The TL.net Power Ranking makes its long awaited return for the 2025 Esports World Cup, where eighteen of the top players in competitive StarCraft II will compete for the title of world champion.
Well, somebody had to be last place, and unfortunately that distinction falls to Lancer. The Protoss formerly known as Cyan wouldn't even have qualified normally, but the EWC Asia qualifier runner-up was abruptly promoted to regional reprerentative following Firefly's expulsion due to a match-fixing scandal.
Lancer has shown he can punch above his weight class in the past, most notably when he beat a handful of fringe Code S players to qualify for IEM Katowice 2024. However, given the level of competition at EWC, I can't see him pulling off any miracles.
Astrea booked his EWC ticket at the last minute through the Global Qualifier, after narrowly losing his status as the #1 NA player to Trigger in the Americas qualifier.
Overall, Astrea profiles as a solid macro player with fewer creative quirks in his play than his old reputation would suggest. He has a fighting chance against anyone in the tournament if he gets to play longer macro games, but in the current meta, you could say that about every Protoss who's at EWC. Unfortunately, I don't think Astrea is as defensively sturdy as the higher-ranked players, and he may not survive to show his best play.
Trigger is the one the toughest players to rate, as he's actually played some of the fewest tournament matches since securing his EWC qualification. His most recent showing at BGE Stara Zagora was discouraging, as he was eliminated rather quickly with BO3 loses to both Ryung and SKillous—neither of whom qualified for the world championship.
While Trigger looked much improved in online competitions during the first half of the year (back when he was still playing in cups), one has to question if he can play at 100% on a stage like EWC. Rogue noted that nerves seemed to get to Trigger in his GSL RO12 elimination, and the pressure will only be more intense at the world championship.
The professor has struggled in top-tier events in 2023-25, and was noticeably missing at the last EWC. However, he upped his game when it mattered most in the EWC Global Qualifier, sweeping both Astrea and Goblin to clutch out a spot. While he had struggled with ZvP since the 5.0.14 patch (as have many other Zergs), aggressive early/mid-game attacks helped him find his way to Riyadh.
Lambo should have a decent chance to advance from the play-in stage, as he's the closest thing Europe has to a GSL-style player who gets an extra bonus from preparation time. However, should he make it to the main event, it's hard to see him surviving the rapid-fire series of matches in the three-day main event.
It might be a little surprising to see HeroMarine this high in the rankings, considering that he's been a part-time player for some time now. However, Big Gabe has maintained a high level of play while going to university and getting absolutely jacked, and he remains quite competitive within the European scene.
Players #14-17 fall within a pretty similar band of ability, but HeroMarine has given us the most evidence that he can elevate his play in the biggest tournaments. While it was over a year ago now, one can't forget his surprise run to the RO8 of IEM Katowice 2024 where even surviving the group stage seemed like an iffy proposition. Not only does Big Gabe have a good chance to make it out of the play-in stage, but he could cause some main event upsets if he draws favorable match-ups.
Holding the #4 spot in Europe behind Serral-Clem-Reynor-MaxPax has been a game of musical chairs throughout the years, and right now, the position has come circling back to ShoWTimE. Die Mauer has been on a mini hot-streak in recent months, earning his EWC spot with a fourth place finish at BGE Stara Zagora (a 2-1 win against Reynor clinched it) and taking second place at HomeStory Cup 27.
Unfortunately, there's a 'best of the rest' quality to ShoWTimE, where he's competitive against anyone except the top-tier title contenders. He really struggles against the likes of Serral, Clem, and Maru, while even the variance of PvP doesn't help him much against herO. A recent WardiTV Cup win against Clem must have been a pleasant surprise, but one can't read too deeply into isolated cup results ahead of a major offline event.
Anywhere between a 16th to 5th place finish seems plausible for ShoWTimE, depending on how frequently he runs into the top players.
ByuN is looking a lot like his old self these days, playing well in online competitions but not quite living up to expectations in offline tournaments. Thankfully, his psychosomatic wrist issues seem to have been cured—we haven't seen him force a mid-series pause in quite a while—but he's still being held to mid-table finishes in larger events.
When things are clicking for ByuN, he can play an aggressive, muilti-tasking heavy style that's second only to Clem. He's also shown impressive patience in the late-game when he has a mind to, whittling his opponents down in a way that's reminiscent of his close friend Maru. However, he's just not consistent enough to place any higher in these rankings.
Solar was one of the first players to qualify for EWC, earning his spot with a second place finish at DreamHack Dallas. In the last few months, it's been hard to process what the results from the chaotic Texas showdown really meant for the scene. In general, it does really feel like there's way more parity in the scene than before—the skill gap between players is definitely way closer than it was before EWC 2024.
That said, it also feels like the ZvZ-heavy Dallas run overstated Solar's abilities to some extent, as he hasn't been nearly as good in other tournaments. ZvP in particular has been a major problem for Solar. He struggles in the late-game like everyone else, but also doesn't have the killer instinct to finish Protoss players off before the games can go long. Overall, this just seems like an unfavorable meta for Solar. He prefers to play a safe and standard style, but that just isn't getting the job done for players who aren't Serral.
