that’s bloody swell if you ask me. But just do that
Once people try to do it by qualifiers and caveats it becomes a mess.
You end up with absurd situations where like someone will have Inno > Serral because he won most of his titles in the Kespa era, but also Rogue > Serral because he’s got Starleagues to tiebreak their WCs, but also Rogue > Maru despite Maru having more Starleagues because Rogue’s got WCs, but also Rogue > sOs because he won more titles overall.
Now, to clarify I don’t mind people using qualifiers whatsoever, I’m taking about sorta chaining them up and applying them in different head-to-heads differently
Thanks, man, your feedback is appreciated! What you wrote at the bottom is exactly why I do these things: Consistency and continuity in thought. People tell you that Serral can't be the GOAT as he had most of his wins post-prime but then try to sell you Rogue. It does not make sense. But I heard valid criticism here and on reddit, so I will prepare an update.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
Isn't the thing about Rogue that he was more streaky or perhaps more clutchy. I never looked at Rogue and thought he was dominant or even the best player in the world at any point in time.
Personally I put MVP/Inno over Rogue on my GOAT list. A criteria for being the GOAT is imo that you were the best player in the world for some period in time.
I weight MVP's era of dominance and the early KESPA era multiple times higher per tournament than what happened in the past few years.
On the other hand we had more tournaments back then so that offsets it partially.
On a per tournament basis I would give perhaps 5 times more weight to a tournament during Starcraft's peak era than today.
However, the margin of dominance also matters, and that's where Serral truly shines and still comes in at number 1. MVP had perhaps 6 months where he looked a level above everyone else, but after that it felt more like he was one of the better players but just pretty clutchy. In contrast Serral has always been the favorite or huge favorite for 7 years straight.
5 times more? Like a blank multiplier? Even though there were Premier Tournaments where two to three top tier Koreans flew to foreign regions to farm them? These situations are comparable to Serral winning in Europe and you'd want to award these tournaments 5 times the amount in relation to modern ones? I don't think that this is a sound multiplier, unless I misunderstood you.
On June 02 2025 00:30 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac being 20% of your determination is insane. Aligulac is a bad ELO system for a bunch of reasons. It consistently overrates people from outside of the KR scene. There are tons of examples even before Serral was notable. Serral specifically hit rank 1 for the first time when he still had <50% win rate vs Koreans. For much of his career his ranking was inflated by playing a huge amount of games vs mid to low tier EU players which he always swept. Maru would have swept those too. If you put Maru into 3 8 player round robin groups vs non Serral/Reynor/Clem EU players per year (format of EU regional for most of the years being discussed) what do you think happens to his aligulac rating? I guarantee it skyrockets. It's also funny that you punish Marus tournament winrrate for winning against "low tier" Koreans but don't take that into account that Serral's aligulac ranking heavily benefits from beating up low tier EU players.
I also heavily disagree with the idea of average placement/efficiency/percentage of won tournaments in all premiers played being important. That just specifically punishes players with long careers who consistently qualified for premiers. A longer career with consistent premier qualifications should be a boon to goat candidacy not a negative. The fact that Marus ranking in these categories would go up dramatically if you exclude his pre 2018 results shows alone how flawed it is. Maru being an S tier player from 2013-2018 should not penalize his chances of being goat.
I know for some of these aspects you slightly adjusted for this by determining prime years but I disagree with it being a consideration at all. Certainly not a combined 42.5% of your ranking.
1. The overall result wouldn't change (Serral would still lead with nearly 300 points), even if I removed the Aligulac-metric entirely 2. I think you got this the wrong way round. The machine's algorithm saw the explosion of wins Serral had versus Europeans and through cross-regional comparisons correctly "predicted" that he would defeat the Koreans as well, which was exactly what happened in the first quarter of 2018 when his win rates skyrocketed to over 80%. What you mentioned is a super rare case, that shows how well Aligulac works cross-regionally. These inflation-arguments were a thing in the early 2010s... not anymore in 2017. Further, after 2018, Serral played enough Koreans per year, which made the calculation pretty reliable. 3. I only pointed the Korean's inflation against Serral through weaker Korean players out. As I wrote in the article, I did not actually incorporate these findings in the calculation. 4. No, it punishes no one. It simply shows, that there are some players that have the ability to always finish on top and others that don't. That the player you favor by chance is not good in this metric, does not mean that the metric per se is bad. 5. Some argue rightfully, that it would be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who had short, kick-started careers if one discounts the worse years of players, hence I went for a mix. In the tournament score Maru's longer careers ears him more points. And if he was as efficient as Serral over 7 years, he'd easily be up there with him. That is simply what a fair analysis shows... strengths and weaknesses.
Aligulac called King Kong a top 10 player in the world as late as 2014. I'm pretty sure he has never beaten a top pro. He got that ranking by being dominant in his region while never having any global results. He stayed in the top 50 range for years despite the fact that on a skill basis he was likely never even top 100. Aligulac has huge issues judging players who dominate their own region. Another good example is Polt. Polt is in the top 15 all time on aligulac. He was regularly top 5 and even 1st while active. He did that by dominating NA. He was never truly competitive with top GSL players post 2011 but dominating a weaker region kept him at the top of aligulac for ages.
Saying aligulac was just predicting Serral's future success is a copout when that future success wasn't until over a year after he hit rank 1. During which time he regularly lost matches to Koreans but still during that entire period he was almost always 1st with just a few falls down to 2-3. I'm definitely not saying he didn't deserve it the majority of the time he had it but the margin he had it by was heavily inflated and there were many times he would have been passed with a system that didn't over reward winning against far weaker competition.
I don't know how possible it is to calculate, probably depends on how accessible aligulac's source code/algorithm and result sets are but I am genuinely curious about how aligulac would have changed if Maru played 24 bo3s vs mid and lower rank EU players (basically everyone sans Serral and Reynor until 2022 then everyone besides them and Clem after that) every year from 2017-2024. Giving him whatever his current winrrate is vs that group in those bo3s. Based on aligulac's history of over rewarding beating lower competition I am confident his rating would increase significantly but I can't say for sure. I may try to do that someday when I have free time.
Marus "ability to finish on top" is punished by playing in an era with far more active full time pros and by having a far higher amount of events played in. Those criteria definitely uniquely punishes Marus career as it is the longest of any top pro by a considerable margin. By those criteria he would literally rank higher if he had just failed to qualify for events than if he qualifies for them. The fact that you can't agree that is backwards is crazy to me.
Serral's metrics in all categories besides tournament results are inflated by not playing in GSL. If Serral played in GSL regularly it's extremely likely his aligulac, matchup win rates, efficiency, average tournament placement, and percentage of won tournaments would all decline. I do agree he would likely win some GSLs which would benefit his tournament score but when you're only giving tournament score 22% of the overall weight it's not like that makes much difference.
- I already said that Aligulac had issues in the 2010s. - Didn't he hit rank 1 on the last list of 2017? And started winning against Koreans in January 2018? I mean.. that is exactly what the machine is built to do. Weigh players relative to their statistics against each other. - Which exact time frame are you talking about when talking about Maru? And which metric? - Why would Serral lose more games in GSL than versus top Koreans at other Premier Tournaments? Because of its structure?
You said early 2010s. The issues I mentioned were 2014-2017. A more recent example would be heromarine shortly after the open cups started. He won a bunch in a row because most top players didn't play in them and shot up the rankings and was top 10 for a while. I like heromarine but I don't really believe he was ever top 10 worldwide in terms of skill. Even after his one Kato top 4 he didn't follow that up with any major results suggesting it was a fluke.
Regardless even 2014 is late enough to show issues. Those first years were the most active years of SC2. Why would a system that by your own admission didn't work with 100,000 data points suddenly work with 200,000-300,000? Numbers are estimated based on aligulac's search function.
The timeframe for Maru would be 2012-2017 and the metrics I already specified were efficiency, average placement, and percentage of won tournaments. The way you measure those Maru would have been better off being an unknown/inactive player who never qualified for anything during that era because then his 2018 forward timeframe would produce much better results in those metrics. Any measuring system that determines being inactive superior to Maru's 2012-2017 results is crazy.
Prep format, offline in Korea, having to travel back and forth to events and simply a higher sample size. Some of Serral's impressive win rate years vs Koreans are based on a very small number of series. For example 2018 I doubt he could have kept that winrrate as high if he played more than 28 series.
WombaT already addressed HM, so I will talk about the general idea: Is Aligualc perfect? Hell no. But it is working to a degree that it is far from being useless. I mean.. what would you say was the discrepancy in terms of rank 1es? 3%? 5 at most? Serral is the only foreigner in this article and for most of Aligulac's existence (except maybe Reynor and Clem later on) only he, who regularly played Koreans post 2018, was up there. 5% error of 20% weighting is 1% error quote for the final result. What are we talking about here :D
And I still don't understand your point about Maru. He is not punished in any sense. No one is. Players simply gain more or less points depending on their results against their peers and era-multipliers have been incorporated to account for more difficult times. If Maru had played less, he simply would not have gained as many tournament points. The tournament win % is only affected by playing, same is average place. For efficiency this is true however. But as this hypothetical of not playing at all doesn't even concern any player I don't understand why you bring it up. On the other hand, if these players played and did not win, their efficiency drops... that is exactly what the score is measuring and its purpose.
The things you list at the end are hypotheticals. They could be true. What we do know is that he played 3 GSL versus the world in Korea and won 2 of them (the other 1 being before his prime). He played one prep tournament and won it in the finals versus Maru and he won many tournaments on different continents. Sample size? Not the biggest, but big enough to make fair assessments.
On June 01 2025 16:16 Mizenhauer wrote: My only question is, given that Rogue's GOAT score is so disproportionately low compared to the other players in this study, do you feel it's an indication of some fundamental error in your process? I say this because that kind of skew in results leads me to believe that something is inherently incorrect when it comes to the calculation/tabulation of your GOAT score. Maybe that's ChatGPT (it's pretty damning).
100% agree. This way of thinking about GOATs inevitably leads to such bizarre results. It’s the kind of process that for sure leaves Muhammad Ali no where near the top 10 on a boxing GOAT list (that’s not conjecture, stats-based boxing rankings have consistently produced this result). Basically a deep, conceptual misunderstanding of what “greatness” means.
It’s interesting that this is framed as having taken seriously critiques of the previous analysis when it ironically reproduces this conceptual error so glaringly and fails to even attempt to address it.
As I wasn't really expecting any praise from you, your comment didn't come as a surprise. But there are still some things worth exploring:
What way of thinking exactly? Making a statistical, data-driven judgement? Like Miz did too?
A result can only be bizarre if you have preconceptions that get flipped on their head (similar to the gender equality/patriarchy paradox). Rogue being not the most consistent player is not secret, so I am a little bit astonished at people's reaction towards his result.
And yes, I listed the 4 biggest criticism that were addressed in the article (as well as convos I had with Charo about skill deterioration that led to further data sets). I am sorry though that I wasn't able to incorporate "all data driven GOAT discussions are worthless" in a data driven GOAT discussion. And a small heads-up, so you won't be as shocked next time: This wasn't the last.
Most of the metrics can show both, although some are harder to sustain for long periods, I agree.
Yeah, that's the point. It just heavily punishes players who have high longevity but were never really dominant (like Dark), compared to players who only shined during a brief period but were very dominant (like Mvp). I don't see any objective reasons why the achievements of someone like Dark should be worth less, just because he needed more time to accomplish them. In the opposite, he proved he can succeed in many more different metas and fields of competition than Mvp, which should count for something.
It's a good ranking for most dominant player of all time, but at least for me that's not (solely) what Greatest of all time means.
So what's the suggestion? Only look at prime years for a comparison? Wouldn't that be unfair to players like Rain and Mvp who kickstarted into the scene?
Also, why should it be done in the first place, when we have a player who demonstrates that it is possible to do. Could be interpretated as favoritism towards Inno and Maru. Do we subsequently also discount those years in the tournament score though?
I could do it for a comparison though... this wouldn’t take too much time I guess, as I'd simply have to redo the prime years, which shouldn't take too long.
Edit: I already did for average place anyways, as those data sets were super bothersome to gather.
I already said it, for me the tournament score is the only metric that's relevant because those are the actual achievements a player has accomplished during their career. I don't see why this score needs to be adjusted with other, very subjective metrics. Accomplishments for me don't become less impressive because players needed longer to accomplish them or had worse aligulac rating during them, worse winrates etc.
Imagine a tie. Wouldn't it be interesting to see who needed less time to do so? -> Efficiency and tournament win % Imagine a tie there as well: Wouldn't it be interesting to see who had higher average places? Imagine a tier there as well: Wouldn't it be good to have another metric that is able to give you a hinter?
We could also list winning streaks, match records versus top players, etc... I think these all have their place in such a discussion. Even more subjective things like doing something for the first time, impact on the scene etc.
But I generally agree with you that titles and tournaments should be weighed higher. Perhaps another survey to capture the community's mood?
Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
On June 02 2025 21:32 Lorian wrote: Those numbers aren’t that far off from Flash’s. It feels like Serral doesn't always get the recognition he deserves among parts of the SC2 community simply for never competing in a normal GSL.
Flash's major achievements came at the absolute peak of BW competition.
Serral's major achievements came after the absolute peak of SC2 competition.
I don't think that comparing the two is appropriate in the slightest.
- SC2 is arguably easier for a mid player to beat a top player, but harder to dominate in terms of huge win rates for that exact reason. This was almost the consensus from my memory back in the day. To paraphrase, ‘you won’t see Flash win rates because even the best players will lose the dice roll to the occasional inferior player doing an all-in or cheese.’ This was actually my stance too, and really would have remained so except Serral just went and did it.
That was the consensus when the game was less figured it out. But Serral is not only one who reached insane winrates in sc2, I'd argue Maru did it before Serral against top competition when he won WESG + 3 GSL in 2018. Nowadays Clem is also up there.
In fact content creators like Artosis and PiG think that the opposite is true in todays sc2, that it's too hard to score upsets against superior players which makes the scene too predictable.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
He won Katowice last year, under same bracket and rules as in years past, which on any of those years would have earned him his third World Championship title. He also smashed some other tournies in the first half (Dallas, WTL, Master's Coliseum), and it was only during/after EWC that Clem (a player not in the running for GOAT) hit the top in terms of skill - also the part of the year where the 'few tournaments' hit that you're mentioning.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: If your methodology end up giving Rogue outside of top 5 in GOAT, redo your methodology better. What about Dark and Reynor, I wonder?
Also, the tournament weighted/scale point is not accurate imo. I think the spread should be much higher than 1.1 and 0.7. And put 20% on Aligulac ranking is a bit high imo. I would also question how you adjust for the era, and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
So tweak the numbers until the subjective GOAT candidate is on top? Nope, thanks Agree on Aligulac. It was what ChatGPT suggested.. I would have changed Aligulac and tournament win %.
With Serral's best year being 2024, I meant statistically, not gameplay.
The spread is 0.5 to 1.1
Like I said, if Rogue is outside of your top 5, then you need to investigate it. I never claim Rogued to be the GOAT, but hes not outside of top 5 for sure. Thats where you methodology fallen off, and thats why I raise the case of Reynor and Dark. Remember some of criticism on Miz list was Dark outside of his top 10.
And its better to survey your % weight for each category within the SC2 community, even for tournament weight. Off the top of my head, I would put Blizzcon/EWC as a 3, IEM and WESG/Gamers8 as 2, then GSL before 2022 as 1.5, offline tournament as 1 and online as 0.75. Thats just me.
2024 just have to few tournament to really make any comparison, I would weight it down comparing to the other years where we have a full circuit.
Rogue simply has subpar results, except when he dominated certain tournaments. His match win rates are simply not close to the others. He was not once on first rank at Aligulac. There is no statistic where he truly shines. That is exactly why I looked at different qualities and metrics. If one simply wants to look at the tournament score, Rogue is in the top 4. Getting rid of the era-multiplier should put him in the third spot above INno... then I would have the exact same top 5 as Miz after the update, as my tournament score is roughly the same as his overall list (ignoring Life, who probably wasn't on Miz list due to the match-fixing).
According to your suggestion only 1 metric would be influenced. And remember, that Serral's region locks are discarded anyway for Match win rates, average place, tournament win%, and Aligulac.
But I like the idea of a survey... I'll get to it once I find the time.
EDIT: Wouldn't you agree though, that the offline-online ratio is unfair to Europeans or North Americans? There are 2-4 offline-GSLs in Seoul per year, which geographically simply is not possible in Europe or the NA, due to geophraphical reasons and the players being way more dispersed over a larger area. It is simply a necessity. But as these offline-tournaments mostly overlap with region locks, which are devalued in my score anyway, I could imagine Maru taking the first place from Serral again (as I on top have an era-multiplier which Miz didn't use) but it doing not too much for Rogue in the overall result. Anyway: I am open to reevaluating the tournament multiplier after having gathered the findings of a survey
Rogue has excellent results compared to every StarCraft II player not named Maru and Serral (and it's close between those three). The difference between Rogue and the aforementioned pair is that they have won a ton and they've exhibited far more consistency during their careers. No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings and the gap is so large that Rogue's inconsistencies don't matter when comparing him against anyone other than Maru/Serral (though the most staunch fan could present a reasonable-ish case that Mvp should be on the same tier.
"No one outside of the top 3 can compare to Rogue in sheer events won/high placings". I genuinely don't understand how you keep coming to this conclusion. Dark not only compares, he beats Rogue on nearly any metric that isn't only just counting GSL + WC golds (and it's not like Dark doesn't have wins in those). Especially since you specifically say high placings, Dark blows Rogue out of the water there.
Thank you for posting the actual list! Drove me nuts reading these unsubstantiated claims that Rogue laps the competition and I was about to go do what you did until I saw your comment.
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
On June 03 2025 07:31 uselless wrote: We are so back 3 pages of comments in 2 days nothing like the goat discussion to bring infinite activity instantly
This is the one true takeaway here.
I appreciate the analysis, despite the criticism some of its assumptions may or may not rightfully call for. It's always beautiful to learn about new statistics in which Serral shines.
I fully agree with anyone arguing that GoaTness is also a function of consistency and dominance, not just trophies accumulated, for the simple reason that it is far, far more difficult in SC2 to consistently perform well and continually compete with, if not outcompete, the absolute best of the best, than to have good or even great runs in more or less isolated periods of time. Which is the reason why I too think Rogue is a solid third at best, but not particularly close to Serral and Maru.
On June 03 2025 07:31 uselless wrote: We are so back 3 pages of comments in 2 days nothing like the goat discussion to bring infinite activity instantly
This is the one true takeaway here.
I appreciate the analysis, despite the criticism some of its assumptions may or may not rightfully call for. It's always beautiful to learn about new statistics in which Serral shines.
I fully agree with anyone arguing that GoaTness is also a function of consistency and dominance, not just trophies accumulated, for the simple reason that it is far, far more difficult in SC2 to consistently perform well and continually compete with, if not outcompete, the absolute best of the best, than to have good or even great runs in more or less isolated periods of time. Which is the reason why I too think Rogue is a solid third at best, but not particularly close to Serral and Maru.
Obv Rogue doesn't have the consistency of Serral or Maru, but he averaged over one WC or Code S win per year across a six year period. Trophy wise he is quite consistent compared to his overall win rates and average finishing in said events.
On June 03 2025 07:31 uselless wrote: We are so back 3 pages of comments in 2 days nothing like the goat discussion to bring infinite activity instantly
This is the one true takeaway here.
I appreciate the analysis, despite the criticism some of its assumptions may or may not rightfully call for. It's always beautiful to learn about new statistics in which Serral shines.
I fully agree with anyone arguing that GoaTness is also a function of consistency and dominance, not just trophies accumulated, for the simple reason that it is far, far more difficult in SC2 to consistently perform well and continually compete with, if not outcompete, the absolute best of the best, than to have good or even great runs in more or less isolated periods of time. Which is the reason why I too think Rogue is a solid third at best, but not particularly close to Serral and Maru.
Obv Rogue doesn't have the consistency of Serral or Maru, but he averaged over one WC or Code S win per year across a six year period. Trophy wise he is quite consistent compared to his overall win rates and average finishing in said events.
And rogue is such a fun character. My first impression of him is in proleague when he looked at the camera instead of monitor knowing he is 100% winning when playing against soO. He also created lots of TVZ build for his old team8 buddy TY which is hilarious.
On June 03 2025 07:31 uselless wrote: We are so back 3 pages of comments in 2 days nothing like the goat discussion to bring infinite activity instantly
This is the one true takeaway here.
I appreciate the analysis, despite the criticism some of its assumptions may or may not rightfully call for. It's always beautiful to learn about new statistics in which Serral shines.
I fully agree with anyone arguing that GoaTness is also a function of consistency and dominance, not just trophies accumulated, for the simple reason that it is far, far more difficult in SC2 to consistently perform well and continually compete with, if not outcompete, the absolute best of the best, than to have good or even great runs in more or less isolated periods of time. Which is the reason why I too think Rogue is a solid third at best, but not particularly close to Serral and Maru.
Obv Rogue doesn't have the consistency of Serral or Maru, but he averaged over one WC or Code S win per year across a six year period. Trophy wise he is quite consistent compared to his overall win rates and average finishing in said events.
And rogue is such a fun character. My first impression of him is in proleague when he looked at the camera instead of monitor knowing he is 100% winning when playing against soO. He also created lots of TVZ build for his old team8 buddy TY which is hilarious.
He has my vote for most entertaining player of all time.
On June 03 2025 07:31 uselless wrote: We are so back 3 pages of comments in 2 days nothing like the goat discussion to bring infinite activity instantly
This is the one true takeaway here.
I appreciate the analysis, despite the criticism some of its assumptions may or may not rightfully call for. It's always beautiful to learn about new statistics in which Serral shines.
I fully agree with anyone arguing that GoaTness is also a function of consistency and dominance, not just trophies accumulated, for the simple reason that it is far, far more difficult in SC2 to consistently perform well and continually compete with, if not outcompete, the absolute best of the best, than to have good or even great runs in more or less isolated periods of time. Which is the reason why I too think Rogue is a solid third at best, but not particularly close to Serral and Maru.
Obv Rogue doesn't have the consistency of Serral or Maru, but he averaged over one WC or Code S win per year across a six year period. Trophy wise he is quite consistent compared to his overall win rates and average finishing in said events.
And rogue is such a fun character. My first impression of him is in proleague when he looked at the camera instead of monitor knowing he is 100% winning when playing against soO. He also created lots of TVZ build for his old team8 buddy TY which is hilarious.
He has my vote for most entertaining player of all time.
I do consider him as the zerg goat :p He is so fun to watch even when he gets tilted and smashes keyboards.
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
@PremoBeats cheers for the last response, pretty comprehensive!
I see in your OP you mentioned in passing some fun, or trivial stats you sorta unearthed on your travels, but decided not to include? Quite reasonably as it was already rather a comprehensive post
Any chance of posting some of them here? I know I’d enjoy them and I imagine others would too
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
Agreed with Trap being the protoss hope carrying the whole race in the protoss dark ages. I feel bad for Trap losing GSLs to Dark and Rogue, and I think he might be the most underrated player ever. Maru's just been through all versions/patches/balances and remains on top that's why I consider he is the greatest of all time. He is probably not the greatest right now even he won dreamhack dallas but I guess it depends on his form and his shoulders.
Serral could carry zerg but it's all hypothetical since there is no patch that zerg's weak. Every champions he won had at least another zerg in top 8 (the two IEM he won both had two zergs in top4 and one zvz final). If any I would put my bet on Rogue to carry the race if zerg can ever be underpowered which I don't see that happen in LOTV at all lol. Besides, I don't know how much Rogue is motivated he is a funny guy who went to play league when he thought zerg was not strong and came back hard once he saw zvp is unlosable lol.
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
Agreed with Trap being the protoss hope carrying the whole race in the protoss dark ages. I feel bad for Trap losing GSLs to Dark and Rogue, and I think he might be the most underrated player ever. Maru's just been through all versions/patches/balances and remains on top that's why I consider he is the greatest of all time. He is probably not the greatest right now even he won dreamhack dallas but I guess it depends on his form and his shoulders.
Serral could carry zerg but it's all hypothetical since there is no patch that zerg's weak. Every champions he won had at least another zerg in top 8 (the two IEM he won both had two zergs in top4 and one zvz final). If any I would put my bet on Rogue to carry the race if zerg can ever be underpowered which I don't see that happen in LOTV at all lol. Besides, I don't know how much Rogue is motivated he is a funny guy who went to play league when he thought zerg was not strong and came back hard once he saw zvp is unlosable lol.
I’d go Dark if we’re in hypothetical land (well, after Serral)
There isn’t really a criticism that can be made of Serral that can’t also be made of Rogue really, in terms of doing well when Zerg is in strong periods. Balance etc
Rogue does some whacky stuff, and is a great set planner. But he’s not generally as good as Dark at whacky, off meta-stuff. Or weird, scrappy games. Rogue will kill you with some funky build he’s got in his pocket, but Dark’s the guy for seemingly improvising his way through a scrappy game. Which I think is gonna be what you need to do a lot of in this world where Zerg just suck. Plus he was sticking up results of note in less strong eras anyway when Rogue wasn’t so much. In GSL maybe it swings back to Rogue because of him being a prep merchant, but for your regular non-prep tournaments I’d probably favour Dark
I think Serral is just outright too good, at basically everything. He doesn’t bring out some pocket cheeses as much as others, but he does have them in the locker. He’s faster and cleaner than everyone except maybe Reynor mechanically, he’s got the best temperament, at least in terms of consistency. Maybe not as clutch as offline Bo7 Rogue. Best at scouting and defensively reacting, and the best lategame, especially in ZvP.
If Zerg ever ends up a spot where Serral at current skill can’t carry it to at least an occasional title, IMO the race would be completely broken. Up there with the very weakest any race has ever been in the game’s history.
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
Agreed with Trap being the protoss hope carrying the whole race in the protoss dark ages. I feel bad for Trap losing GSLs to Dark and Rogue, and I think he might be the most underrated player ever. Maru's just been through all versions/patches/balances and remains on top that's why I consider he is the greatest of all time. He is probably not the greatest right now even he won dreamhack dallas but I guess it depends on his form and his shoulders.
Serral could carry zerg but it's all hypothetical since there is no patch that zerg's weak. Every champions he won had at least another zerg in top 8 (the two IEM he won both had two zergs in top4 and one zvz final). If any I would put my bet on Rogue to carry the race if zerg can ever be underpowered which I don't see that happen in LOTV at all lol. Besides, I don't know how much Rogue is motivated he is a funny guy who went to play league when he thought zerg was not strong and came back hard once he saw zvp is unlosable lol.
I’d go Dark if we’re in hypothetical land (well, after Serral)
There isn’t really a criticism that can be made of Serral that can’t also be made of Rogue really, in terms of doing well when Zerg is in strong periods. Balance etc
Rogue does some whacky stuff, and is a great set planner. But he’s not generally as good as Dark at whacky, off meta-stuff. Or weird, scrappy games. Rogue will kill you with some funky build he’s got in his pocket, but Dark’s the guy for seemingly improvising his way through a scrappy game. Which I think is gonna be what you need to do a lot of in this world where Zerg just suck. Plus he was sticking up results of note in less strong eras anyway when Rogue wasn’t so much. In GSL maybe it swings back to Rogue because of him being a prep merchant, but for your regular non-prep tournaments I’d probably favour Dark
I think Serral is just outright too good, at basically everything. He doesn’t bring out some pocket cheeses as much as others, but he does have them in the locker. He’s faster and cleaner than everyone except maybe Reynor mechanically, he’s got the best temperament, at least in terms of consistency. Maybe not as clutch as offline Bo7 Rogue. Best at scouting and defensively reacting, and the best lategame, especially in ZvP.
If Zerg ever ends up a spot where Serral at current skill can’t carry it to at least an occasional title, IMO the race would be completely broken. Up there with the very weakest any race has ever been in the game’s history.
Hmm, I don’t think anything could possibly be weaker than Terran and Protoss in late 2019 when Maru barely got into the WCS Ro8 as the last terran and Classic/Trap as protoss to unfortunately play against that notorious Infestor/Broodlord/Swarmhost combo. But hey, since the whole "Zerg was weak" thing is purely hypothetical anyway, you can cast your vote for Serral and I’ll stick with my boy Rogue since at least Rogue won one GSL as the only zerg in ro8 —Daddy Dark’s serving in the military now so he’s off my radar for the time being.
Is it noteworthy to win a tournament while being the only one of your race in the Ro8 if 2 of the best 4 players of your race were never in the field?
Maru’s feats are notable because his fellow Terran top dogs were there, and kept falling and leaving him the last man standing.
If, idk, Inno and TY sat out a few tournaments to just chill out, Maru being the last man standing and Fourth Race is like, considerably less of a thing
On June 03 2025 13:35 WombaT wrote: Is it noteworthy to win a tournament while being the only one of your race in the Ro8 if 2 of the best 4 players of your race were never in the field?
Maru’s feats are notable because his fellow Terran top dogs were there, and kept falling and leaving him the last man standing.
If, idk, Inno and TY sat out a few tournaments to just chill out, Maru being the last man standing and Fourth Race is like, considerably less of a thing
I’m not saying Zerg was weak in that GSL, so it’s not like I’m trying to defend Rogue or anything. But if the top four Zergs are considered to be Serral, Dark, Rogue, and Reynor—then Rogue’s GSL win came without Serral or Reynor participating. On the flip side, Reynor and Serral competed in the circuit events where Dark and Rogue weren’t present, so they also had opportunities to be the "last Zerg standing." Again, not defending Rogue, just pointing out some facts I recently learned. Only Maru got the Fourth Race title, that GSL rogue won could be Dark/solar/soO/Rag being unlucky in ro16 or something.
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
He won Katowice last year, under same bracket and rules as in years past, which on any of those years would have earned him his third World Championship title. He also smashed some other tournies in the first half (Dallas, WTL, Master's Coliseum), and it was only during/after EWC that Clem (a player not in the running for GOAT) hit the top in terms of skill - also the part of the year where the 'few tournaments' hit that you're mentioning.
And he did so while being in the military. Tbf, I don't think he would have defeated Clem anyway, the kid simply was on another level that tournament but it is still incredible that Serral - although being in the sports-branch - achieved so much in 2024 while being able to practice a lot less than he normally would have.
On June 03 2025 07:53 WombaT wrote: However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
Meaning that it was mostly non-TvTs that kicked him out? This could be an interesting statistcs-piece as well.
On June 03 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote: @PremoBeats cheers for the last response, pretty comprehensive!
I see in your OP you mentioned in passing some fun, or trivial stats you sorta unearthed on your travels, but decided not to include? Quite reasonably as it was already rather a comprehensive post
Any chance of posting some of them here? I know I’d enjoy them and I imagine others would too
I think I will include these in a follow-up post. Atm I am pretty busy with my business expansion but once things slow down, I will think about some surveys to get the community's impression on weighting and probably the tournament multiplier. The strongest negative feedback was clearly aimed at Aligulac, which is an indicator that most agree with the general methodology of the other metrics. Aligulac's error significance is pretty low, given that it mostly targets the few end of 2017/beginning of 2018 lists, but I already wrote in the article that I agree that I would have done the weightings differently (probably tournament score 50 - 60% and the rest adjusted to that. Or 5% for all metrics, 15% for tournament win % and the rest to tournament score).
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
Agreed with Trap being the protoss hope carrying the whole race in the protoss dark ages. I feel bad for Trap losing GSLs to Dark and Rogue, and I think he might be the most underrated player ever. Maru's just been through all versions/patches/balances and remains on top that's why I consider he is the greatest of all time. He is probably not the greatest right now even he won dreamhack dallas but I guess it depends on his form and his shoulders.
Serral could carry zerg but it's all hypothetical since there is no patch that zerg's weak. Every champions he won had at least another zerg in top 8 (the two IEM he won both had two zergs in top4 and one zvz final). If any I would put my bet on Rogue to carry the race if zerg can ever be underpowered which I don't see that happen in LOTV at all lol. Besides, I don't know how much Rogue is motivated he is a funny guy who went to play league when he thought zerg was not strong and came back hard once he saw zvp is unlosable lol.
I’d go Dark if we’re in hypothetical land (well, after Serral)
There isn’t really a criticism that can be made of Serral that can’t also be made of Rogue really, in terms of doing well when Zerg is in strong periods. Balance etc
Rogue does some whacky stuff, and is a great set planner. But he’s not generally as good as Dark at whacky, off meta-stuff. Or weird, scrappy games. Rogue will kill you with some funky build he’s got in his pocket, but Dark’s the guy for seemingly improvising his way through a scrappy game. Which I think is gonna be what you need to do a lot of in this world where Zerg just suck. Plus he was sticking up results of note in less strong eras anyway when Rogue wasn’t so much. In GSL maybe it swings back to Rogue because of him being a prep merchant, but for your regular non-prep tournaments I’d probably favour Dark
I think Serral is just outright too good, at basically everything. He doesn’t bring out some pocket cheeses as much as others, but he does have them in the locker. He’s faster and cleaner than everyone except maybe Reynor mechanically, he’s got the best temperament, at least in terms of consistency. Maybe not as clutch as offline Bo7 Rogue. Best at scouting and defensively reacting, and the best lategame, especially in ZvP.
If Zerg ever ends up a spot where Serral at current skill can’t carry it to at least an occasional title, IMO the race would be completely broken. Up there with the very weakest any race has ever been in the game’s history.
Hmm, I don’t think anything could possibly be weaker than Terran and Protoss in late 2019 when Maru barely got into the WCS Ro8 as the last terran and Classic/Trap as protoss to unfortunately play against that notorious Infestor/Broodlord/Swarmhost combo. But hey, since the whole "Zerg was weak" thing is purely hypothetical anyway, you can cast your vote for Serral and I’ll stick with my boy Rogue since at least Rogue won one GSL as the only zerg in ro8 —Daddy Dark’s serving in the military now so he’s off my radar for the time being.
I don't think that hypotheticals are built well around statistics spanning only a couple of tournaments as there are too many confounding factors that could have led to or influenced the results one builds the hypothetical around (not that I am too fond of hypotheticals anyway ).
On June 03 2025 13:35 WombaT wrote: Is it noteworthy to win a tournament while being the only one of your race in the Ro8 if 2 of the best 4 players of your race were never in the field?
Maru’s feats are notable because his fellow Terran top dogs were there, and kept falling and leaving him the last man standing.
If, idk, Inno and TY sat out a few tournaments to just chill out, Maru being the last man standing and Fourth Race is like, considerably less of a thing
I put this together in 2024. It covers what seed a player was ranked prior to the end of year world championship. Starts out with wcs, moves into iem and I'll have to update it to cover ewc. Still, some random tidbits in there and a few interesting conclusions to make.
All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
If you're gonna make excuses for Maru at least blame it on injuries and not his "hunger". Thank you in advance and please remember that blaming injuries (Maru was already receiving treatment for his wrists at hospitals when he was still playing BW) is the official party line of Maru fans worldwide.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
Other things Maru did before 2018 (with a little bit of leeway to allow triple crown).
Most wins by any Terran during Proleague (2012/13-2016).
Third behind Inno and Rain for most wins in OSL/SSL/GSL from KeSPA entry to end of Hots.
Most Round of 4 exits of any player in KIL held from 2010-2017 (4).
First and only player to win OSL/SSL and GSL (2012/2015/2018).
Went 22-4 in Proleague 2016 with an unheard of win rate of 85%.
Rookie of the year in Proleague (2014).
My top 6 "Hots" players (this includes the very end of WoL since Kespa came in right at the end) in no order...
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
My top 6 "Hots" players (this includes the very end of WoL since Kespa came in right at the end) in no order...
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
Other things Maru did before 2018 (with a little bit of leeway to allow triple crown).
Most wins by any Terran during Proleague (2012/13-2016).
Third behind Inno and Rain for most wins in OSL/SSL/GSL from KeSPA entry to end of Hots.
Most Round of 4 exits of any player in KIL held from 2010-2017 (4).
First and only player to win OSL/SSL and GSL (2012/2015/2018).
Went 22-4 in Proleague 2016 with an unheard of win rate of 85%.
Rookie of the year in Proleague (2014).
My top 6 "Hots" players (this includes the very end of WoL since Kespa came in right at the end) in no order...
Inno Rain Maru Zest sOs soO
Geez thank you for the extra info. I always get annoyed seeing irresponsible comments like the one above, so I couldn’t resist jumping in. My top 6 HOTS players are a bit different I ranked Maru and Zest above Rain, probably due to my bias toward proleague performance.
Edit: oops just saw the list was in no order my bad
On June 01 2025 16:35 tigera6 wrote: and everybody who watch SC2 know for a FACT that 2024 wasnt Serral best year in term of gameplay, but it happen in the year where there are only so few tournament around.
He won Katowice last year, under same bracket and rules as in years past, which on any of those years would have earned him his third World Championship title. He also smashed some other tournies in the first half (Dallas, WTL, Master's Coliseum), and it was only during/after EWC that Clem (a player not in the running for GOAT) hit the top in terms of skill - also the part of the year where the 'few tournaments' hit that you're mentioning.
And he did so while being in the military. Tbf, I don't think he would have defeated Clem anyway, the kid simply was on another level that tournament but it is still incredible that Serral - although being in the sports-branch - achieved so much in 2024 while being able to practice a lot less than he normally would have.
On June 03 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote: @PremoBeats cheers for the last response, pretty comprehensive!
I see in your OP you mentioned in passing some fun, or trivial stats you sorta unearthed on your travels, but decided not to include? Quite reasonably as it was already rather a comprehensive post
Any chance of posting some of them here? I know I’d enjoy them and I imagine others would too
I think I will include these in a follow-up post. Atm I am pretty busy with my business expansion but once things slow down, I will think about some surveys to get the community's impression on weighting and probably the tournament multiplier. The strongest negative feedback was clearly aimed at Aligulac, which is an indicator that most agree with the general methodology of the other metrics. Aligulac's error significance is pretty low, given that it mostly targets the few end of 2017/beginning of 2018 lists, but I already wrote in the article that I agree that I would have done the weightings differently (probably tournament score 50 - 60% and the rest adjusted to that. Or 5% for all metrics, 15% for tournament win % and the rest to tournament score).
On June 03 2025 04:50 Pentarp wrote: Maru will always be my GOAT because he was holding the torch when all other Terrans were dropping like flies. Winning tournaments during unfavourable balance is something that people don't seem to appreciate enough.
I think there’s a bit of a flipside here. For whatever reason, while Maru definitely did carry the Terran torch when the race overall was lagging, and more in a last man standing, sole Terran hope way rather than taking titles, he also didn’t tend to flip it and start totally dominating when the race was strong.
It’s less of a positive/negative Maru judgement, just something genuinely curious for me.
Mvp for example, just the outright best Terran of his time. Still competitive much of the time at his peak regardless of how Terran overall was doing. But pretty dominant when T overall was doing very well. Mvp’s gap to his peers would remain pretty similar.
My previous theory was that Maru outperformed other Terrans in rough metas, but in a better meta, other Ts would start to make it deeper and TvT him out of tournaments, to kind of counteract it in a way. However, I did some digging on that theory and really that doesn’t seem to be the case.
A strange one!
herO also carries protoss when toss is weak but not as stable as Maru. And when protoss is strong herO might just lose pvp but I think it's also because pvp is more random than tvt. Maru used to have a unbeatable tvt record until IEM 2023. I think Maru's biggest enemies are always his teammates e.g. sOs and rogue lol (and zoun looks so scary with his pvt in the kr qualifiers hope maru won't need to play him). So far I don't know any zerg has carried the race when it's weak although which might also be because zerg hasn't had a truly weak patch in LOTV and often (over)represented in large tournaments.
I love herO, but I do think he’s carrying hard because so many top Toss retired or aren’t in shape. In truth he’s also not carrying Toss much harder than Trap did. Trap had more tournament wins in his period, but multiple GSL silvers, 10 GSL Ro8s in a row under the old format, herO has his multiple GSL and a big Ro4 (and crazy run) at EWC.
It’s why I find Maru particularly interesting. It’s the combination of doing it at times when other legendary Terrans were at their peak, but also then not making as much hay when the sun is shining so to speak.
Would have been an interesting alternate history where say, herO came back earlier from military and Trap got to delay his a bit. I think Trap of that time was a bit cleaner than herO, less ballsy but more solid PvT, suffered a bit in PvZ versus the very, very best, especially in big finals. herO’s capable of winning games he shouldn’t in a way Trap tended not to, and his PvZ innovations were probably the last real big meta changes we’ve seen.
Even if just for a year it would have been super cool to see peak Trap and post-military herO both carrying the Protoss flag. herO may have been the originator and refined the herO PvZ style, which for a while became simply ‘how PvZ is played’ but I think Trap mechanically could have played it more cleanly. However, I think herO does have that killer instinct and ability to play scrappy and from behind that someone like Dark excels at, Trap could run a clinic of perfect PvT or whatever, but a bit less of a brawler.
Think it would have been fascinating to see how that went, perhaps they’d push each other into even higher levels, and even just having 2 genuine title contenders for Toss every tournament could have swung things a fair bit. Hypothetical of course, but there’s less variables attached to that one than a big one like ‘what if Kespa continued?’ and you can kinda vaguely see what it might have shaped out as.