Dark may be missing for EWC due to military service, but Zerg fans will at least get a quasi-replacement in the form of SHIN. The aggressive Zerg marches to the beat of his own drum, and there's no problem he won't try to solve with a series of creative all-ins.
Alas, while Dark was one of the best late-game Zergs in history, SHIN is somewhat lacking in that department. While he's rather capable up to the early/late-game (damn, we need some better terminology) where you can still win by a-moving Ultralisks, his performance takes a nosedive once games stall out.
Despite this limitation, SHIN's style of play has allowed him to pull off some of the biggest upsets in recent history. He eliminated Serral in the RO4 of IEM Katowice 2023, and more recently he 3-2'd Clem in the semifinals of DreamHack Dallas. SHIN will be one of the more dangerous wildcards at EWC, with a chance to seriously impede the tournament runs of stronger players.
Zoun's stellar off-season play was heavily hyped in TL.net previews, but his results once the EWC 2025 cycle actually began have been a mixed bag. He somehow missed out on GSL Season 1 qualification, and was eliminated in the RO24 of DreamHack Dallas with a loss to MaNa. On the other hand, he earned his EWC qualification handily in the Korean qualifier (beating Rogue, ByuN, and Cure), came in third at BGE Stara Zagora (going 1-1 against Serral in BO5 series), and recently won HomeStory Cup 27.
Match-ups are important for everyone at EWC, but Zoun must be especially wary about PvP. While he's made considerable progress in shoring up his weakness in the mirror, it's still the match-up that gives him the most trouble in major tournaments.
In total, Zoun is a player with tremendous upside, but like many players in the middle of the rankings, his consistency remains a major question mark.
At this point in the rankings, the issue of past credit and reputation start to make things very tricky. Rogue is arguably the greatest big tournament riser in the history of the game, proving time and time again that recent form and results mean jack squat to him when there's a serious payday up for grabs. If there's $100,000+ to be won, the best version of Rogue shows up.
Well, at least that's how it was up until his military service.
Like many other pros before him, Rogue struggled after his return from military service in 2024. He spent nearly a year without achieving any notable results in major tournaments, while his performances in online play varied wildly from match to match.
However, just as it seemed like the ship had sailed on Rogue qualifying for EWC and going for one last heist, he proved once again why he can never be counted out. Facing title favorite herO in the Code S Season 2 semifinals, Rogue emptied his bag of tricks to steal a stunning 3-1 upset and reach the Code S finals, thus qualifying for EWC. Not only that, but he pushed Classic all the way to seven games in the finals, proving his timeless quality yet again.
If you exclude Rogue's Code S run, he's done almost nothing in the last six months that says he'll be a title contender at EWC. However, that single run showed that the military didn't completely blunt his edge, and you underestimate the legend at your own peril.
It may seem like a bit of a backhanded compliment, but Cure has been the most consistent top-tier player of the last two years who hasn't won a major title. He finished runner-up at Gamers8, top four at IEM Katowice 2024, and fifth place at EWC 2024 (with plenty of other high finishes in non-WC events between those). Cure achieved these results by using a time-tested approach for great Terrans: a solid macro base combined with an incredible nose for when to pull out the all-ins.
The problem for Cure is that he limited upset potential against stronger players. While an objectively weaker player like SHIN can occasionally pull off a massive upset due to his unpredictability, Cure just can't seem to create the variables needed to knock a player like Serral off balance. Still, the top-tier competitors are looking much more vulnerable in 2025 than they were in 2024, so perhaps EWC will give Cure a chance to break through his previous ceiling.
The question of past credit pops up once again with Reynor, who's completely undeserving of this placement if we're just looking at results in 2025. Top 8 GSL, top 8 DH Dallas, top 6 BGE Stara Zagoro—those results are just fine, but fine doesn't cut it for a player who we're used to seeing as a world title contender.
However, like a mini-Rogue, Reynor has shown he can ramp up and hit peak form at the perfect time. Such was the case when he won the championship at Gamers8 2023 (the predecessor to EWC), prior to which he had been putting up good but not spectacular results. Moreover, Reynor's skills haven't been blunted by a long stint in the military—he's still very much in the middle of what should be his prime.
There's a possibility that Reynor's long-running jokes about being washed had a hint of truth to them, and that we've been blind to a slow but steady decline since Gamers8. Still, it feels wrong to count out one of the most talented players of the 2020's, especially when he has a chance to set the record straight with one great tournament run.
Peaking at the right time has been a historical recipe to winning a world championship. As we saw with ByuN at BlizzCon 2016, TY at IEM Katowice 2017, or Rogue at BlizzCon 2017, there are few things more dangerous than a previously mid-tier player getting hot in the months leading up to the big show.
Classic looks like he fits that profile, playing like a man on fire in the last two months. After placing top four at Code S Season 1 and DreamHack Dallas, Classic proceeded to become the second post-military player to win Code S by clinching the title in Season 2. Not only that, but he's been fantastic in online competitions as well, tearing through weekly cups and winning RSL by defeating Clem in the grand finals. While online results can be difficult to interpret in isolation, they are usually meaningful when combined with great offline performances as well.