For Zerg? Fruitdealer hard carried probably harder than anyone has in terms of pulling a perceived underpowered race along, but it was really for one tournament, and the game was way less figured out.
Perhaps Serral, although not really in the sense of carrying the race. Zerg’s still pretty good. I’d say the nadir of Zerg being at its strongest (in Legacy anyway) was for the couple of years where the ‘Big 4’ of Serral, Dark, Rogue and Reynor were winning every WC, Trap was PvZed out of multiple GSL finals etc. Even cats like Armani and old man DRG were having deep GSL runs to like Ro4s (no disrespect)
Zerg still remains pretty viable and ofc Rogue was inactive, and Dark soon will be. But patch after patch, other Zergs have fallen away and Serral remains not just strong, but statistically his 2024 was the most dominant year we’ve seen over a whole season. Which I think is sometimes forgotten given yes, Clem did sweep him in the biggest prize pool tourney ever.
I’m extrapolating a bit here but if other Zergs fall away, while his results by and large stay the same, I think it’s a safe bet that Serral could hard carry if Zerg got nerfed a little too hard.
I will stress as a neutral in such matters I’d rather not see that happen!
Agreed with Trap being the protoss hope carrying the whole race in the protoss dark ages. I feel bad for Trap losing GSLs to Dark and Rogue, and I think he might be the most underrated player ever. Maru's just been through all versions/patches/balances and remains on top that's why I consider he is the greatest of all time. He is probably not the greatest right now even he won dreamhack dallas but I guess it depends on his form and his shoulders.
Serral could carry zerg but it's all hypothetical since there is no patch that zerg's weak. Every champions he won had at least another zerg in top 8 (the two IEM he won both had two zergs in top4 and one zvz final). If any I would put my bet on Rogue to carry the race if zerg can ever be underpowered which I don't see that happen in LOTV at all lol. Besides, I don't know how much Rogue is motivated he is a funny guy who went to play league when he thought zerg was not strong and came back hard once he saw zvp is unlosable lol.
I’d go Dark if we’re in hypothetical land (well, after Serral)
There isn’t really a criticism that can be made of Serral that can’t also be made of Rogue really, in terms of doing well when Zerg is in strong periods. Balance etc
Rogue does some whacky stuff, and is a great set planner. But he’s not generally as good as Dark at whacky, off meta-stuff. Or weird, scrappy games. Rogue will kill you with some funky build he’s got in his pocket, but Dark’s the guy for seemingly improvising his way through a scrappy game. Which I think is gonna be what you need to do a lot of in this world where Zerg just suck. Plus he was sticking up results of note in less strong eras anyway when Rogue wasn’t so much. In GSL maybe it swings back to Rogue because of him being a prep merchant, but for your regular non-prep tournaments I’d probably favour Dark
I think Serral is just outright too good, at basically everything. He doesn’t bring out some pocket cheeses as much as others, but he does have them in the locker. He’s faster and cleaner than everyone except maybe Reynor mechanically, he’s got the best temperament, at least in terms of consistency. Maybe not as clutch as offline Bo7 Rogue. Best at scouting and defensively reacting, and the best lategame, especially in ZvP.
If Zerg ever ends up a spot where Serral at current skill can’t carry it to at least an occasional title, IMO the race would be completely broken. Up there with the very weakest any race has ever been in the game’s history.
Hmm, I don’t think anything could possibly be weaker than Terran and Protoss in late 2019 when Maru barely got into the WCS Ro8 as the last terran and Classic/Trap as protoss to unfortunately play against that notorious Infestor/Broodlord/Swarmhost combo. But hey, since the whole "Zerg was weak" thing is purely hypothetical anyway, you can cast your vote for Serral and I’ll stick with my boy Rogue since at least Rogue won one GSL as the only zerg in ro8 —Daddy Dark’s serving in the military now so he’s off my radar for the time being.
I don't think that hypotheticals are built well around statistics spanning only a couple of tournaments as there are too many confounding factors that could have led to or influenced the results one builds the hypothetical around (not that I am too fond of hypotheticals anyway ).
Look forward to the follow-up post when you’re less busy!
On the bolded, I wouldn’t spend time investigating that particular theory. I had thought it a plausible explanation, but my initial examination, nothing too thorough did seem to show that the theory wasn’t really borne out
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
No you see the scene only massively declined after 2018. Which in no way is related to Maru’s 4 peat occurring that year.
The weak era occurred at exactly the point after Maru pulled a gap on cats like Innovation, and before Serral gapped him
Thanks a bunch for this, a great read. I especially enjoyed giving life his due, imo is goat contender with sos, inno, maru and serral.
How would his efficiency fair if you allowed long career players to pick a time period of the same span as life? I think that would only be fair for the efficiency category. Or at least it is if you think of it of who had the greatest peak.
I think the era is downplayed, and the recent maru win shows a lot, not only that he can now win premier global events, but that these 'gods' are actually capable of under delivering . And now that protoss is more relevant it shows that dominance the like that serral has enjoyed shouldn't be possible in a balanced game, though it might still be the most insane thing we've seen yet. The tournament scene is suddenly exciting, because the winner pool has been expanded so, now imagine if there were 4 times the players and many in their prime. There is no way that players could win as consistently as we've seen. Maru wouldn't be winning 5 gsl's in a row had he peaked in HotS. That said, I do think serral is the best modern player, even slightly outperforming clem, while T has been as strong as it's been.
Also, I wanna say that this late lotv era that is so execution based, especially when toss has been irrelevant for a huge part of it, will always be more feast or famine. A car that is 1% faster will always be the faster car, whereas if the meta was more strategy focused, there will be more fluctuation.
These are my first viewing thoughts before getting tainted, if you will, by other comments. Great work.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
It's certainly a conundrum. How can fans of one player argue against the other when both experienced their primes at the exact same time To me the most solid argument for Maru over Serral is that he won a premier event in 2012 and in 2015. His longevity is otherworldly at this point. But, Serral's now in his seventh year as a full time pro who, by nearly every measurement, is better than Maru. Because of that, each year that passes diminishes Maru's advantage in that regard.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 3 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
Amazing article and effort! I haven't read it all yet, but while skimming some parts, the investigation on whether the KR scene declined in skill was very interesting. For a while no one had good ideas of how you might find evidence for or against it. I like the ideas you came up with in how to check it, and agree with the conclusion.
Personally as a competitive player in other games, top players who return years later without practice can usually still easily compete at a very high level. If top KR players in prime 2013-2015 years are still playing in 2016-2024, even if they don't practice much, as long as they practice a little each week most weeks of the year, they are keeping up with the meta and staying in shape enough to compete at a very high level still. If you are playing LotV for several years, you've learned it so well that you mostly just account for small meta shifts, new maps, and balance patches. You don't need to continually practice 40 hours a week every week. Especially because SC2 is not nearly as mechanically demanding as BW with its limitless ceiling. This is subjective of course, but I totally believe that they are still near their top forms or briefly at their top forms now and then even after the prime SC2 years.
It would have been nice to see sOs just because i love him, but understand he'd be in the same boat as Rogue where they have a few big wins, but don't do so great in the rest of the metrics.
Skim reading the replies in this thread, i don't understand the surprise why Rogue is not in the Top 5 in the methodology while players like MVP/Life/Rain are in the Top 5 or above Rogue. They are definitely in the running with their peaks (not sure about Rain but many people feel he's a Top 10 GOAT and some put him quite high), and those were very competitive years they played in. Of course, on my own list i would say it's Serral Rogue Maru as top 3, but Rogue does not always show up in his top form unless it's a bigger tournament. As someone shared, Dark has quite an impressive consistency and resume compared to Rogue; Rogue has lower lows but slightly higher peaks.
My takeaway from the final GOAT score chart is not necessarily the strict ranking of the players. It's that Rain and Rogue both have much less rounded resumes than the players above them. There are arguments for them being top GOATs, but there are many more arguments you can make for say Innovation being more GOAT than Rogue. Which is no surprise considering the competitiveness of the era Innovation played in, and the density of the amount of tournaments and players in SC2's earlier years.
My takeaway from this thread is that people are focusing too much on boiling the data and different perspectives down into a single ranking, instead of looking at it with more nuance and seeing it as more open ended than it is. The weightings are subjective of course, but even if you change the weightings a bit it isn't going to knock Serral down really. He's just way above the others, and he scores high across all categories.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
I can't wait to write the "Maru was injured even before he started playing StarCraft II therefore all of his stuff needs to be doubled in value" article.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
Ah yes, the most widely accepted and followed western community for the entire lifespan of SC2 is wrong and you are right. This isn’t some “editor” that you speak of. It’s a conglomerate of the biggest followers and fans of the esport. Yes I would take their opinion over whatever you say and so would everyone else.
You realize Miz released an updated rankings where Serral was number 1 right?
I don’t need to make any more arguments/points as you are just making them for me. I think it’s pretty clear, but you do you bud.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
Ah yes, the most widely accepted and followed western community for the entire lifespan of SC2 is wrong and you are right. This isn’t some “editor” that you speak of. It’s a conglomerate of the biggest followers and fans of the esport. Yes I would take their opinion over whatever you say and so would everyone else.
You realize Miz released an updated rankings where Serral was number 1 right?
I don’t need to make any more arguments/points as you are just making them for me. I think it’s pretty clear, but you do you bud.
I'm not the person you're getting into it with, but your points are also not moving the needle with me. Dismissing wesg but somehow hyping up hsc, and claiming that the region locked eu wcs are impactful is silly imo. In 2018, serral won a grand total of 1 top tier tournament (blizzcon). Even if it's reasonable to dismiss wesg (which is not given that if the competition was so tame he should've won it but didn't), he also competed in iem, and also didn't win that. But sure, maru's 3 gsls, wesg, and better placement at iem also don't count...ok
E: and someone can correct me, but wasn't the liquipedia prior classification of premier vs major strictly based on available price money? Doesn't seem all that instructive as to whether the event was top tier or not
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
Ah yes, the most widely accepted and followed western community for the entire lifespan of SC2 is wrong and you are right. This isn’t some “editor” that you speak of. It’s a conglomerate of the biggest followers and fans of the esport. Yes I would take their opinion over whatever you say and so would everyone else.
You realize Miz released an updated rankings where Serral was number 1 right?
I don’t need to make any more arguments/points as you are just making them for me. I think it’s pretty clear, but you do you bud.
I'm not the person you're getting into it with, but your points are also not moving the needle with me. Dismissing wesg but somehow hyping up hsc, and claiming that the region locked eu wcs are impactful is silly imo. In 2018, serral won a grand total of 1 top tier tournament (blizzcon). Even if it's reasonable to dismiss wesg (which is not given that if the competition was so tame he should've won it but didn't), he also competed in iem, and also didn't win that. But sure, maru's 3 gsls, wesg, and better placement at iem also don't count...ok
E: and someone can correct me, but wasn't the liquipedia prior classification of premier vs major strictly based on available price money? Doesn't seem all that instructive as to whether the event was top tier or not
Serral went 15-0 in the second half of 2018 against Koreans in offline events. Maru's year is probably more impressive as a whole, but Serral was the better player and the best player I had ever seen play StarCraft II at that point.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
No you see the scene only massively declined after 2018. Which in no way is related to Maru’s 4 peat occurring that year.
The weak era occurred at exactly the point after Maru pulled a gap on cats like Innovation, and before Serral gapped him
Damn these coincidences...
On June 07 2025 05:09 ejozl wrote: Thanks a bunch for this, a great read. I especially enjoyed giving life his due, imo is goat contender with sos, inno, maru and serral.
How would his efficiency fair if you allowed long career players to pick a time period of the same span as life? I think that would only be fair for the efficiency category. Or at least it is if you think of it of who had the greatest peak.
I think the era is downplayed, and the recent maru win shows a lot, not only that he can now win premier global events, but that these 'gods' are actually capable of under delivering . And now that protoss is more relevant it shows that dominance the like that serral has enjoyed shouldn't be possible in a balanced game, though it might still be the most insane thing we've seen yet. The tournament scene is suddenly exciting, because the winner pool has been expanded so, now imagine if there were 4 times the players and many in their prime. There is no way that players could win as consistently as we've seen. Maru wouldn't be winning 5 gsl's in a row had he peaked in HotS. That said, I do think serral is the best modern player, even slightly outperforming clem, while T has been as strong as it's been.
Also, I wanna say that this late lotv era that is so execution based, especially when toss has been irrelevant for a huge part of it, will always be more feast or famine. A car that is 1% faster will always be the faster car, whereas if the meta was more strategy focused, there will be more fluctuation.
These are my first viewing thoughts before getting tainted, if you will, by other comments. Great work.
Thank you for the feedback! The issue I had with era was that pushing it more, would have lead to Life gaining more distance to Maru and INno coming in closer as well. I'll try to compose a follow-up with different weightings, as many (myself included) disagree with the AI conception. Now please get tainted and then give further feedback, so the follow-up will be more robust.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
It's certainly a conundrum. How can fans of one player argue against the other when both experienced their primes at the exact same time To me the most solid argument for Maru over Serral is that he won a premier event in 2012 and in 2015. His longevity is otherworldly at this point. But, Serral's now in his seventh year as a full time pro who, by nearly every measurement, is better than Maru. Because of that, each year that passes diminishes Maru's advantage in that regard.
That is a question I posed in the comment section of my old or your article. If things continue as they do now - that Serral keeps sitting around the first or second rank for the following years in terms of won tournaments - how long will Maru's longevity last for the Maru = GOAT-people to keep the narrative alive?
On June 07 2025 14:43 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Amazing article and effort! I haven't read it all yet, but while skimming some parts, the investigation on whether the KR scene declined in skill was very interesting. For a while no one had good ideas of how you might find evidence for or against it. I like the ideas you came up with in how to check it, and agree with the conclusion.
Personally as a competitive player in other games, top players who return years later without practice can usually still easily compete at a very high level. If top KR players in prime 2013-2015 years are still playing in 2016-2024, even if they don't practice much, as long as they practice a little each week most weeks of the year, they are keeping up with the meta and staying in shape enough to compete at a very high level still. If you are playing LotV for several years, you've learned it so well that you mostly just account for small meta shifts, new maps, and balance patches. You don't need to continually practice 40 hours a week every week. Especially because SC2 is not nearly as mechanically demanding as BW with its limitless ceiling. This is subjective of course, but I totally believe that they are still near their top forms or briefly at their top forms now and then even after the prime SC2 years.
It would have been nice to see sOs just because i love him, but understand he'd be in the same boat as Rogue where they have a few big wins, but don't do so great in the rest of the metrics.
Skim reading the replies in this thread, i don't understand the surprise why Rogue is not in the Top 5 in the methodology while players like MVP/Life/Rain are in the Top 5 or above Rogue. They are definitely in the running with their peaks (not sure about Rain but many people feel he's a Top 10 GOAT and some put him quite high), and those were very competitive years they played in. Of course, on my own list i would say it's Serral Rogue Maru as top 3, but Rogue does not always show up in his top form unless it's a bigger tournament. As someone shared, Dark has quite an impressive consistency and resume compared to Rogue; Rogue has lower lows but slightly higher peaks.
My takeaway from the final GOAT score chart is not necessarily the strict ranking of the players. It's that Rain and Rogue both have much less rounded resumes than the players above them. There are arguments for them being top GOATs, but there are many more arguments you can make for say Innovation being more GOAT than Rogue. Which is no surprise considering the competitiveness of the era Innovation played in, and the density of the amount of tournaments and players in SC2's earlier years.
My takeaway from this thread is that people are focusing too much on boiling the data and different perspectives down into a single ranking, instead of looking at it with more nuance and seeing it as more open ended than it is. The weightings are subjective of course, but even if you change the weightings a bit it isn't going to knock Serral down really. He's just way above the others, and he scores high across all categories.
Thanks a lot! And yeah, I was also surprised why people were so alarmed about Rogue's results. It shouldn't come as a big hit that he isn't the most consistent player. Given, that the tournament score should be weighed higher, Rogue still wouldn't be in the best spot for rank 3. I first thought about skipping the weighting and to be honest, I only included it as 1 year ago I got the impression that people couldn't really comprehend how far Serral is ahead of the curve. He is so far above the average of a super elite cohort which already is miles above even tier 2 players, that this time I thought I had to include a normalization and weighting to make this result more visible (which of course is still open to discussion in terms of relative numbers).
Thanks for noticing that the final ranking is not the part where the attention should be placed and that the important issue is that - while other players have strengths and weakness - one contender simple shines among all metrics.
@the 2018-discussion. Serral has the most prestigious win and more PT wins overall (4 of them region locked), while Maru has a higher prestige-value on average and simply winning 3 GSLs in a row that year. What tips the scales for Serral at least in my opinion are the other metrics. Match win rate: Serral 85,71% (of course only versus top Koreans) versus Maru's 66,18% (including Serral). Average place (only tournaments with top Korean participation, not the region locks): Serral 3,10 and Maru 3,39. Tournament win %: 50% Serral, versus 44,44% Maru (both are insane tbh; Maru played more, but also won more and got good results where Serral simply was not present and thus did not contest Maru's wins or deep runs... normal and Afreeca GSLs). In the tournaments, where the whole world was present, Serral has slightly better results. It's a close one, but I'd give Serral a small edge on 2018. The 100% match win in the second half of that year (Zest, INno, Stats, Dark, Maru, Rogue, Trap, TaeJa, soO, sOs... I don't think any big name from that time is missing here) is just absolute bonkers.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
Liquipedia "premier" events categorization is a completely arbitrarily metric made up by the guys who edit a website. No disrespect to them but they don't have any authority on how much a tournament should be weighted and I'm sure even they would disagree that a World Championship is worth the same as a HSC just because they grouped it in the same categorization of tournaments. There's no reason to cite their categorization as if it had any kind of authority.
Miz for example rated korean individual leagues (mainly during kespa era) and world championships clearly higher than other events - I don't see why he as a writer should have lower authority than a website editor?
Ah yes, the most widely accepted and followed western community for the entire lifespan of SC2 is wrong and you are right. This isn’t some “editor” that you speak of. It’s a conglomerate of the biggest followers and fans of the esport. Yes I would take their opinion over whatever you say and so would everyone else.
You realize Miz released an updated rankings where Serral was number 1 right?
I don’t need to make any more arguments/points as you are just making them for me. I think it’s pretty clear, but you do you bud.
I'm not the person you're getting into it with, but your points are also not moving the needle with me. Dismissing wesg but somehow hyping up hsc, and claiming that the region locked eu wcs are impactful is silly imo. In 2018, serral won a grand total of 1 top tier tournament (blizzcon). Even if it's reasonable to dismiss wesg (which is not given that if the competition was so tame he should've won it but didn't), he also competed in iem, and also didn't win that. But sure, maru's 3 gsls, wesg, and better placement at iem also don't count...ok
E: and someone can correct me, but wasn't the liquipedia prior classification of premier vs major strictly based on available price money? Doesn't seem all that instructive as to whether the event was top tier or not
Serral went 15-0 in the second half of 2018 against Koreans in offline events. Maru's year is probably more impressive as a whole, but Serral was the better player and the best player I had ever seen play StarCraft II at that point.
Btw second half of 2018 that’s just two tournaments GSL vs the World and Blizzcon. If a Korean won these tournaments (with single elimination if they win it means they don’t lose any matchups), are they the better player than Maru who won 2GSLs + WESG year in the first half of 2018?
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
Because these people act like SC2 only began in late 2018, just so they can conveniently ignore how bad their GOAT was in two out of three versions of SC2
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
Innovation has a pretty strong claim to being the best HoTS Terran to be fair.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
Innovation has a pretty strong claim to being the best HoTS Terran to be fair.
I do agree with you on that. I'd revise my statement to say that Maru was arguably the best Terran in HoTS, and at least top 2 without question.
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
As I wrote in the article, most people were dissatisfied that I did not include Mvp, Rain and Life in my article 1 year ago. It is a shit ton of work to go through all these players tournaments to look for each and every placement and grade these tournaments for the tournament score. As MMA was not called for nearly as often as the other 3 and him - on a quick look at match win rates and tournament win percentage - not being on par with the other 7, opted for leaving him out.
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
Because these people act like SC2 only began in late 2018, just so they can conveniently ignore how bad their GOAT was in two out of three versions of SC2
I think I gave a pretty good summary and added context and explanations that led to Serral being ahead of Maru in every single metric. Subjectively pushing era points to further Maru's case, will necessarily lead to Life distancing Maru and even INno overtaking him, depending on the influence on the multiplier. Not even speaking about Rogue, whose claim will be absolutely nullified.
Calling Serral bad at a time, when he still was attending school and being no full time pro is a notion based on... factual truth. But then you should also add that he slapped Koreans in their country as well as around the world, which no foreigner before or after him could do, once he invested his time into the game after finishing school.
There is not a single more dominant player who outperformed harder than Serral, especially over such a long period of time. The guy has an over 30% lifetime tournament participation win rate. Meaning he won basically every third tournament he participated in - counting only those with top Koreans participating. If we go by Miz' intro and only look at prime years and ignore his school years, it goes up to nearly 40%. That is completely absurd... and he did this against 2 - 3 other GOAT contenders, who themselves have better statistics than nearly all players that ever touched the game. Not a single other player is even above 26% here, while most others that perform well in this metric had only 3 years of playing, making it much easier to maintain high rates.
I still don't think people understand how insane these numbers are, even in a state of the game that was less competitive (yet at the same time had a lot less tournaments, so good players were not as dispersed as in 2011-2016 and the best of the best attended nearly all these tournaments he played in).
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
Innovation has a pretty strong claim to being the best HoTS Terran to be fair.
I do agree with you on that. I'd revise my statement to say that Maru was arguably the best Terran in HoTS, and at least top 2 without question.
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
As I wrote in the article, most people were dissatisfied that I did not include Mvp, Rain and Life in my article 1 year ago. It is a shit ton of work to go through all these players tournaments to look for each and every placement and grade these tournaments for the tournament score. As MMA was not called for nearly as often as the other 3 and him - on a quick look at match win rates and tournament win percentage - not being on par with the other 7, opted for leaving him out.
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
Because these people act like SC2 only began in late 2018, just so they can conveniently ignore how bad their GOAT was in two out of three versions of SC2
I think I gave a pretty good summary and added context and explanations that led to Serral being ahead of Maru in every single metric. Subjectively pushing era points to further Maru's case, will necessarily lead to Life distancing Maru and even INno overtaking him, depending on the influence on the multiplier. Not even speaking about Rogue, whose claim will be absolutely nullified.
Calling Serral bad at a time, when he still was attending school and being no full time pro is a notion based on... factual truth. But then you should also add that he slapped Koreans in their country as well as around the world, which no foreigner before or after him could do, once he invested his time into the game after finishing school.
There is not a single more dominant player who outperformed harder than Serral, especially over such a long period of time. The guy has an over 30% lifetime tournament participation win rate. Meaning he won basically every third tournament he participated in - counting only those with top Koreans participating. If we go by Miz' intro and only look at prime years and ignore his school years, it goes up to nearly 40%. That is completely absurd... and he did this against 2 - 3 other GOAT contenders, who themselves have better statistics than nearly all players that ever touched the game. Not a single other player is even above 26% here, while most others that perform well in this metric had only 3 years of playing, making it much easier to maintain high rates.
I still don't think people understand how insane these numbers are, even in a state of the game that was less competitive (yet at the same time had a lot less tournaments, so good players were not as dispersed as in 2011-2016 and the best of the best attended nearly all these tournaments he played in).
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
Innovation has a pretty strong claim to being the best HoTS Terran to be fair.
I do agree with you on that. I'd revise my statement to say that Maru was arguably the best Terran in HoTS, and at least top 2 without question.
MMA third?
Calling Serral bad at a time, when he still was attending school and being no full time pro is a notion based on... factual truth. But then you should also add that he slapped Koreans in their country as well as around the world, which no foreigner before or after him could do, once he invested his time into the game after finishing school.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
I still don't think people understand how insane these numbers are, even in a state of the game that was less competitive
I’ll give you credit for at least acknowledging the decline in competitiveness unlike the guy above who rated WCS circuit as S-tier. Sure, Serral had an incredible 2024, even though he got stomped by Clem in the world championship. But in Maru’s 2018 he also won three GSLs when GSL was still the most competitive league, plus a WESG and then got knocked out by sOs at BlizzCon. Maru’s 2018 is just as impressive, if not more than, Serral’s run from late 2023 to mid-2024.
And going back to this quote, does that mean Soulkey is the GOAT of BW? Is Happy the GOAT of WC3? If Serral is GOAT under that logic, then Soulkey and Happy, instead of Flash and Moon, should hold those titles too. If Clem keeps winning for another year or two, does he become the GOAT next?
Edit: Actually, Flash as an example wasn't good. Let me revise my Flash question: do Flash's post-KeSPA achievements, like four ASL championships, contribute to his GOAT claim? For me, no. Even if Soulkey with his four consecutive ASL/SSL championships can continue to win as many ASL titles as possible, he still wouldn't be the GOAT.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it.
Yes. That's my point and Serral started his career in 2012.
As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite.
No. As I said, he joined ENCE in 2013 and played his WCS in 2012. You're just trying to use 'not a full-time player' as an excuse for his lack of achievements in HoTS, but he was actively playing. In Korea the minimum age to leave school is 15, and as I mentioned, all those players including Maru, Life, and Neeb were in school (Neeb was in high school). They didn't play full-time either, but they still achieved way better success. You just want to act like he wasn't a full-time player when he was bad (which he was as active playing as Neeb) and even when he finally got better at this game it was not 2018 but 2017 when Neeb outshined him.
Again, Maru won OSL at 15 when he was in middle school. Maru and Serral are about the same age if you don't know.
Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell.
Like the guy above, go point out when I said 2018 was a major decline in terms of competitiveness? No offense but you guys all are struggling with reading comprehension. The major decline, if you ask me, started when there were no offline tournaments because of the pandemic.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
As I wrote in the article, most people were dissatisfied that I did not include Mvp, Rain and Life in my article 1 year ago. It is a shit ton of work to go through all these players tournaments to look for each and every placement and grade these tournaments for the tournament score. As MMA was not called for nearly as often as the other 3 and him - on a quick look at match win rates and tournament win percentage - not being on par with the other 7, opted for leaving him out.
On June 08 2025 04:30 dedede wrote:
On June 08 2025 03:11 ShowTheLights wrote: how is MMA not even on this conversation
GSL x2 triple crown winner One of the only people to beat IMMvp consistently most clutch team league player ever
Because these people act like SC2 only began in late 2018, just so they can conveniently ignore how bad their GOAT was in two out of three versions of SC2
I think I gave a pretty good summary and added context and explanations that led to Serral being ahead of Maru in every single metric. Subjectively pushing era points to further Maru's case, will necessarily lead to Life distancing Maru and even INno overtaking him, depending on the influence on the multiplier. Not even speaking about Rogue, whose claim will be absolutely nullified.
Calling Serral bad at a time, when he still was attending school and being no full time pro is a notion based on... factual truth. But then you should also add that he slapped Koreans in their country as well as around the world, which no foreigner before or after him could do, once he invested his time into the game after finishing school.
There is not a single more dominant player who outperformed harder than Serral, especially over such a long period of time. The guy has an over 30% lifetime tournament participation win rate. Meaning he won basically every third tournament he participated in - counting only those with top Koreans participating. If we go by Miz' intro and only look at prime years and ignore his school years, it goes up to nearly 40%. That is completely absurd... and he did this against 2 - 3 other GOAT contenders, who themselves have better statistics than nearly all players that ever touched the game. Not a single other player is even above 26% here, while most others that perform well in this metric had only 3 years of playing, making it much easier to maintain high rates.
I still don't think people understand how insane these numbers are, even in a state of the game that was less competitive (yet at the same time had a lot less tournaments, so good players were not as dispersed as in 2011-2016 and the best of the best attended nearly all these tournaments he played in).
On June 08 2025 06:30 dedede wrote:
On June 08 2025 05:58 WombaT wrote:
On June 08 2025 02:51 dedede wrote:
On June 07 2025 17:21 onPHYRE wrote:
On June 07 2025 13:47 dedede wrote:
On June 07 2025 11:27 onPHYRE wrote:
On June 06 2025 17:36 dedede wrote:
On June 06 2025 17:13 onPHYRE wrote: [quote]
Maru barely won anything pre-2018 as well. Just because someone started earlier doesn’t make them better.
Serral is head and shoulders above Maru in virtually every statistical measure (which this article points out even if some parts are flawed). Serral wins at such a higher clip than Maru and Maru loses to Serral (and barely ever wins international competitions where the top players are present) so often that to make the argument at this point is absurd.
False. Maru won OSL in 2013 and SSL in 2015 and was MVP in 2015-2016 Proleague. Did you ever watch games back then?
I have been watching since Fruitdealer won the first GSL..
What are you even arguing here? You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect and then you list 2 individual tournaments Maru won in an 8 year span. You are basically making my point for me. Maru barely won anything prior to 2018 (I never said he didn’t win anything). That’s literally averaging 1 s tier tournament win every 4 years. Even if you want to start at 2013 instead of 2010, Maru winning 2 tournaments and getting some MVP award over the span of 5 years is hardly a long list of accomplishments. Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.
Wow, it’s clear you struggle with reading comprehension and love making false claims.
(1) “You arbitrarily pick 2018 as some big decline despite the article having multiple sections proving that is incorrect.” When exactly did I claim 2018 was the start of a major decline? Please point that out. If anything is arbitrary it's all the weights in OP.
(2) If you’ve really been following the scene since 2010, are you seriously going to deny that the KeSPA era was the most competitive period in SC2 history? And claiming “Maru barely won anything before 2018” is complete bs since he was arguably a top 2 Terran in HoTS, if not the best.
(3) “Serral was doing this 3 times a year in his prime.” You mean to say Serral won 6 actual S-tier events and earned 2 MVPs in S-tier team leagues? Let’s assume the competitive level from 2020 to 2025 was on par with 2015. Now name one year he achieved everything you’re listing. And if you're counting stuff like HomeStory Cup or TSL as S-tier, then honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. Maru's prime in 2018 with 3 GSL titles and a WESG win is the most accomplished single year by any player.
2018 is the year Serral started dominating. What other year would you be referring to? I was also stating this year because it was referenced by the original poster I responded to.
Either way, I assure you my reading comprehension is just fine. The majority of the community disagrees with you (multiple polls show Serral being selected as the GOAT by about 60-70% of the community including one here on TL around when the article first came out).. so you can sit here and argue with me about it or just use logic.
90%+ of Maru’s accomplishments have come in the same era as Serral and they pale in comparison.
Comparing a WESG with the weak competition it had to a Homestory cup and acting like it’s somehow better because of the location/name attached to it is ridiculous. There were 4-5 good players and then a bunch of no names. The average offline weekly had more competition. I don’t know how anyone can defend that position. Liquipedia clearly defines what it considers S tier tournaments. Counting individual performances Serral is up 28-19. If you need a year to look at where he won “6 actual S-tier events,” just look at 2018. Please keep in mind we are going off of what TL is saying was S-tier and not what you made up in your head to do mental gymnastics.
Serral 1st place (S-tier only) 2018 WCS Leipzig 2018 WCS Austin 2018 WCS Valencia 2018 GSL vs The World 2018 WCS Montreal 2018 HS Cup 18 2018 WCS Global Finals
How many world championships does Maru have again? Serral won 7 S-tiers in just that one year. 2 over 8 years is laughable as a measure of a GOAT.
While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited. That being said Serral has represented Finland or “The World” multiple times with a ridiculous win rate. Maru has such a bad win rate outside of KR compared to Serral it’s like comparing the 2007 Patriots to a HS team. It’s almost as bad as stating Maru was a top 2 Terran in HoTS. Both Inno and TaeJa were clearly better and there are certainly arguments to be made for ByuN (who actually won a world title in this era) and Mvp.
LMAO, counting all those 2018 WCS wins where his finals opponents were Has, MaNa, Special, and just-got-into-the-scene Reynor whom he barely beat 4:3 is just hilarious. I don’t think I need to argue with you anymore lol. Just leave this post up as a monument to your own self-humiliation.
‘While KR had dedicated team leagues the scene outside of this was limited’ oh right, that must be why he only started looking good two years after KeSPA disbanded and Blizzard introduced region lock to protect foreigners. Then what was his win rate vs korean from 2010–2017? Must’ve been 100%, since he didn’t even get to play them, hard to lose if you never qualify huh?
And calling HSC S-tier? That’s comedy. I’m not even going to bother at this point, lol.
Also, the fact that you still won’t admit you mistook me for the original post you referred to just shows how you handle real arguments — either by making things up like ‘Maru didn’t win much in HotS’ (when he was the best Terran and Serral wasn’t even top 10 among foreigners), or by coping with nonsense like ‘WCS Circuit and HSC are S-tier like WESG and GSL because Liquipedia says so, wahhh.’ Or you just ignore your own careless claims and hope they quietly slip by. Man, I hope you don’t handle things like this in your actual job or study.
Innovation has a pretty strong claim to being the best HoTS Terran to be fair.
I do agree with you on that. I'd revise my statement to say that Maru was arguably the best Terran in HoTS, and at least top 2 without question.
Calling Serral bad at a time, when he still was attending school and being no full time pro is a notion based on... factual truth. But then you should also add that he slapped Koreans in their country as well as around the world, which no foreigner before or after him could do, once he invested his time into the game after finishing school.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
I still don't think people understand how insane these numbers are, even in a state of the game that was less competitive
I’ll give you credit for at least acknowledging the decline in competitiveness unlike the guy above who rated WCS circuit as S-tier. Sure, Serral had an incredible 2024, even though he got stomped by Clem in the world championship. But in Maru’s 2018 he also won three GSLs when GSL was still the most competitive league, plus a WESG and then got knocked out by sOs at BlizzCon. Maru’s 2018 is just as impressive, if not more than, Serral’s run from late 2023 to mid-2024.
And going back to this quote, does that mean Soulkey is the GOAT of BW? Is Happy the GOAT of WC3? If Serral is GOAT under that logic, then Soulkey and Happy, instead of Flash and Moon, should hold those titles too. If Clem keeps winning for another year or two, does he become the GOAT next?
Edit: Actually, Flash as an example wasn't good. Let me revise my Flash question: do Flash's post-KeSPA achievements, like four ASL championships, contribute to his GOAT claim? For me, no. Even if Soulkey with his four consecutive ASL/SSL championships can continue to win as many ASL titles as possible, he still wouldn't be the GOAT.
We don't know enough about their individual circumstances to make quality comments, so I keep it brief: Perhaps Serral's parents were not ok with him playing as much or they didn't allow for him so skip school days, like Life's or Maru's parents. Perhaps the support of a multi million dollar machine helped them develop their talents better. Many ifs. All we know for certain is that Serral's numbers went massively up once school finished and he was able to put in the hours. And just to be clear: Neeb graduated from high school in June and won Kespa in October of 2016. He was not attending school when playing Kespa 2016 and won it after becoming a full time pro. And I hope you did not attempt to compare ENCE with the professional infrastructure of Korean teams like PRIME, Startale, MVP, EG-TL, etc... these teams had complete team houses with coaches, staff and analysts, daily practice schedules and full time support in form of meals, training and travel. ENCE was hardly even an amateur-team in comparison to these globally dominant, professionalized organizations.
My next point is the same as Balnazza's. If you say that it is an important metric to you, how long it took a certain player to achieve a certain achievement, how can you put Maru on top, when after 15 years of playing the game, he still did not win a single world championship, despite trying several times? Logical continuation would call for the same treatment, no?
I explained my thoughts on 2018 already: "Serral has the most prestigious win and more PT wins overall (4 of them region locked), while Maru has a higher prestige-value on average and winning 3 GSLs in a row that year. What tips the scales for Serral at least in my opinion are the other metrics. Match win rate: Serral 85,71% (of course only versus top Koreans) versus Maru's 66,18% (including Serral). Average place (only tournaments with top Korean participation, not the region locks): Serral 3,10 and Maru 3,39. Tournament win %: 50% Serral, versus 44,44% Maru (both are insane tbh; Maru played more, but also won more and got good results where Serral simply was not present and thus did not contest Maru's wins or deep runs... normal and Afreeca GSLs). In the tournaments, where the whole world was present, Serral has slightly better results. It's a close one, but I'd give Serral a small edge on 2018. The 100% match win in the second half of that year (Zest, INno, Stats, Dark, Maru, Rogue, Trap, TaeJa, soO, sOs... I don't think any big name from that time is missing here) is just absolute bonkers."
Less competitive does not necessarily mean less hard, as I explained in the article. If we toned down the 2015 tournament numbers, do you still think we would talk so highly about many of the players of that time? In the modern era, the best players are distilled into the global events (well, except GSL where the best of the world was/were not present post 2018).
The issue is that no one comes close to Serral in terms of accomplishments, even if you apply era-multipliers to enable cross-era-comparisons to some degree. And dismissing or massively downplaying post-2018 is also dismissing Maru's (and Rogue's) claim as his achievements mostly fall into that time frame too. A follow-up thought: How can someone who never clearly was the greatest or best player over an extended period of time or someone who mostly was the the 2nd best throughout his career, be the Greatest of all Time? In my opinion, it does not make sense to become the best player because you were 2nd best for a very long time, especially when you massively underperform in the same time frame relative to a co-contender.
I already talked about Clem in the article. With only 2 non-region-lock win in grand tournaments he is far from being in the discussion.
If you don't think Flash's post-KeSPA achievements contribute to his claim, why do you think Maru's post KeSPA achievements contribute to his claim?
Serral finished school probably in May/June 2017 as that is when the Finnish school year is over. One can look at 3-months-periods of his win rates and they go up around the time he finished school. As someone else said.. we don't know anything about cultural differences or parenting. So the most logical explanation is that Serral took off once he turned from part-time to full-time pro. At least to me. What would be your take on that?
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Uhh, he is the 4th race. Serral is the Night King, he is literally the BBEG of the biggest TV Show of all time!!!!1 ...but seriously: I'm not really buying into the 4th race thing, especially since it feels like it only creeped up again after Mizenhauers article. And I will freely admit that a huge chunk of my dislike is that it will forever be a cheap knockoff of the true "fifth race" Moon. Which btw was a nickname not earned because he had success when no other NE did, but because he played such a unique version of the game. But it is also true that Maru clearly did not have "success in every game version/balance"? He did not win anything in WoL and he wasn't nearly the best in HotS. Not to mention certain stretches of LotV. He proved me wrong afterwards, but I stand by it, that after EWC, Maru probably dropped out of the current Top 5.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
Serral went full-time pro late 2017. He reached Top 4 in Katowice 2018 and WESG 2017 (which was played in '18), which at the time seemed tremendously impressive results for a foreigner. He then crushed the entire WCS Circuit and had probably the most dominant BlizzCon/World Championship run of all time...sorry, 2nd of all time, Clem trumped him.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
And yet, in Marus 15 year long career, he couldn't win the most important tournament. He couldn't do it when he was a protege (like the imbecile did), he couldn't do it when it was free to win for the GSL Koreans (like sOs did), he couldn't win it when the foreigners had risen up (like Dark did) and he couldn't do it when he had the easiest opponent in a final ever (no disrespect to Oliveira, but I don't think anyone would argue that on paper he was the easiest opponent to beat in a final to get a WC since WoL). 15 years...in half the time Reynor reached the WC-finals three times, Serral won it twice. And glad the "any good"-phrase triggered you - because you used it.
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
It is disregarded, because he didn't really play. It is not that hard to understand...should Maru retire this year, I will clearly not say in 2026 "oh wow, yet another year Maru didn't win a WC!!1".
I will try now to stop arguing with you. Mostly because it is pointless, but also because it forces me to argue in a way I dislike and that is belittleling player results. Which I truely hate. That is some HLTV-shit where everyone not playing in Vitality is clearly T354535345345 and a paycheck stealer. So I will say this, just for clarification: Maru is amazing. The best terran to this day to play the game. His long career is amazing. The fact that people hold it against him that he has no World Championship is a testament to his skill. At some point, people don't clap anymore when you reach the Top 4 three times in a row, they want you to win every time. Maru scratched on that level. His bad luck is that one guy just being that little bit better than him. When Roger Federer retired, another tennis player (can't remember who) said the genius quote: "I was never so happy for someone who made my life miserabel for 20 years". That is was Serral is to Maru, even though Maru fumbled it plenty of times on his own. But without Serral, there is a good chance he would have won last year, considering Clem was only mortal in TvT and Marus TvT is usually amazing. But back to my original point: I like arguing who is better. What results you value higher, what data points I have missed. But if you really start your argument with "if Serral was any good"...like dude, c'mon. How far off the rails can you be?
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
Don’t be silly. I think it’s a big stretch made by some to say he was the best HoTS player, but he was absolutely S tier then.
There were about enough fixed matches in Proleague (and some were just single sets) to count on the fingers of one hand basically.
For me the problem with Proleague isn’t one of integrity, it’s how do you assess it? In BW it was a giant focus, all the best players were there, and it stuck around for years. In SC2, less so. Does having stronger team around you boost your results? Serral has been a consistent tournament winner for way longer than Proleague even ran for.
This isn’t to say it’s worthless or anything like that, it’s just hard to fit into other calculations. In BW it’s quite easy, it’s as prestigious as individual titles, and ran for years, all of the best players played in it etc.
SC2’s been more global, more fragmented and with a much, much higher focus and interest in individual tournaments.
I discount Proleague in GOAT discussions myself outside of a tiebreaker, but it doesn’t mean Maru’s results aren’t insane. But some of the WoL era contenders, and some of the Legacy contenders never got the opportunity to play in it.
Fourth race, entirely reasonable. It’s not just that he single handedly represented Terran in the latter stages for a bit, it was also how he did it. Moon in WC3 wasn’t just the ‘Fifth Race’ because he was outperforming other Night Elf players, it was because he was playing the race differently, and trying (and succeeding) in doing things nobody else was doing. Which Maru was also doing with things like cutting Vikings and going marauder heavy and just surrounding Toss armies. It wasn’t that others couldn’t make it work, they didn’t even try.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Kind of disagree with the first one (though MVP is definitely in my top-5)--the rest are totally on point for me.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
No one called him the fourth race except his fans
NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
LMAO, this post is all the proof anyone needs that you’ve never actually watched or understood StarCraft 2. No one with even a basic common sense of the game would bother arguing with you after seeing this. Easily one of the most delusional or blatantly twisted takes I’ve seen from Serral fans lollll. This post really represents the average Serral fan but at least others are less obvious in their absurdity so it's good you posted this.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
I'd include INno as the one with probably the best results in prime SC2 with also a respectable career length. And of course the one you shall not mention... achieving better results than Mvp in a tougher era.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
For me the problem with Proleague isn’t one of integrity, it’s how do you assess it? In BW it was a giant focus, all the best players were there, and it stuck around for years. In SC2, less so. Does having stronger team around you boost your results? Serral has been a consistent tournament winner for way longer than Proleague even ran for.
This isn’t to say it’s worthless or anything like that, it’s just hard to fit into other calculations. In BW it’s quite easy, it’s as prestigious as individual titles, and ran for years, all of the best players played in it etc.
SC2’s been more global, more fragmented and with a much, much higher focus and interest in individual tournaments.
Team results gave me a headache one year ago. But establishing a minimum threshold of having an over 50% win rate in your games, does prove that you were no burden to your team. Here, one could even build a match win rate average per team and have that as a minimum threshold to score any points. But I settled for the 51% win rate as a bar minimum.
After the threshold is cleared, one could work the same way as with individual tournaments: Rate the tournament prestige and toughness (events where only 2 teams were present are discounted entirely... for example GSL Team Competitions, as they mean a minimum 2nd place). One could argue that the overall points for 1st-4th placed need to be devalued against individual tournaments as 32 players versus 8 teams makes it much easier to get into upper placements. But out of laziness I decided against it, as the final result was clear and the impact of team results isn't that high to begin with (for example INno 35,67 individual, 4,56 team results... Maru 60,29 and 3,85, all the other players have below 2 in team results). One also does need a participation multiplier on top for team results though, meaning if you participated in 75% of the games, your final score (tournament points X era points X placement points) gets multiplied with 0,75 in this example.
That is a fair way to incorporate it, exclude players who have been pulled by their team - rather than contributing - and only earn points according to one's contribution/participation.
In a more subjective approach, a tie breaker like you suggested, seems plausible, as to team results' low impact.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
Well... achieving a 85% win rate when only 3 other players ever went above 70% is quite remarkable, no? Unless there is evidence of course that only Maru benefited from the alleged match fixing.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Serral at least most consistent best player. I think Maru at his absolute best is just as good but is less consistent
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
This is an amazing read. My man here probably started watching SC2 last year. LOL
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Serral at least most consistent best player. I think Maru at his absolute best is just as good but is less consistent
With more words I could be precise, but it's an interesting exercise.
Regarding Proleague: I personally valued it very highly since players were paid a salary to play in Proleague. There are numerous examples of teams prioritizing Proleague over individual events-even Code S finals. If you're looking for a big indicator of how good a player's team was, look at the number of ace matches in which they participated. herO played a massive 24 ace matches in Proleague since CJ's general strategy (except for the brief period where Bbyong wasn't banned and ByuL was good) was to get herO a win and then try to steal a game somewhere so herO could play the ace match. There are exceptions such as Zest (because KT always chose him) who appeared in seven ace matches in 2015 alone. On the other hand, someone like Losira, who played in four of his team's 10 ace matches in 2015, (and was the only player with a winning a record) is a good indication of a team being generally dysfunctional.
Anyway, Proleague was really important to me, but if you didn't get to play in it (like Mvp or Serral) I didn't use it against them.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Serral at least most consistent best player. I think Maru at his absolute best is just as good but is less consistent
With more words I could be precise, but it's an interesting exercise.
Regarding Proleague: I personally valued it very highly since players were paid a salary to play in Proleague. There are numerous examples of teams prioritizing Proleague over individual events-even Code S finals. If you're looking for a big indicator of how good a player's team was, look at the number of ace matches in which they participated. herO played a massive 24 ace matches in Proleague since CJ's general strategy (except for the brief period where Bbyong wasn't banned and ByuL was good) was to get herO a win and then try to steal a game somewhere so herO could play the ace match. There are exceptions such as Zest (because KT always chose him) who appeared in seven ace matches in 2015 alone. On the other hand, someone like Losira, who played in four of his team's 10 ace matches in 2015, (and was the only player with a winning a record) is a good indication of a team being generally dysfunctional.
Anyway, Proleague was really important to me, but if you didn't get to play in it (like Mvp or Serral) I didn't use it against them.
Fair take. Are you aware if the prioritization of Proleague had influence on the top 5 in your list (not Mvp/Serral of course)?
slop analysis is slop analysis. In general, this need to prove that LOTV achievements can even compare to SC2 in its prime is just silly.
Treat SC2 pre and post LOTV as a different beast, yes Serral is a monster, but he played in a radically different environment. Mvp, the match fixer, and the other 2010-2015 players. He effectively did the same thing Mvp did in his twilight years winning WCS EU over and over again. The Korean scene died and a handful of players even kept up to the same degree. It's ok. Move on.
Edit: Maybe I can make a distinction pre and post Proleague ending. but that would still be mostly for LOTVs existence still.
On June 09 2025 21:39 Wintex wrote: slop analysis is slop analysis. In general, this need to prove that LOTV achievements can even compare to SC2 in its prime is just silly.
Treat SC2 pre and post LOTV as a different beast, yes Serral is a monster, but he played in a radically different environment. Mvp, the match fixer, and the other 2010-2015 players. He effectively did the same thing Mvp did in his twilight years winning WCS EU over and over again. The Korean scene died and a handful of players even kept up to the same degree. It's ok. Move on.
Edit: Maybe I can make a distinction pre and post Proleague ending. but that would still be mostly for LOTVs existence still.
There was an interview with soO sometime already years in the Lotv era after team houses disbanded, and he was asked about the level of the scene. He said despite team houes disbanding and players practicing at home at their own the skill level was higher than ever. I can imagine it to be true. The players who kept playing didn't forget how to play, and brought all of their experiences into Lotv. You are also free to check a vod from pre Lotv and compare it to the standard of the past few years. If i remember, that interview was sometime before his IEM victory.
Maru and Life both were at elementary and middle school when they started to play in GSL. Neeb was in high school when he won kespa cup. Serral was just good enough like other foreigners who also were in school. Serral played his first WCS in 2012 and joined ence in 2013 (meanwhile Maru already won his OSL back then and Life won the blizzcon that year too). If he was any good he could be like Neeb/Maru/Life playing games while in school.
No offense, but offense: That is just an retarded argument. It doesn't matter when you start your career, it matters what you do with it. Different upbringings and countries have different views about Esports and early careers. As soon as Serral started playing full-time, he immediately jumped into the world elite. Which is the responsible thing to do btw. Or to put your spin on it: Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
And the Happy-argument is also silly. Serral rose to the No.1 rank in a still highly competitive year. If 2018 and afterwards does not count in your book, then it is moot to speak about Marus GSLs wins - they are pointless then aswell. Happy however started dominating the WC3 scene long after its prime. And even still a lot of old-school players start considering him as a potential GOAT or even call him he GOAT, just because his dominance over the scene is so long-lasting by now.
To answer your last question: If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Serral needed I think 18 months of full-time play to become the World Champion. Maru hasn't done it in 12 years...if he was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point...
LOL everyone knows Maru's biggest issue for GOAT status is the lack of a World Championship. His strongest points? Success in every game version/balance, and those 4 GSLs in a row, and being the 4th race.
Also, if Serral really went 'full-time' only after high school in 2016 as you claimed, how do you get 18 months to 2018? Getting rekt for the whole 2016 and 2017 and the first half of 2018, that's 18 months for you? You and the other guy just love making up numbers and definitions on the fly don't you. Parting had debut in Nov 2011 and BlizzCon win in Nov 2012 so he is the GOAT huh.
"Serral was bad in HoTS" is a fact, "Serral had an amaizing 2024 until EWC" is also a fact. While "If Maru was "any good" he should have won one by accident at this point" said by you is just a funny rage bait. Plus Maru has been competing since the very first GSL season and has a fifteen-year career that has spanned the entire history of SC2.
If Clem would continue dominating, maybe win 1-2 more EWCs (in a world where the next five years look like this one) then yes, maybe he can claim that title. Depending ofc on what Serral and Maru do in that time
Funny how serral might do in the future when/if clem wins matters, while how he did in the HoTS when other players won is completely disregarded in the same conversation.
lol Maru was basically a gate keeper prior to 2018. No one called him the fourth race except his fans
Maru was a lower tier Korean during the so called “most competitive era”.
Before the you come and say “Maru was the best pro league player etc”. NO ONE cares about that, since games played during that league was proven to be heavily match fixed.
Maru performed well in a match fixed league . Cool? Are Maru fans that desperate that they need to use results from pro league lol
On June 08 2025 12:49 WombaT wrote: I swear Maru with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
I swear Serral with his self-effacing and shy ways seems to attract fans with the exact opposite personality.
Haha fair!
Dunno why it’s apparently impossible for some to respect two great players and have their favourite, or one they think has the better GOAT claim.
At least with Serral there’s less mental gymnastics, he’s won more, he’s won WCs, his win rates are better, he’s stomped the head-to-head. While he is the GOAT IMO, I think there are legitimate counter-arguments, but those are pretty reasonable things to couch a claim in.
Maru’s got a legit claim too, make the legit claims!
There’s an unbelievable amount of preposterous arguments made. The scene completely collapsed post-Kespa, so Serral’s achievements are devalued. But Maru’s 4-peat is legit. I mean of course it’s legit but you can’t have both.
Apart from anything else, whose team didn’t disband right after Kespa pulled out?
Hell I’ve been around long enough to remember when jet lag was the go-to to account for him not winning internationally.
He’s a phenomenal, and entertaining player, huge achievements and for me only Serral and Clem’s peak level is higher than his. And I don’t doubt that his injury issues maybe are what’s stopping him equalling or bettering those.
But one can make the case for Maru without going into the realms of incredibly flawed arguments, it just seems a pitfall many can’t resist for whatever reason.
For me, there is a very simple way of describing my top four players.
Mvp: Most Dominant (Serral has better win rates, but Mvp played at a time where all the best players were centered in Korea whereas Serral only faces Koreans so many times a year)
Rogue: Greatest Champion (He isn't the most consistent, but he knows how to win when it matters)
Serral: Best player (No one is as good at StarCraft II as Serral)
Maru: Greatest Career (the only person to have won as early as 2012 and as recently as this year. There will never be a player that can match Maru's longevity)
Serral at least most consistent best player. I think Maru at his absolute best is just as good but is less consistent
With more words I could be precise, but it's an interesting exercise.
Regarding Proleague: I personally valued it very highly since players were paid a salary to play in Proleague. There are numerous examples of teams prioritizing Proleague over individual events-even Code S finals. If you're looking for a big indicator of how good a player's team was, look at the number of ace matches in which they participated. herO played a massive 24 ace matches in Proleague since CJ's general strategy (except for the brief period where Bbyong wasn't banned and ByuL was good) was to get herO a win and then try to steal a game somewhere so herO could play the ace match. There are exceptions such as Zest (because KT always chose him) who appeared in seven ace matches in 2015 alone. On the other hand, someone like Losira, who played in four of his team's 10 ace matches in 2015, (and was the only player with a winning a record) is a good indication of a team being generally dysfunctional.
Anyway, Proleague was really important to me, but if you didn't get to play in it (like Mvp or Serral) I didn't use it against them.
Fair take. Are you aware if the prioritization of Proleague had influence on the top 5 in your list (not Mvp/Serral of course)?
Not really. As it turns out, players who were good in individual leagues tended to be good in Proleague. Rain, Zest, soO, Inno, Maru and sOs were all great in Proleague and won 63% or more of their games. Rogue and Stats were also good, as were herO and Classic, who are in my 11-20 range.
As mentioned, I didn't use "not playing Proleague" against anyone, but it was a useful tool when calculating where the players who peaked in when Proleague was around (2013-2015 (with most having extended peaks of 2013-2017 (as well as long careers that extended past that))) stood compared to one another.
On June 09 2025 21:39 Wintex wrote: slop analysis is slop analysis. In general, this need to prove that LOTV achievements can even compare to SC2 in its prime is just silly.
Treat SC2 pre and post LOTV as a different beast, yes Serral is a monster, but he played in a radically different environment. Mvp, the match fixer, and the other 2010-2015 players. He effectively did the same thing Mvp did in his twilight years winning WCS EU over and over again. The Korean scene died and a handful of players even kept up to the same degree. It's ok. Move on.
Edit: Maybe I can make a distinction pre and post Proleague ending. but that would still be mostly for LOTVs existence still.
There was an interview with soO sometime already years in the LotV era after team houses disbanded, and he was asked about the level of the scene. He said despite team houes disbanding and players practicing at home at their own the skill level was higher than ever. I can imagine it to be true. The players who kept playing didn't forget how to play, and brought all of their experiences into Lotv. You are also free to check a vod from pre Lotv and compare it to the standard of the past few years. If i remember, that interview was sometime before his IEM victory.
Two things can be true at once imo: that the competitive level of the scene--while still high--undoubtedly declined after team houses disbanded.
And that LoTV is just, objectively, a much more mechanically demanding and difficult game to play than Wings or HotS. I rewatched one of the all-timers the other day, (Soukey vs Inno in 2013 S1), and it's just no comparison. The army movement, micro/spell-casting and multi-tasking required today at the top are just so much better. Which is obviously a natural progression. I think the most fascinating way to nerf Serral would be to give him less options and less difficult armies to control to lower the skill-ceiling.
These two facts more or less cancel each other out for me when wrangling over eras.
That Maru has succeeded to the extent that he has throughout the various iterations of the game, for as long as he has, is the most impressive thing about his resume.
On June 09 2025 21:39 Wintex wrote: slop analysis is slop analysis. In general, this need to prove that LOTV achievements can even compare to SC2 in its prime is just silly.
Treat SC2 pre and post LOTV as a different beast, yes Serral is a monster, but he played in a radically different environment. Mvp, the match fixer, and the other 2010-2015 players. He effectively did the same thing Mvp did in his twilight years winning WCS EU over and over again. The Korean scene died and a handful of players even kept up to the same degree. It's ok. Move on.
Edit: Maybe I can make a distinction pre and post Proleague ending. but that would still be mostly for LOTVs existence still.
There was an interview with soO sometime already years in the LotV era after team houses disbanded, and he was asked about the level of the scene. He said despite team houes disbanding and players practicing at home at their own the skill level was higher than ever. I can imagine it to be true. The players who kept playing didn't forget how to play, and brought all of their experiences into Lotv. You are also free to check a vod from pre Lotv and compare it to the standard of the past few years. If i remember, that interview was sometime before his IEM victory.
Two things can be true at once imo: that the competitive level of the scene--while still high--undoubtedly declined after team houses disbanded.
And that LoTV is just, objectively, a much more mechanically demanding and difficult game to play than Wings or HotS. I rewatched one of the all-timers the other day, (Soukey vs Inno in 2013 S1), and it's just no comparison. The army movement, micro/spell-casting and multi-tasking required today at the top are just so much better. Which is obviously a natural progression. I think the most fascinating way to nerf Serral would be to give him less options and less difficult armies to control to lower the skill-ceiling.
These two facts more or less cancel each other out for me when wrangling over eras.
That Maru has succeeded to the extent that he has throughout the various iterations of the game, for as long as he has, is the most impressive thing about his resume.
The only interruption in players getting progressively better was 2016. Heart of the Swarm was pretty optimized by 2015 (and that took only 3ish years whereas we've had 9 of lotv), but it took people time to figure out Legacy of the Void. I feel like the upward progression got back on track in 2017.
Some elements haven't improved as much as others (people have had great micro forever, but back then it came at the cost of babysitting units), but multitasking and playing "fast" have evolved a ton. Dark is an interesting case study since he played a very weird style, but it was predicated on playing suboptimal StarCraft. It's because of this that he played from behind so much of the time, but it was clear that there was an element of strategy behind what he was doing even if other players stuck to more optimized play patterns.
On June 09 2025 21:39 Wintex wrote: slop analysis is slop analysis. In general, this need to prove that LOTV achievements can even compare to SC2 in its prime is just silly.
Treat SC2 pre and post LOTV as a different beast, yes Serral is a monster, but he played in a radically different environment. Mvp, the match fixer, and the other 2010-2015 players. He effectively did the same thing Mvp did in his twilight years winning WCS EU over and over again. The Korean scene died and a handful of players even kept up to the same degree. It's ok. Move on.
Edit: Maybe I can make a distinction pre and post Proleague ending. but that would still be mostly for LOTVs existence still.
There was an interview with soO sometime already years in the LotV era after team houses disbanded, and he was asked about the level of the scene. He said despite team houes disbanding and players practicing at home at their own the skill level was higher than ever. I can imagine it to be true. The players who kept playing didn't forget how to play, and brought all of their experiences into Lotv. You are also free to check a vod from pre Lotv and compare it to the standard of the past few years. If i remember, that interview was sometime before his IEM victory.
Two things can be true at once imo: that the competitive level of the scene--while still high--undoubtedly declined after team houses disbanded.
And that LoTV is just, objectively, a much more mechanically demanding and difficult game to play than Wings or HotS. I rewatched one of the all-timers the other day, (Soukey vs Inno in 2013 S1), and it's just no comparison. The army movement, micro/spell-casting and multi-tasking required today at the top are just so much better. Which is obviously a natural progression. I think the most fascinating way to nerf Serral would be to give him less options and less difficult armies to control to lower the skill-ceiling.
These two facts more or less cancel each other out for me when wrangling over eras.
That Maru has succeeded to the extent that he has throughout the various iterations of the game, for as long as he has, is the most impressive thing about his resume.
Aye you can’t really watch Serral or Clem on point in an FPVoD and conclude they’re worse than the level of play in the Kespa era.
Now, one can argue if the Kespa regime remained, the level maybe remains higher there, and the next generation come through and are even better again.
Innovation blew my brain in his first few years of prominence. For a brief period, relative to competition I don’t think I’ve seen a better player. It’s why I have him at #3 in my personal GOAT ranking, behind Serral and Maru for the record.
Rewatching now, he’s not even close to Clem when he’s on point. In terms of pure skill level, I don’t even think this is remotely arguable. His macro is insane, his micro is unbelievable, his multitasking is crazy. Inno could, for a short period just bludgeon opponents through sheer force of macro alone, and his micro was pretty fucking great, and he was no slouch in multitasking.
He couldn’t do what Clem’s doing now, or Maru at his best. I think he was capable of it but didn’t quite get there
Clem can parade push with the best of them, or play a defensive lategame that’s as good as anyone, his macro is preposterous or hell play an offrace instead of mirror and in ladder have the best Toss in Europe
It’s ridiculous. For me it doesn’t remotely diminish Inno at his best, or Mvp (my number 4), but in terms of pure proficiency at the game Clem is hitting absolutely preposterous levels.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day. There is no argument that can be made that can even remotely come close to Maru achievements over such a long span of time, compared to Serral who came in with a tiny competitive scene and a Zerg race that was extremely strong, and got nerfed massively during much of Serrals domination period. He doesnt come close even if he has a "world championship" or winning record vs Maru. There are players who have winning records vs flash, you don't call them the just because of that.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day. There is no argument that can be made that can even remotely come close to Maru achievements over such a long span of time, compared to Serral who came in with a tiny competitive scene and a Zerg race that was extremely strong, and got nerfed massively during much of Serrals domination period. He doesnt come close even if he has a "world championship" or winning record vs Maru. There are players who have winning records vs flash, you don't call them the just because of that.
What makes you say I am biased towards Serral? On several occassions I made decisions that penalized him. What are the exact decisions in this article where you find bias? And how do I struggle in seeing this, if I made it clear how I gave a boost to the prime era? How do you arrive at the 5:20 or 1:5 ratio? What is the underlying logic?
And assuming I go with your suggestion and put a 5 times era-multiplier on the prime-era... Maru will not be the GOAT. He wouldn't even be 2nd place, as Life and INnoVation both would be ahead of him. Oh yeah.. and Rain would be above Serral. And Life/INno would be 3.5 times ahead of Rogue too, even with actualized weightings. See... the good thing about such statistical models is the fact that they show pretty clearly, if someone is biased. I now know that you think that prime wins are worth 5 times more than modern wins and thus your GOAT cannot be Maru (I disagree with this ratio of course). Now we can observe if you stay consistent with your multiplier of 5, if that means Maru is not the GOAT. Another bonus is, that it is pretty easy to value suggestions. As no sane person would rank Rain above Serral or INno's career 3.5 times that of Rogue, your suggestion simply is a case of subjective misinterpretation (and probably bias towards Maru). As I wrote in the article: "One might still ask: what if we tweak the subjective metrics to favor a different GOAT candidate? For example, increasing the era-adjusted weight to push Life even further ahead on the efficiency score, or let Mvp get ahead of Serral as well. Any such adjustment would necessarily harm the other contenders in the same move. Life’s lead in this metric alone is not sufficient to close the overall gap without heavily overweighing it - which would in turn catastrophically penalize other GOAT contenders like Rain, INnoVation, Maru or Rogue, who rank significantly lower in this dimension. Also, Maru or Rogue’s relation would be utterly disastrous as their achievements mostly overlap in time with Serral. The scoring system would then become a binary fight between two outliers among outliers: Serral and Life.
Likewise, Serral’s dominance is not solely dependent on any single metric. Apart from efficiency - where is ahead - there is no category in which another player surpasses him. Even if one were to increase the era amplification in that category to boost Life significantly, the unintended effect would be to collapse the GOAT argument for Maru and Rogue, who would fall dramatically in the final score, as the era boost would also need to be changed in the tournament score for Mvp, Rain, Life and INnoVation. Such one-dimensional inflation is analytically fragile and undermines multi-metric integrity, as the score landscape is tightly interlinked. " With your suggestion, Maru still would not be on the first spot and Rogue's case would be completely shattered.
I further never said anything about winning Maru v Serral's winning records, as I expressed multiple times on this forum that winning records in a 1v1 are rather meaningless. Nevertheless, it is quite impressive that Serral has a positive winning record against every player that he played regularly after turning pro.
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day.
Says who? You? Just get back to soO's interview where he said the Lotv era was much more higher skilled than ever. Or just watch matches from the Hots era and compare it to past years. A few years ago i've rewatched Blizzcon 2013 and i wasn't impressed to say the least.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day. There is no argument that can be made that can even remotely come close to Maru achievements over such a long span of time, compared to Serral who came in with a tiny competitive scene and a Zerg race that was extremely strong, and got nerfed massively during much of Serrals domination period. He doesnt come close even if he has a "world championship" or winning record vs Maru. There are players who have winning records vs flash, you don't call them the just because of that.
Everyone knows and agrees that the 21st of May in 2015 was the day SC2 peaked skillwise, on that singular day everything was worth a gazillion more points than it is today. Therefore Tefel winning the Go4SC2 Cup #473 on that day proved he is the GOAT. Please don't argue with the stats and logic of this, they are 100% bulletproof because I made them up. Good day.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day. There is no argument that can be made that can even remotely come close to Maru achievements over such a long span of time, compared to Serral who came in with a tiny competitive scene and a Zerg race that was extremely strong, and got nerfed massively during much of Serrals domination period. He doesnt come close even if he has a "world championship" or winning record vs Maru. There are players who have winning records vs flash, you don't call them the just because of that.
That may be one of the worst analogies ever. Wins don’t count today (unless it’s Maru winning). If a player’s only accomplishment is having a winning record versus Flash or Serral then no logically they are not in the GOAT discussion. But when Serral’s accomplishments far surpass Maru’s it’s not the reason he is ahead it is just a factor. To not consider it even slightly (2 world titles to 0 and a head to head record that makes Maru look like he is in Platinum) just shows the mental gymnastics you have to perform to even formulate some semblance of an argument.
Your GOAT looked great today in GSL (the much weaker version according to you), solid 0-4 vs Solar and Gumiho.
I can’t tell if you are trolling or actually believe even a fraction of what you type. Either way it’s been entertaining. Thank you for the laughs. Stay strong.
On June 06 2025 17:01 Drahkn wrote: All this work and you fail to add the simple fact that Serral dominated in an Era when SC2 competitiveness had declined for a long time. Serral did not win a S tier tournament against Koreans until mid/late 2018. )Serral and Maru are exactly the same age BTW)
Maru has won S tier tournaments since 2012.
The same year Serral gets his first "big" win if you can call it that, Maru wins World Electronic Sports Games 2018 , where he won 200000$ for first place!.
From 2018 the games competitiveness declines massively, and when Serral becomes without doubt the best player in the world some years later the game is already pretty dead compared to what it used to be ( not calling the game dead calm down don't ban me).
Maru's consistency since 2012 is unmatched, and from his big 200000dollar tournament win in 2018 , you can easily tell he has dialed it back has not had the same hunger since.
We can also not forget to add that Serral plays Zerg, let's just say historically a VERY strong race.
You mean that I failed to include the thing that I addressed multiple times in the article? The thing that the history review is based on? The thing that is partly responsible for the era-multiplier? The thing that an entire counter-argument-section is dedicated to?
What exactly are you basing the notion, that the games competitiveness delinked massively from 2018, on? Why exactly there? How come it wasn't a sudden decline but happened rather steadily, following the exodus post-2016?
Sorry was away for a week, you barely touched on the "If X Era's was more competitive/difficult". competitiveness decline started in 2015, and when Serral started dominating you could count on 1 hand the amount of actual tournament contenders. You also put very little emphasis on the fact that Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong in the meta and got back to back patches of nerfs to stop zerg dominating everything. Balance is never a fun topic , but in a detailed GOAT discussion like yours it should probably be taken into account (If you did I forgot reading it). People who say Serral GOAT do not value Maru's results before Serral became relevant, they also don't put emphasis on that even tho Maru has not won as much in the most recent years he is still consistently in finals almost everytime except a few tournaments, My two cents
I wrote extensively about one era being more competitive, while having more tournaments to disperse the players as well as showing how the claim that Serral only faced washed up Koreans from the prime era is wrong. I wrote about how a bigger player pool mostly means more lower tier players, which shouldn't be an issue for any GOAT-contender. I wrote about that the reverse would need to be taken into account as well when trying to address era and that some of these notions cancel each other out (for example I opted to disregard advantages for Serral as well to even things out more).
While there certainly were times where Zerg was overtuned, what is your basis for the notion "Serral's biggest most consistent domination window happened when Zerg also was extremely strong"? The data I collected mostly shows that he is miles ahead of an average that consists of the best players that ever touched the game throughout his career. And one of these players even is a Zerg who played many years alongside Serral.
Well... I valued Maru's results before Serral became relevant. And I gave them a 50% boost through era and another boost via the tournament-multiplier. And as Maru was perfectly able to score points in recent years as well, I don't think I have much in common with those "people".
You have clear biases towards Serral, you also struggle to see a WIN today is not as impressive or as difficult as back when SC2 was highly competitive , Serral dominated when the competive scene had declined massively. If a WIN today is worth 5 points it was worth 20 back in the day. There is no argument that can be made that can even remotely come close to Maru achievements over such a long span of time, compared to Serral who came in with a tiny competitive scene and a Zerg race that was extremely strong, and got nerfed massively during much of Serrals domination period. He doesnt come close even if he has a "world championship" or winning record vs Maru. There are players who have winning records vs flash, you don't call them the just because of that.
That may be one of the worst analogies ever. Wins don’t count today (unless it’s Maru winning). If a player’s only accomplishment is having a winning record versus Flash or Serral then no logically they are not in the GOAT discussion. But when Serral’s accomplishments far surpass Maru’s it’s not the reason he is ahead it is just a factor. To not consider it even slightly (2 world titles to 0 and a head to head record that makes Maru look like he is in Platinum) just shows the mental gymnastics you have to perform to even formulate some semblance of an argument.
Your GOAT looked great today in GSL (the much weaker version according to you), solid 0-4 vs Solar and Gumiho.
I can’t tell if you are trolling or actually believe even a fraction of what you type. Either way it’s been entertaining. Thank you for the laughs. Stay strong.
On June 11 2025 21:41 onPHYRE wrote: If a player’s only accomplishment is having a winning record versus Flash or Serral then no logically they are not in the GOAT discussion.
But if you have a winning record versus both, you probably are the GOAT.
On June 11 2025 21:41 onPHYRE wrote: If a player’s only accomplishment is having a winning record versus Flash or Serral then no logically they are not in the GOAT discussion.
But if you have a winning record versus both, you probably are the GOAT.
On June 11 2025 21:41 onPHYRE wrote: If a player’s only accomplishment is having a winning record versus Flash or Serral then no logically they are not in the GOAT discussion.
But if you have a winning record versus both, you probably are the GOAT.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
There is much to unpack. In my opinion there is no dominance OR greatness. As I see it, greatness is compromised of hard numbers as well as context based, harder to grasp phenomena. Dominance, as well as efficiency, longevity and consistency are qualities that can be measured and add up to greatness. The strength of competition or the amount of tournaments that one is able to beat (or if a player pool is dispersed among many tournmanets) all are contextual perspectives that need to be taken into account. Dominance in my opinion is necessary but not sufficient for greatness, thus your critique is valid as a thought experiment, but I don't see any issue with my overall analysis. My methodology - as all sports metric do - leans towards dominance but I've clearly accounted for context (and I would say more so than most other analyses). Contextualized dominance, consistency, efficiency and duration are the most important metrics, although one can discuss their weighting perfectly fine.
It is a little bit like the discussion if slump-/non prime years should be disregarded. Some users argue that it is not fair that people's long careers are negatively awarded in efficiency or tournament win %, although these are specifically metrics designed to check for these criteria and compare players in them. In my opinion, only looking at prime years is unfair to players who were able to distinguish themselves from others, by playing super efficient for several years, but one needs to take into account that efficiency is easier to achieve in short(er) careers. That is the best approach to look at this whole thing: Get the hard numbers, then add context to them.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
I dunno what you mean by "kong streak phased him". soO actually went 4-0 in the finals of the four premier/major events he reached from 2019 onwards. He won IEM Katowice 2019, Master's Coliseum 4 and 5 and TSL 5 in 2020. soO's issue was that he was quite poor in the late game and, as SC2 aged and games began to reach said stage at an earlier and earlier point, his results began to suffer more and more.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
I dunno what you mean by "kong streak phased him". soO actually went 4-0 in the finals of the four premier/major events he reached from 2019 onwards. He won IEM Katowice 2019, Master's Coliseum 4 and 5 and TSL 5 in 2020. soO's issue was that he was quite poor in the late game and, as SC2 aged and games began to reach said stage at an earlier and earlier point, his results began to suffer more and more.
Also we should remember when soO had that GSL kong streak in HOTS zerg wasn't as strong as it is in LOTV. I think people underrestimate how great soO was in 2014.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
I dunno what you mean by "kong streak phased him". soO actually went 4-0 in the finals of the four premier/major events he reached from 2019 onwards. He won IEM Katowice 2019, Master's Coliseum 4 and 5 and TSL 5 in 2020. soO's issue was that he was quite poor in the late game and, as SC2 aged and games began to reach said stage at an earlier and earlier point, his results began to suffer more and more.
Also we should remember when soO had that GSL kong streak in HOTS zerg wasn't as strong as it is in LOTV. I think people underrestimate how great soO was in 2014.
On June 02 2025 22:52 lolfail9001 wrote: Frankly speaking, others already pointed out, but the second a counter factual of someone not qualifying for events for a few years potentially improving their overall standing in "GOAT" analysis comes up, it screams that one messed up their methodology from the ground up and should re-do it again. There a few other sanity checks like that i have in mind: for example is someone winning every tournament with the same top 4 placements for a year or two more or less "great" than someone consistently top 4 in tournaments that otherwise have completely different top 4 in every single one in the same time span (and for check's sake, same tournament count). By OP's metrics i am fairly sure the former is "great"er on every single measurement but we all know who would be the GOAT among the two (i am not stating those are real players, so don't let possible associations with real players confuse you).
EDIT: I'd figure the former is indeed more dominant but "greatness" is far more ephemeral of concept.
I was nodding my head along to this, thinking, the latter is indeed greater, lol.
Also, maru just won and is he even playing 2 hours a day, who knows. Compare that to pros killing themselves playing 12 hours a day.
I am not quite sure if I understand the example. Is it:
Both alternatives include same tournament count and same time span. Alternative 1: Maru is winning every tournament and Rogue, Cure, Zoun are always the placed 2nd to 4th. Alternative 2: herO places top 4 in tournaments but on top of Rogue, Cure and Zoun all the other players are mixed in place 2 to 4 as well and maybe Rogue, Cure and Zoun are not present at all or present in some.
Is that the example?
If so, there is definitely context missing to say who the greater player is; as well as alternative 3 and 4. Alternative 3 would be a player who does not win every tournament but 3 people constantly are in the top 4. Alternative 4 would be a player winning all tournaments, while place 2 to 4 is constantly changing.
Can we deduce from the described alternatives 1 and 2 who is the better player? Only with context: - why are there always the same 4 on top in alternative 1? - Is their level higher, lower or equal than the player's level in alternative 2 overall (could be because of region locks)? - is the player pool equally big? - for the different metrics: tournament score will score alternative 1 higher or any other analysis that ratios 1st place better (like every tournament does according to prize money) Efficiency score as well, as it is depending on tournament score Match win rate... not necessarily. If in alternative 1 the players loses 2 games in a group stage and the alternative-2-player loses semis or finals tournament win %, yes of course, as alternative 2 won less for the same tournament count. Average placement as well.
Now going from this hypothetical to my article: Every time contextual differences occurred, I tried to value them and adjust. Region locks were either completely left out or heavily penalized. Era was taken into account. Most of the time, when I had to make a decision (like including the inflated match win rates from Koreans versus Serral), I decided to lesser or more extent against Serral.
Alternative 1 is on point (though i'd rather use Clem as example), alternative 2 is almost there but instead of having anyone else show up consistently everyone else either straight up does not repeat or at most appears 2 times out of 10 tournaments in top 4.
To ground it in real albeit very mean example: would soO be GOAT if his Kong streak didn't phase him and he would go on to place second in every big tournament for a few more years until retirement/military service?
The point here is that no matter what criteria you use, if alternative 1 is favoured, it is likely you are measuring dominance but not exactly greatness.
I dunno what you mean by "kong streak phased him". soO actually went 4-0 in the finals of the four premier/major events he reached from 2019 onwards. He won IEM Katowice 2019, Master's Coliseum 4 and 5 and TSL 5 in 2020. soO's issue was that he was quite poor in the late game and, as SC2 aged and games began to reach said stage at an earlier and earlier point, his results began to suffer more and more.
Also we should remember when soO had that GSL kong streak in HOTS zerg wasn't as strong as it is in LOTV. I think people underrestimate how great soO was in 2014.
Speaking of reading comprehension, I read it as scenario 1: 1 player wins tournaments with the same players in top 4, which might suggest surperior players, but I would say a stagnant pool. VS. scenario 2: 1 player wins tournaments, but the top 4 has different players in it,meveryone except the player winning.
Hots zerg was indeed harder (game wasn't figured out so you had to scout for everything) and balanced (they didn't auto win late game).
I really don't mind a life&inno top 2. Current sc2 is about 5\20 as that guy said, which is a 4x multiplier for the hardest era.
I can appreciate the skill set achieved by playing the same game for a long time, but what this serves as is a barrier for new talents to come in a break the mold. So, you might say, then they don't deserve it, but the fact is the talent pool is so low today, and yet we see a guy like shin get top 4 and he might even win one day, but this guy would probably be c tier in peak sc2. Just look at a guy like dream, incredibly fast guy and hanged with the best, but he didn't rly achieve anything, were he to peak now instead he would be a menace for all of the top guys today to deal with. He might not last for a long time, but someone like him could completely disrupt the system, in my view.
For me what is most important is tournament score, but there is the caveat that by just hanging around this score increases and there isn't rly a fair way to deal with that. A guy like dark probably isn't a top 5 in terms of splash of what he did, he never really stood head and tails above the rest, but he sorta hung around getting top 5 in terms of achievements, and while I appreciate the consistency required there, I don't think he is a top 5 talented player or anything like that.
With your methodology and rogue being subpar, does that prove that a current player who is not a great can achieve amazing tournament score, and does that not prove then, using your methodology that this is a much weaker era?
Also, I think 3rd place should be almost the same as 2nd place, if we played double elimination, they would be same place, but since the tournament organizers award more money for 2nd, it should be slightly higher.
In my view tournaments shouldn't be looked at how stacked they were, but rather how stacked a pool this tournament represents. So, the maru and inno WC wins, while they weren't stacked, there rly isn't any excuse that the best players didn't go, this was where the money was at and every region was represented by qualifiers, so as the title suggest it's a world championship. Still, a system that acrues points over a full year is more detailed, and I would award such a tournament higher in that regard. For, instance the entire tournament structure was surrounding blizzcon and so no tournament is more important.
On June 19 2025 16:57 ejozl wrote: Speaking of reading comprehension, I read it as scenario 1: 1 player wins tournaments with the same players in top 4, which might suggest surperior players, but I would say a stagnant pool. VS. scenario 2: 1 player wins tournaments, but the top 4 has different players in it,meveryone except the player winning.
It depends who those players are to a pretty big degree.
If we look at tennis, and Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Those cats are dominating for aeons, they’re very frequently the top 4 in the big tournaments. But it’s generally not considered a weak era, just players who are that level above, showing it. Arguably the 3 GOATs, at their peaks at roughly the same time, and Andy Murray, who still got slams, spent time as world number 1, 2 Olympic golds and is pretty high up there in non-slam tournament wins and win percentages all-time (11th for percentage, 14th for ATP titles, 5th for Masters 1000 titles in the Open Era). So even the weakest guy, with what he accomplished despite playing at the same time as arguably the top 3 GOATs, is still showing top 10/20 numbers, and almost certainly would have done better than that again in a different timeframe.
Whereas woman’s tennis in recent years, good luck predicting the top 4 of a tournament successfully. It’s almost too volatile in ways, it makes for exciting tournaments, but without consistently dominant players those storylines and rivalries don’t really develop. You haven’t really had that dominant player since Serena Williams was doing her thing.
Anyway that aside, if we actually look at tournaments over the last while, the Ro4 lineups aren’t as constant and predictable as I think perception would have one believe.
It’s certainly lacking quite the depth of other eras in terms of realistic tournament winners, which I think yeah, can’t argue with that. But it’s not nearly as shallow as some argue. Going back a few years admittedly we’ve had the likes of Trap, Zest, Zoun, Gumiho, Cure, Solar, Bunny, Byun (and more probably, going off memory) either winning or making the finals of offline events. Oliveira’s famous Katowice of course. Classic’s just won GSL this season. Dark’s usually floating around of course, and Reynor can win any tournament even if he’s not always making it deep. herO’s usually a presence at the business end of tournaments, albeit not always.
It’s really only Serral who’s almost certainly a lock for a Ro4 finish over the 2018 thru now span. Maru had pretty long spells where he was doing so, his monster 2018, he was incredibly strong in the Covid era and a bit beyond. Clem’s looking to be doing that in his current incarnation.
On June 19 2025 16:57 ejozl wrote: Hots zerg was indeed harder (game wasn't figured out so you had to scout for everything) and balanced (they didn't auto win late game).
I really don't mind a life&inno top 2. Current sc2 is about 5\20 as that guy said, which is a 4x multiplier for the hardest era.
This goes both ways. I think there’s value in both being ahead of the curve in some way in a game that isn’t as much figured out, and staying at the top of a much more fleshed-out game where it’s harder to get an edge.
Balance? It fluctuates. Not always equally, sure. There were periods of imbalance in WoL and HoTS too, and that has an effect as well.
4x multiplier is crazy IMO.
I love Inno, speak not of Voldemort, but why wasn’t he smashing faces in the ‘weaker era’? I think he’s a case for #3, depending on my mood I stick him there, I just don’t see him having a case that beats Serral and Maru. Serral’s been (prolifically) winning tournaments every year for 7+ years now, Maru even longer again.
On June 19 2025 16:57 ejozl wrote: With your methodology and rogue being subpar, does that prove that a current player who is not a great can achieve amazing tournament score, and does that not prove then, using your methodology that this is a much weaker era?
No, how does it show that? It shows that Rogue, despite his stellar results in terms of trophies, lags way behind some of the other GOAT contenders in terms of consistency.
If anything, it’s an argument in the opposite direction. If Rogue is good enough to win the big prizes on his day, but also exit tournaments earlier than expected, that indicates to me it’s still pretty tough at the top.
It can’t simultaneously be a weaker era because it’s the same guys in the Ro4 all the time, but also be a weaker era because Rogue won huge titles but wasn’t in the Ro4 every tournament.
On June 19 2025 16:57 ejozl wrote: Also, I think 3rd place should be almost the same as 2nd place, if we played double elimination, they would be same place, but since the tournament organizers award more money for 2nd, it should be slightly higher.
In my view tournaments shouldn't be looked at how stacked they were, but rather how stacked a pool this tournament represents. So, the maru and inno WC wins, while they weren't stacked, there rly isn't any excuse that the best players didn't go, this was where the money was at and every region was represented by qualifiers, so as the title suggest it's a world championship. Still, a system that acrues points over a full year is more detailed, and I would award such a tournament higher in that regard. For, instance the entire tournament structure was surrounding blizzcon and so no tournament is more important.
The entire crux of the ‘everything that isn’t Kespa era was a weaker era’ argument is that Proleague and Korean Individual Leagues were ruthlessly stacked with basically all of the best players, and more of them.
I’ve no particular issue with that line of reasoning, but people start to get inconsistent in application.
Imo Inno's impossible to argue over Maru simply because most of his achievements were also after the kespa players quit. They were earlier than Marus but still post Kespa. Even his 2016 IEM win was after Kespa quit SC2. Even with a 4x multiplier for Kespa era I don't see how he's above Maru unless you count his late 2016 and 2017 results as Kespa era which they simply aren't. Life I can see.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Wombat might be right about the rogue fact, I'm unsure, anyways, I think he's a god. For me showing excellence despite lower average lvl is almost more impressive. I love stats for that as well, mb saying he's almost smurfing, because his ladder rank is that low, meanwhile he wins gsls.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Premo has already shown some of Serral’s freaky numbers, and shown his working.
In terms of how to weight his categories for a final ranking, yeah that’s flawed. I think it’s flawed. Hell Premo said its flawed and he wasn’t sure how to weight it, hence why he got GPT to do it. Which he also conceded wasn’t ideal
But I think there’s more than enough of a case in the rest of the analysis that Serral is certainly SC2’s most dominant player relative to his contemporary competition.
Some will still feel that isn’t enough to make him the actual Greatest of All Time; which is fine by me!
I do however think it’s actually absurd to argue that he isnt SC2’s most dominant and consistent player. His numbers are simply too good
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
WombaT's take is quite accurate, so not much to add. Like it was pointed out before: The weighting isn't on point... but each and every weighting that does not hypertune efficiency, will lead to the same conclusion, as Serral is so consistent in all metrics. That is the biggest take away of this evaluation, in my opinion.
While looking into ejozl's suggestion in regards to double-elim's 3rd place being awarded the same as 2nd place I discovered some connection errors in my excel list. Maru and Rogue lost some points as I somehow had their 3rd/4th connected to 3rd place. Maru went from 64.14 to 63.75; Rogue from 30.70 to 30.55. A quick look at the excel sheets suggests that INnoVation and Serral would benefit both the most when changing 3rd place closer to 2nd place (both have 5 each), but INnoVation would earn slightly more as one of his 3rds was in 2013 which has the era-multiplier on top. It is an interesting idea, but it won't change much in the big picture.
I think for the rework, I will mostly focus on the weighting. The consensus so far is that tournament score is the most important metric, followed by tournament win percentage. For the latter, there are discussions going on, if only prime years should be counted, which I would find unfair towards players who were able to keep up high efficiency for many years. I think looking at all years makes also a better balance, as "simply sticking around" is already valued in the tournament score, as ejozl wrote. Looking overall at careers, efficiency and duration both have their place, which makes for a more well rounded result.
Aligulac seems to strike a nerve with some people, but while it has its issues, I can totally see a value for tipping the scale if things are close between players at the end. Perhaps something along those lines:
Aligulac Rank: 5% Match Win Rate: 5% Tournament win %: 36% Average placement: 5% Tournament Score: 44% Efficiency Score: 5%
Like this, I keep the same ratio as Miz (0,55 to 0,45) and include the other valuable metrics as tipping points that also carry value.
I could also make different versions to see how changing weightings results in different outcomes. For example: Version 1: As written above, only prime years for tournament win % Version 2: As written above, all years for tournament win % Version 3: Without Aligulac, only prime years for tournament win % (Tournament score 46,75% and Tournament win % 38,25%; the other three 5%) Version 4: Without Aligulac, all years for tournament win % (Tournament score 46,75% and Tournament win % 38,25%; the other three 5%)
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
In no professional field would anyone accept a conclusion of a statistical study with a flawed conclusion. That just doesn't happen, ever. But I guess things are different when the conclusion is serral = goat, got it.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
In no professional field would anyone accept a conclusion of a statistical study with a flawed conclusion. That just doesn't happen, ever. But I guess things are different when the conclusion is serral = goat, got it.
Way to ignore the last few posts.
Serral’s got the best win percentages in terms of overall performance, outside of Life he’s got the best ratio of tournaments won to tournaments played. He’s got an average placement in tournaments of better than Ro4, over approaching 8 years. He’s won the most Premier tournaments, even excluding WCS region-locked ones.
All of which Premo laid out exhaustively.
I think his final analysis is flawed, as I said earlier, as indeed he conceded.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
In no professional field would anyone accept a conclusion of a statistical study with a flawed conclusion. That just doesn't happen, ever. But I guess things are different when the conclusion is serral = goat, got it.
I thought I explained it enough, but I will try to word it differently.
A Greatest of all Time needs to have three key characteristics, when looking at statistics: Duration (a minimum threshold should be cleared), Efficiency and Dominance. I tried to think of how these characteristics could be measured the best and arrived at 6 metrics. I asked several times - 1 year ago, when the first article came out - as well as this time, if anyone could think of another important metric, but it became clear that the tournament score was probably the most important to most people. A 7th one was never mentioned (at least I can't remember). As I said: People had lots of issues with Aligulac because of cross-regional comparison problems, but from my understanding this shouldn't have been a problem in 2017, the only time frame when a non-foreigner became relevant in this metric. The time frame which we speak about is at most a couple of weeks and even then - from what I understand - did the machine not do anything wrong. Aligulac may not be perfect, but dismissing it entirely isn't the correct way forward, from my point of view.
Back to methodology: The 6 described metrics all have methodologies through which they are established. I tried to use contextualized reasoning like an era-multiplier and explained extensively when subjective gradings were necessary, for example in the grading of tournaments. The results needed to be normalized... so far, the methodology is sound, although one can discuss if one or the other tournament could be counted more/less, if the era-multiplier is enough/too little, how the placements weigh against each other (like ejozl's suggestion) or if only prime years are counted. Except for the prime year-idea or the era-multiplier, it is my sincere estimate, that nothing would change too much in the final score if we tweaked around with the numbers with logical intent. I think that the methodology up to this point is extremely clear and reasonable. Like JJH777 pointed out, one could discuss, if the pre-2018 era gets another subdivision of era-multipliers. BUT: Even this would probably "only" lead to Maru come closer in the tournament score and him being a tad more efficient.
Now comes the part, which I conceded was handled badly: The weighting. As I explained several times: This part adds more subjectivity and personal liking but the core take away here is: Yes, the weighting I published is off, but the final result can only change if we hypertune efficiency or the era-multiplier so that Life gets ahead of Serral. But then Maru and Rogue will lose out in the process too against Life. And as no one saw efficiency as a super interesting or important metric (neither here or on Reddit), the final result seemed pretty clear: As Serral is so good among all important metrics, statistically you can't talk him out of the top spot, as he is first among most analyzes. And if he rarely is not first, he is a close second, whereas others have sub-par results mixed in. A thought I did not mention so far: In my opinion, Serral's lead will only grow if I add more players into the analysis. Why is that: Well, I don't see someone taking Serral's top spot in any metric. Also Life's efficiency and Serral's 2nd place here is nothing that can be taken from my estimation. Now imagine if we include Dark, Reynor, soO, sOs, Zoun, Zest, herO, Jaedong, MarineLord, Clem and I don't know who else. I bet you that some of these are better than the players who ranked 3rd in some of these metrics (similar to Rogue's results in the first and 2nd article). That means that Serral's lead will naturally grow in a final result, as relatively the other already examined players got worse through the addition of new ones.
Anyway: If you try to put a super heavy emphasis on 2012-2015, then the claim of Rogue and Maru vanishes, if you max it out to a degree in which Life comes close or to or overtakes Serral in the entire weighting. Another way would be to only look at prime years and leave Aligulac out entirely (Version 3 of my previous post). But even that wouldn't lead to Serral taking too much of a hit, as his 2014-2017 weren't the best esports years in SC2 history, to be quite frank (context: he wasn't a full time pro back then). So looking only at prime years will help him too. I think version 3 or 4 are the most-unfavorable-to-Serral-options but there are limits to which it is reasonably to tweak the numbers.
That being said: Yes, the final methodology was flawed as I conceded several times. But it is easy to see, how this flaw does not change the final verdict. But yeah, if you want to give me your personal weighting, lolol4890, I can easily calculate the outcome (although the normalized results are posted and you could do it yourself probably in less than 10 minutes as well).
Another note: Yes, more subjective traits like personality, impact, legacy or circumstances can play a role too. These things - in SCII terms - could be Maru's insanely long career, Life's match-fixing, Mvp dominating the early stages, Serral transforming the idea of the dominant Koreans. To me, they are nice stories, but they depend too much on personal preferences or influence. Statistics blend out personal biases and prohibit unintended, illogical application of standards, although weightings or multipliers can of course be discussed.
@WombaT: I think Maru now won 18 and Serral 17 when locked tournaments are excluded, although both were tied in Premier Tournament wins at the time of the article. But context here is important: Maru won 10 of these tournaments (all his GSLs, StarsWar 11, Africa GSL) without Serral as well as mostly Clem and Reynor participating.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
In no professional field would anyone accept a conclusion of a statistical study with a flawed conclusion. That just doesn't happen, ever. But I guess things are different when the conclusion is serral = goat, got it.
@WombaT: I think Maru now won 18 and Serral 17 when locked tournaments are excluded, although both were tied in Premier Tournament wins at the time of the article. But context here is important: Maru won 10 of these tournaments (all his GSLs, StarsWar 11, Africa GSL) without Serral as well as mostly Clem and Reynor participating.
That's about as relevant as the fact that most of Serral's wins are missing at least half the top Koreans.
Isn't tournament % and efficiency the same thing?, similar to win rate and aligulac rating. It seems strange why win % should count for 36%. Why not 5% aligu/5% win rate, 5% tournament%/5% efficiency, 50% tournament score, and 10% for the other results or thereabouts.
These are the weightings CHAT GTP suggested: Aligulac Rank: 20% Match Win Rate: 15% Tournament win %: 17,5% Average placement: 15% Tournament Score: 22,5% Efficiency Score: 10% Although I don’t fully agree with all of the suggested weights, I adopted them as-is - both for simplicity and because the final outcome would only shift significantly under an extreme weighting of efficiency. So finally, here is the normalized and weighted final result of this analysis.
Bro, why!? I agree with your conclusion, but "I used AI because it sounded cool" is just terrible methodology. You didn't make the case for why you needed ChatGPT for this, and so of course people are going to critique this.
Also Aligulac being scored higher than tournament % and match win rate is dumb for multiple reasons. You're going to have massive colinearity between match win % and aligulac, in short you're double counting match win % there.
That being said, I do think that the conclusion holds up despite the flawed methodology, which is evidence of just how dominant Serral is.
Lastly, this was clearly a lot of work and I thank you for that. But, yeah you're double counting and the use of ChatGPT was pretty questionable here.
Claiming the conclusion holds up despite acknowledging the methodology is flawed is classic confirmation bias. If you're arguing the methodology is flawed, you can't on the same brush accept the conclusion, much less that the conclusion is somehow indicative of how "dominant Serral is."
Of course you can. If you ask 100 people without tastebuds if sugar tastes sweet and they say yes, you can absolutely demolish the metholodogy of this experiment, but you can't really argue that the conclusion is still correct.
In no professional field would anyone accept a conclusion of a statistical study with a flawed conclusion. That just doesn't happen, ever. But I guess things are different when the conclusion is serral = goat, got it.
@WombaT: I think Maru now won 18 and Serral 17 when locked tournaments are excluded, although both were tied in Premier Tournament wins at the time of the article. But context here is important: Maru won 10 of these tournaments (all his GSLs, StarsWar 11, Africa GSL) without Serral as well as mostly Clem and Reynor participating.
That's about as relevant as the fact that most of Serral's wins are missing at least half the top Koreans.
Well, having the player missing that dunked on everyone (especially 2nd half of 2018 and 2024), to me seems a little bit more relevant... especially in the time frame of 100% match win rates versus Koreans.
On June 22 2025 15:29 ejozl wrote: Isn't tournament % and efficiency the same thing?, similar to win rate and aligulac rating. It seems strange why win % should count for 36%. Why not 5% aligu/5% win rate, 5% tournament%/5% efficiency, 50% tournament score, and 10% for the other results or thereabouts.
Tournament % is efficiency at winning the whole tournament, efficicency score is efficicency based on tournament score, thus including place 2-4. It gives more resolution.
Win rate only included matches versus Koreans (and for the Koreans plus Serral), while Aligulac incorporated other nations as well (and an algorithm that compares players at a reasonable quality overall).
10% for average place seems a bit much, as Tournament Score also scouts for good placements. Having one metric (Tournament score) for the whole career and one (tournament win %) for efficiency seemed like a natural thing to do, to keep balance between the overall characteristic relation. Thus, I kept the relation that Miz used in his intro and proposed the other 4 metrics at 5% each to add more resolution.
I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Serral has a 90% match win year under his belt in 2018, and his 2019 offline is 86.25%. A mere 83.46% overall in 2020, 81.13% in 2021, 83.88% in 2022 when offline events became unviable, 80% offline in 2023.
2024 he went 47–6 (88.68%) in matches with Maru the only person not named Clem to beat him in the entirety 2024.
Even Serral’s weaker years stack up pretty well against the best years of other players, and he’s been chaining them together year after year.
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
This is a poor argument. Other than Rogue and Maru (with a bit of Inno) all of these players played in tournaments the others didn't or played in said events when the format was different. Mvp played when GSLs were run almost monthly. Rain never got a chance to play with offline events with foreigners as good as serral, reynor etc. The Maru/Rogue/Inno/ Rain group never played in Code S during Mvp's era and Serral never played in Code S at all.
There would need to be some heavy adjustments to get this metric to a reasonable point, but I tried to avoid that/stay away from subjective era based adjustments.
The original analysis had many flaws and this analysis reproduces most of them (though somewhat amusingly claims all the flaws were all addressed). The author tries to maintain a veneer of objectivity and neutrality, but the bias inevitably reveals itself, often without the author being aware that it does. You can read the section "was the prime era harder?" and learn pretty much all you need to know about the author's perspective. Real quick on the main flaws tho:
1) This is not a statistical analysis. I can't see the results of any regression, monte carlo simulation, or any other modeling technique. I don't see any p-values or analysis of statistical significance. If you're not a numbers person, do not be fooled by the author slapping the label "statistical evaluation" on this. 2) If this is not a statistical analysis, what is it? This is a heavily-biased calculation designed to demonstrate that the author's favorite player is the GOAT. The author will say that he bent over backwards to nerf Serral and he is still the GOAT by nearly 2X points in his extremely objective and neutral GOAT calculator. Don't believe it. It all comes down to the fact that that the author chose to include specific criteria and specific weightings for those criteria that were designed to crown Serral the GOAT. I think everyone knows this but it's worth making the implicit explicit. 3) Many people pointed out that the Serral = GOAT calculator rated Rogue ridiculously low so clearly something must be wrong. The author's responses are interestingly defensive in how they justify Rogue's low rating, but many of us told him this would happen once he started ranking multiple players with the calculator. It's worth noting that while the calculator diminished Rogue to such an unbelievably low ranking, it's actually worse than simply rating Rogue lower than a guy like Rain or at a third of Maru's GOAT ranking. If you ran this calculator on all pros I suspect Rogue may not even be in the top 10 or top 20 GOAT list. That's how flawed the calculator is. Very good chance of even more bizarre results tbh. 4) Even if this were a proper statistical analysis, statistics do not explain GOATs. If they did, Shane Battier might be the NBA GOAT (seriously, look into it), and Muhammed Ali could not be the boxing GOAT (his 5 losses are simply too high for any objective weighted calculation to accomodate).
This point about Shane Battier and Muhammed Ali is the most important point, abstracted as follows: math equations do not understand greatness. They will always "undervalue" a player like Rogue in any GOAT convo because it does not know how to evaluate, for example, Rogue's jaw-dropping offline Bo7 grand finals performance record, which is among the greatest achievements in the history of e-sports. And they will always overvalue efficient and effective players that nonetheless seem to lack some of the incalculable qualities of greatness such as being clutch, resilient, or a great ambassador or leader for the game. Or even simply being lucky enough to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time to make history. With players like this, even when they seem to get lucky, it feels like a byproduct of their hard work.
Serral is indeed a great GOAT pick, just not for silly reasons like being high in Aligulac rankings for a long time. He's a great GOAT pick because he achieved what no one outside of South Korea was able to achieve, and is arguably the best player to ever play the game. At the same time, he simply never played in the most competitive tournaments and leagues, nor did he play in the most competitive era when over a thousand pros were spending 12+ hours a day trying to win premier tournaments and be the best player in the world. Lots of GOAT contenders achieved significant results in the toughest tournaments and in the competitive era, and if any of those guys are your GOAT, don't let any calculator say otherwise!
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
This is a poor argument. Other than Rogue and Maru (with a bit of Inno) all of these players played in tournaments the others didn't or played in said events when the format was different. Mvp played when GSLs were run almost monthly. Rain never got a chance to play with offline events with foreigners as good as serral, reynor etc. The Maru/Rogue/Inno/ Rain group never played in Code S during Mvp's era and Serral never played in Code S at all.
There would need to be some heavy adjustments to get this metric to a reasonable point, but I tried to avoid that/stay away from subjective era based adjustments.
I simply made it cause ejozl asked for it and it was kind of easy to collect the data from my set. In the original analysis I applied era-mulitpliers that seemed somewhat reasonable to me. I pointed out other flaws of this methodology too.
This small analsyis shows something pretty clearly nevertheless: Serral is way ahead of other players from his time (Maru, Rogue and to a lesser degree the overlap with a pretty good but not prime INnoVation). We could only look at tournaments, where all of them played as well to make it even more precise, as you mentioned though.
On June 24 2025 11:06 rwala wrote: The original analysis had many flaws and this analysis reproduces most of them (though somewhat amusingly claims all the flaws were all addressed). The author tries to maintain a veneer of objectivity and neutrality, but the bias inevitably reveals itself, often without the author being aware that it does. You can read the section "was the prime era harder?" and learn pretty much all you need to know about the author's perspective. Real quick on the main flaws tho:
1) This is not a statistical analysis. I can't see the results of any regression, monte carlo simulation, or any other modeling technique. I don't see any p-values or analysis of statistical significance. If you're not a numbers person, do not be fooled by the author slapping the label "statistical evaluation" on this. 2) If this is not a statistical analysis, what is it? This is a heavily-biased calculation designed to demonstrate that the author's favorite player is the GOAT. The author will say that he bent over backwards to nerf Serral and he is still the GOAT by nearly 2X points in his extremely objective and neutral GOAT calculator. Don't believe it. It all comes down to the fact that that the author chose to include specific criteria and specific weightings for those criteria that were designed to crown Serral the GOAT. I think everyone knows this but it's worth making the implicit explicit. 3) Many people pointed out that the Serral = GOAT calculator rated Rogue ridiculously low so clearly something must be wrong. The author's responses are interestingly defensive in how they justify Rogue's low rating, but many of us told him this would happen once he started ranking multiple players with the calculator. It's worth noting that while the calculator diminished Rogue to such an unbelievably low ranking, it's actually worse than simply rating Rogue lower than a guy like Rain or at a third of Maru's GOAT ranking. If you ran this calculator on all pros I suspect Rogue may not even be in the top 10 or top 20 GOAT list. That's how flawed the calculator is. Very good chance of even more bizarre results tbh. 4) Even if this were a proper statistical analysis, statistics do not explain GOATs. If they did, Shane Battier might be the NBA GOAT (seriously, look into it), and Muhammed Ali could not be the boxing GOAT (his 5 losses are simply too high for any objective weighted calculation to accomodate).
This point about Shane Battier and Muhammed Ali is the most important point, abstracted as follows: math equations do not understand greatness. They will always "undervalue" a player like Rogue in any GOAT convo because it does not know how to evaluate, for example, Rogue's jaw-dropping offline Bo7 grand finals performance record, which is among the greatest achievements in the history of e-sports. And they will always overvalue efficient and effective players that nonetheless seem to lack some of the incalculable qualities of greatness such as being clutch, resilient, or a great ambassador or leader for the game. Or even simply being lucky enough to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time to make history. With players like this, even when they seem to get lucky, it feels like a byproduct of their hard work.
Serral is indeed a great GOAT pick, just not for silly reasons like being high in Aligulac rankings for a long time. He's a great GOAT pick because he achieved what no one outside of South Korea was able to achieve, and is arguably the best player to ever play the game. At the same time, he simply never played in the most competitive tournaments and leagues, nor did he play in the most competitive era when over a thousand pros were spending 12+ hours a day trying to win premier tournaments and be the best player in the world. Lots of GOAT contenders achieved significant results in the toughest tournaments and in the competitive era, and if any of those guys are your GOAT, don't let any calculator say otherwise!
1. The term statistical analysis can mean a lot of things. In sports it simply refers to a structured evaluation of empirical data using numeric methods, not necessarily inferential statistics (Elo systems, composite indices like FIFA or ATP or even sabermetrics-derived rankins in baseball). Calling this analysis statistical is perfectly valid, as it is a descriptive, statistical framework, not a regression or simulation similar to Aligulac. It is about ordering based on performance data, not modeling outcomes. If you want a Monte Carlo simulation and significance levels you're looking for something different. I simply used statistical tools that seemed necessary (data collection and organization, analyzing, using normalization to a common 0-100 scale, interpreting). 2. Well. Where exactly do you see this suppossed bias or design tailored towards Serral? I am completely transparent with my methodology and even referenced external ideas like the ones from Miz' list. I laid out all weightings and calculations transparently, so you are free to criticize the exact ones, where it turned sour in your opinion. As a matter of fact, you made the same accusation in this very thread before (me not addressing past criticism). But I incorporated the critiques from last time: - Including Rain, Life, Mvp - Including team events - Including a complete analysis of the deterioration argument. I simply did not include your critique of "all statistical analyses are flawed", as I still think that these analyses are important. Well, I kind of did, as I explain in the article why I think my methodology is fine. Serral's scores have been lowered and the most impactful decisions I made were against him. If that's bias, it's an awfully stubborn one. 3. What about pointing out that Rogue was inconsistent is defensive? Wouldn't building a model to reward Bo7 offline GSLs do exactly what you accuse me of doing under #2? I even talked to Miz in this very thread and via DM and a quick reverse-engineering of his list made Rogue come much better (although Serral still is way in all different calculations and I still don't understand how he was a close 2nd in the first list and a close 1st after a couple of months and Mvp is below INnoVation in my attempt to reverse-engineer). The issue mostly was the weighting at the end, which I conceded many times was bad, as well as the era-multiplier, which Miz did not use. 4. Anecdotes and nostalgia are fine too. But as neither numbers tell the whole story, nor do such subjective takes. In my opinion, as I already said in this thread, subjective takes might shift a GOAT comparison where the end result is close. But no single SCII player has a "better story" than others and in my opinion no "story" can rival Serral's numbers.
And I completely agree with your last sentence, as point 9 of my statistical evaluation made pretty clear... "Because different weightings yield different outcomes, it's possible to justify alternative GOATs - if one prioritizes specific metrics disproportionately. So if you value...
… efficiency above all else, your GOAT is Life. … career duration and sheer persistence, your GOAT is Maru. … accomplishments in the prime era, your GOAT might be INnoVation. … winning GSLs (or your name is Artosis), your GOAT is Rogue. … any subjective skill, personal charisma, or emotional weight, your GOAT is whoever resonates with you the most."
2) If this is not a statistical analysis, what is it? This is a heavily-biased calculation designed to demonstrate that the author's favorite player is the GOAT. The author will say that he bent over backwards to nerf Serral and he is still the GOAT by nearly 2X points in his extremely objective and neutral GOAT calculator. Don't believe it. It all comes down to the fact that that the author chose to include specific criteria and specific weightings for those criteria that were designed to crown Serral the GOAT. I think everyone knows this but it's worth making the implicit explicit.
During one of my talks with Wax I asked if he thought the fact that soO was so high up was because he's my favorite player.
He told me that soO's ranking was consistent with my methodology, but that any person who makes a list like this probably creates a set of metrics that benefit their favorite player.
2) If this is not a statistical analysis, what is it? This is a heavily-biased calculation designed to demonstrate that the author's favorite player is the GOAT. The author will say that he bent over backwards to nerf Serral and he is still the GOAT by nearly 2X points in his extremely objective and neutral GOAT calculator. Don't believe it. It all comes down to the fact that that the author chose to include specific criteria and specific weightings for those criteria that were designed to crown Serral the GOAT. I think everyone knows this but it's worth making the implicit explicit.
During one of my talks with Wax I asked if he thought the fact that soO was so high up was because he's my favorite player.
He told me that soO's ranking was consistent with my methodology, but that any person who makes a list like this probably creates a set of metrics that benefit their favorite player.
Something to ponder...
Shall I check soO as well
As our lists are mostly the same ranking outcome, when I take out the era-amplifier (which was bad for Serral) and apply your relation that you explained in "great career versus great peaks", I don't know where exactly I could have done that.
Serral is the player benefiting the least when looking at overall career versus peak years. I didn't include the inflation-problem, which massively disadvantaged him and the biggest criticism so far was directed at Aligulac and the weighting. But as I said... even when leaving Aligulac completely out and the weighting is adjusted, I don't see Serral losing his number one spot, as he is too consistent across the board.
Plus, I think my era-multiplier was reasonable, as Life would utterly destroy the claim of most other modern contenders except Serral, if I'd tune it up more. I'd be happy, if people could point out specific issues that might benefit Serral unfairly, so I could have a look at them.
Controversial opinion in some quarters, I feel there’s too many caveats on Rogue’s much-vaunted offline Bo7 finals record for it to be as compelling as some make it. The stat itself, not Rogue’s claim, as he absolutely does show some clutch stuff.
Serral’s numbers are all pretty straightforward. He wins more matches, he wins tournaments at a quicker rate, his average place is higher.
Rogue in specifically offline, specifically finals and specifically Bo7s, I mean he has to get to a final in the first place. It’s still an impressive stat, but I think apart from the clutchness, what it’s telling you is when Rogue’s in top form, he does well. If you’re a more streaky player, it’s almost singling out the upswings. You’re also reducing clutchness to solely winning finals, and not clutchness in getting to them.
Bringing home the bacon in finals is, of course a big factor in greatness, and at the opposite end of the scale soO (sorry Miz!) would feature higher if he’d converted at a reasonable rate. But aside from some of Serral’s numbers you’ve already given, he’s also rocking a 20% better match win in offline Bo5+s. Crude and I haven’t filtered out region-locked tournaments, but I think it bears mentioning
If nout else there’s a bunch of numbers to augment one’s own arguments and understanding. Serral’s numbers are of course, bonkers, but Inno did better in terms of wins:tournaments played than I’d have assumed versus some others. To take just one example.
Or in the opposite direction, I think people are surprised at say, Rogue lagging quite as far behind some of the others in terms of raw numbers.
Before this breakdown, from my memory and eyeballs and internal weighting, I’d bounce between Inno and Rogue swapping places at #3/4 in my WombaT GOAT rank (ETA on publication next century). My calculus was weighing up that IMO Inno has the scarier peak relative to competition, and was stronger in the Kespa era versus Rogue having the World Champs.
Almost a toss-up for me, depending what side of the bed I got out of. But with some of the numbers in this analysis, Inno was actually more consistent than I’d assumed, and Rogue a bit less so. Not a huge swing but enough for me to more firmly settle on Inno at #3.
And some factoids and stats are just fun to me. Premo did you ever get to posting some of the odd or quirky ones you had lying around but didn’t really fit in neatly to your article. Would be interested to see those ones not go to waste!
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
So, Life has 33% win rate at the most competitive era, inno 34% at a very slightly weaker era, and serral rockets ahead with 37%, at a competiive era, but you could say zerg was hella imbalanced, and 52% at a waaay weaker era, but where zerg was not the strongest race. It should be pretty close.
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
So, Life has 33% win rate at the most competitive era, inno 34% at a very slightly weaker era, and serral rockets ahead with 37%, at a competiive era, but you could say zerg was hella imbalanced, and 52% at a waaay weaker era, but where zerg was not the strongest race. It should be pretty close.
At this point let's not even pretend we're aiming for objectivity.
On June 23 2025 23:45 ejozl wrote: I'm interested about efficiency for the longer career players if they're not punished by their long careers. Say, if you took rogue, serral, maru and inno and looked at their best period of a scope that's as long as life's scope. It's not entirely fair because life literally starts out his career royal roading, which the other players didn't, but would they be able to eclipse life in his best catagory?
Efficiency in winning tournaments or in achieving tournament score?
The problem is if you look at roughly 3 years (Life's career span), player 1 could have two phenomenal years, then one subpar year, followed by two phenomenal years and another subpar year, another two phenomenal years and one subpar year. Meaning 6 out of 9 phenomenal years. Player 2 could have had 3 consecutive phenomenal years followed by 6 subpar ones, meaning 3 out of 9. Looking only at 3 consecutive good years, player 2 will outperform, despite his overall career being less impressive.
But as WombaT said: Serral outperforms here as well. Without looking perfectly at time spans, as I made the calculations on a yearly basis, these are the best results for 3 years for tournament win%: Serral - 2018-2020 (only non-locked): 37.30% - 2022-2024 (only non-locked): 52.62% Maru - 2018-2020: 25.18% - 2022-2024: 23.92% Rogue - 2017-2019: 22.75% INnoVation - 2015-2017: 34.09% Mvp - 2011-2013: 26.57% Rain - 2013-2015: 12.23%
If we only look at Serral's prime years, he sits at a win rate of 38.10% from 2018-2024. His lifetime win rate is better than even 2 year time periods of any other player and only Maru, Rogue, INnoVation, Mvp and Life in 1 year are above Serral's 2018-2024 result. As I said in the article... in such a volatile game as SCII, this is absolutely insane.
This is a poor argument. Other than Rogue and Maru (with a bit of Inno) all of these players played in tournaments the others didn't or played in said events when the format was different. Mvp played when GSLs were run almost monthly. Rain never got a chance to play with offline events with foreigners as good as serral, reynor etc. The Maru/Rogue/Inno/ Rain group never played in Code S during Mvp's era and Serral never played in Code S at all.
There would need to be some heavy adjustments to get this metric to a reasonable point, but I tried to avoid that/stay away from subjective era based adjustments.
I simply made it cause ejozl asked for it and it was kind of easy to collect the data from my set. In the original analysis I applied era-mulitpliers that seemed somewhat reasonable to me. I pointed out other flaws of this methodology too.
This small analsyis shows something pretty clearly nevertheless: Serral is way ahead of other players from his time (Maru, Rogue and to a lesser degree the overlap with a pretty good but not prime INnoVation). We could only look at tournaments, where all of them played as well to make it even more precise, as you mentioned though.
On June 24 2025 11:06 rwala wrote: The original analysis had many flaws and this analysis reproduces most of them (though somewhat amusingly claims all the flaws were all addressed). The author tries to maintain a veneer of objectivity and neutrality, but the bias inevitably reveals itself, often without the author being aware that it does. You can read the section "was the prime era harder?" and learn pretty much all you need to know about the author's perspective. Real quick on the main flaws tho:
1) This is not a statistical analysis. I can't see the results of any regression, monte carlo simulation, or any other modeling technique. I don't see any p-values or analysis of statistical significance. If you're not a numbers person, do not be fooled by the author slapping the label "statistical evaluation" on this. 2) If this is not a statistical analysis, what is it? This is a heavily-biased calculation designed to demonstrate that the author's favorite player is the GOAT. The author will say that he bent over backwards to nerf Serral and he is still the GOAT by nearly 2X points in his extremely objective and neutral GOAT calculator. Don't believe it. It all comes down to the fact that that the author chose to include specific criteria and specific weightings for those criteria that were designed to crown Serral the GOAT. I think everyone knows this but it's worth making the implicit explicit. 3) Many people pointed out that the Serral = GOAT calculator rated Rogue ridiculously low so clearly something must be wrong. The author's responses are interestingly defensive in how they justify Rogue's low rating, but many of us told him this would happen once he started ranking multiple players with the calculator. It's worth noting that while the calculator diminished Rogue to such an unbelievably low ranking, it's actually worse than simply rating Rogue lower than a guy like Rain or at a third of Maru's GOAT ranking. If you ran this calculator on all pros I suspect Rogue may not even be in the top 10 or top 20 GOAT list. That's how flawed the calculator is. Very good chance of even more bizarre results tbh. 4) Even if this were a proper statistical analysis, statistics do not explain GOATs. If they did, Shane Battier might be the NBA GOAT (seriously, look into it), and Muhammed Ali could not be the boxing GOAT (his 5 losses are simply too high for any objective weighted calculation to accomodate).
This point about Shane Battier and Muhammed Ali is the most important point, abstracted as follows: math equations do not understand greatness. They will always "undervalue" a player like Rogue in any GOAT convo because it does not know how to evaluate, for example, Rogue's jaw-dropping offline Bo7 grand finals performance record, which is among the greatest achievements in the history of e-sports. And they will always overvalue efficient and effective players that nonetheless seem to lack some of the incalculable qualities of greatness such as being clutch, resilient, or a great ambassador or leader for the game. Or even simply being lucky enough to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time to make history. With players like this, even when they seem to get lucky, it feels like a byproduct of their hard work.
Serral is indeed a great GOAT pick, just not for silly reasons like being high in Aligulac rankings for a long time. He's a great GOAT pick because he achieved what no one outside of South Korea was able to achieve, and is arguably the best player to ever play the game. At the same time, he simply never played in the most competitive tournaments and leagues, nor did he play in the most competitive era when over a thousand pros were spending 12+ hours a day trying to win premier tournaments and be the best player in the world. Lots of GOAT contenders achieved significant results in the toughest tournaments and in the competitive era, and if any of those guys are your GOAT, don't let any calculator say otherwise!
1. The term statistical analysis can mean a lot of things. In sports it simply refers to a structured evaluation of empirical data using numeric methods, not necessarily inferential statistics (Elo systems, composite indices like FIFA or ATP or even sabermetrics-derived rankins in baseball). Calling this analysis statistical is perfectly valid, as it is a descriptive, statistical framework, not a regression or simulation similar to Aligulac. It is about ordering based on performance data, not modeling outcomes. If you want a Monte Carlo simulation and significance levels you're looking for something different. I simply used statistical tools that seemed necessary (data collection and organization, analyzing, using normalization to a common 0-100 scale, interpreting). 2. Well. Where exactly do you see this suppossed bias or design tailored towards Serral? I am completely transparent with my methodology and even referenced external ideas like the ones from Miz' list. I laid out all weightings and calculations transparently, so you are free to criticize the exact ones, where it turned sour in your opinion. As a matter of fact, you made the same accusation in this very thread before (me not addressing past criticism). But I incorporated the critiques from last time: - Including Rain, Life, Mvp - Including team events - Including a complete analysis of the deterioration argument. I simply did not include your critique of "all statistical analyses are flawed", as I still think that these analyses are important. Well, I kind of did, as I explain in the article why I think my methodology is fine. Serral's scores have been lowered and the most impactful decisions I made were against him. If that's bias, it's an awfully stubborn one. 3. What about pointing out that Rogue was inconsistent is defensive? Wouldn't building a model to reward Bo7 offline GSLs do exactly what you accuse me of doing under #2? I even talked to Miz in this very thread and via DM and a quick reverse-engineering of his list made Rogue come much better (although Serral still is way in all different calculations and I still don't understand how he was a close 2nd in the first list and a close 1st after a couple of months and Mvp is below INnoVation in my attempt to reverse-engineer). The issue mostly was the weighting at the end, which I conceded many times was bad, as well as the era-multiplier, which Miz did not use. 4. Anecdotes and nostalgia are fine too. But as neither numbers tell the whole story, nor do such subjective takes. In my opinion, as I already said in this thread, subjective takes might shift a GOAT comparison where the end result is close. But no single SCII player has a "better story" than others and in my opinion no "story" can rival Serral's numbers.
And I completely agree with your last sentence, as point 9 of my statistical evaluation made pretty clear... "Because different weightings yield different outcomes, it's possible to justify alternative GOATs - if one prioritizes specific metrics disproportionately. So if you value...
… efficiency above all else, your GOAT is Life. … career duration and sheer persistence, your GOAT is Maru. … accomplishments in the prime era, your GOAT might be INnoVation. … winning GSLs (or your name is Artosis), your GOAT is Rogue. … any subjective skill, personal charisma, or emotional weight, your GOAT is whoever resonates with you the most."
I'm not sure why this is so complicated to understand, it's pretty simple. My core point here is that every numerical model like this is inherently biased simply based on which criteria you decide to include, and what weights you decide to give those criteria. For example, your inclusion of Aligulac score at 20% weight (second only to tournament score) reveals an incredible bias for Serral, and in fact reproduces in an amplified manner some of the problems you claim to address such as only counting his performances against top players outside of Europe, etc.
Do you dispute that based on your weighted calculation a guy like Rogue would likely not be in the top 10 or even top 20 if you were to run the calculation on all pros? I think it's important to be honest about this, because a single conclusion like this is much more revealing that the thousands of words of justification you put into defending your Serral = GOAT calculator. You created a calculator to justify giving a guy who never played in the most competitive era or most competitive tournaments or leagues nearly 2X the GOAT points as the next highest GOAT, all while claiming you were nerfing him. I'd be curious if you didn't "nerf Serral" how many GOAT points he'd get. 3X the next guy? 4X? 5X? Your existing model already has Serral at 5X GOATier than Rogue. Do you really think this is credible?
I know what you're going to say because we've had this debate before. You'd like me to point out the specific flaws in your methodology. Candidly there are dozens and I don't really have time to explain them all especially when the one I offer here re: Aligulac has been offered many times before and was ignored.
But the bigger point is that if your model doesn't pass the smell test, you need to go back to the drawing board and think about the possibility that you are making some major conceptual errors. The biggest one here is that you think computers can calculate greatness. You reduce my definition of greatness to "anecdotes and nostalgia" but this only further reveals a lack of understanding of greatness. Greatness is about doing what no one thought was possible, overcoming insurmountable odds, facing the fiercest possible competition and finding a way to win, and marking your place in history. Numbers and stats can inform this, but they simply cannot calculate it, because the exercise requires subtle human judgements that are admittedly just as biased as a calculator.
Beyond the Mouhammed Ali and Shane Battier examples, here's one that might be more relatable to you. Flash. Clearly the BW GOAT, most would agree. A calculator could be created to demonstrate this, I'm sure. But you know what it would leave out? His top 4 Random ASL run. This might be the greatest thing any gamer has ever accomplished but in any event it's certainly in the pantheon of greatest gamer moments in e-sports history. Calculators simply cannot understand these things.
I did not agree with every one of Miz's placements on his GOAT list, but the reason it was so enjoyable to me is that it was full of story and really captured the arcs of history and greatest moments of this e-sport in narrative format. It's not that he didn't utilize numbers and stats, it's just that he placed them in their appropriate supporting context of a human understanding of greatness.
The best example of this is SOS. This was my favorite article because although Miz himself acknowledged that his inclusion in the top 10 was an anomaly from a pure numbers perspective, it was nonetheless 100% justified when you understand what SOS accomplished and brought to the game. Absolute legend, and definitely a GOAT, and you can only understand this by carefully analyzing the subtleties of SCII as an e-sport and SOS's place in that story arc.
I assume SOS would place very, very low in your calculator list, maybe not even in the top 40, which is fine. But maybe thinking about some of these examples might help broaden your understanding of what a GOAT is.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7hwaTqb.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2w36xys.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/o7npYza.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vxtQMu7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4V0iJKN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LO15Ijf.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tzvwc0m.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zu109st.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/t1URs9d.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bn3hwnp.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QpP66mm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/x6tKrZM.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/O32mMYA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6ECwmIY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hPXTLfV.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OV5zMSg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NURATPk.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pNfGpmc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Bgv47OO.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LQkC2V4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hiPvCQS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eA4ed87.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bKoDz18.jpg)
). 
![[image loading]](/staff/Mizenhauer/Fdong.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Mizenhauer/S_dong.jpg)