The worry for Classic is that he could end up like Dear in 2013, who was on an even more incendiary tear before BlizzCon. Dear ended up flaming out at the main event, showing that momentum doesn't always guarantee a good world championship result.
Maru is the biggest mystery player of the tournament, having played an extremely small number of games since the previous EWC concluded. His limited off-season tournament results were rather troubling, as he underperformed at HomeStory Cup 26 and was horrendous in a couple of $10,000-tier online events. Combined with his 2025 Code S results—RO8 elimination in both seasons—Maru was on the verge of having a full-blown crisis.
However, such concerns were mostly negated by Maru's championship run at DreamHack Dallas, which was the biggest offline event of the year so far. While Maru did profit from upsets elsewhere in the bracket, on the whole, his run was as dominant and convincing as any of his Code S title campaigns (wins against Creator, ShoWTimE, herO, Classic, and Solar).
While Maru's poor results in the GSL can't be completely excused, one does get the feeling he may have reoriented his priorities in the wake of GSL's diminishment (Korean-elitists are recoiling in horror). Historically great players deserve the benefit of the doubt, and Maru's showing at Dallas should be considered his baseline. Even though Maru's match-up against Serral remains highly problematic, he should be firmly in the title mix if he can avoid an early meeting against his nemesis.
herO established himself as a world title contender in the early days of the off-season, staying extremely active and successful in online competitions throughout. It can be tough to know how much weight to put on online events and minor cups, but historically we've seen that sustained dominance in such competitions has been a good predictor of success in major tournaments. Cure, Zest, Clem, and herO himself (during his first year back from military) all proved that online skill can translate to offline results.
Of course, herO has also done well in offline tournaments after other players ramped up their activities for EWC. He won the first season of GSL Code S, reached the top four in Season 2, and placed top eight at DreamHack Dallas. While that may seem slightly underwhelming on paper, it's pretty impressive when you consider how evenly spread out this summer's championships have been.
herO has hit a minor road bump ahead of EWC, with Classic actually usurping him in terms of short-term momentum. Many fans will have Classic ahead of herO in their rankings, and there's a reasonable case to be made for such evaluations. However, the combination of both short and long term success favors herO, putting him at #3 in this power rank.
Because of how evenly matched the top-tier players have looked throughout this short summer season, this power rank was always bound to be controversial. Thus, facing what's expected to be equal parts applause and derision, the reigning world champ comes in at #2 in the Power Rank.
A lot of what was said about herO applies to Clem as well. He barely took any time off after winning the 2024 world championship, and continued to be a tour de force during the lengthy off-season. While he did suffer a stunning RO8 loss to SHIN at DreamHack Dallas, in the context of his broader performances, it's easy to brush that off as a one-in-a-thousand result at one of the most unpredictable events in recent memory. Clem has shown he's still the best in the world when he's at 100%, winning tournaments like PiG Festival #6 (5-3 vs herO in the finals) and BGE Stara Zagora (4-3 vs Serral) against top competition.
However, Clem has definitely given viewers reason to worry about how consistently he can play at that transcendent level. His DreamHack RO8 elimination might be a fluke in isolation, but he's subsequently shown vulnerability on his home turf of online cups as well. His recent RSL runner-up run saw him lose to Classic twice in BO5+ series, which was jarring considering his track record of crushing Classic in the previous six months.
This ranking has given players considerable benefit of the doubt based on past performances, so it's only fair that the defending world champ gets the same treatment. Those minor hiccups will likely soon be forgotten as we see Clem make another deep run and challenge for his second world championship.
Serral comes in as the only top contender who hasn't won a championship during the summer season, but honestly, does anyone really care? The Finnish Phenom has been the most dependably dominant player in the scene for the last seven years, and his abilities should be beyond reproach. Ironically, Serral doesn't get enough credit for being a big tournament performer because he always plays well—strip away half of his championships and he'd still have a case to be called the surest bet to win a given tournament.
Although Serral doesn't play many online events, just for good measure, he popped in a handful of times during the off-season to remind everyone just how good he is. He won the single biggest online event of Master's Coliseum #8 by beating herO 5-3, and he took down his rival Clem 5-4 at PiG Festival #5. Even in losing to Clem in the finals of BGE Stara Zagora, the one-map difference showed the match-up between the two is far closer than at the previous world championship.
Serral is this ranking's pick for #1, but it's clear that he's not gapping the rest of the scene the way he was in years past. The wild results of the summer season have shown that there are a number of players who can give Serral a run for his money, with ZvP standing out as a potential weakness. Both Classic and Zoun have handed him BO5 defeats in offline events, something which was nearly unthinkable just one year ago.
Yet, in an environment where the competitive margins between top players are paper thin, and where everyone has some vulnerabilities to exploit, Serral remains the most reliable pick to win it all. He's faced all sorts of opponents, metas, and maps throughout the years, and he's continuously found a way to succeed at the highest level.
Writer: Wax Images: Esports World Cup Statistics and records: Liquipedia and Aligulac.com
You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
Classic behind herO? Clem at #2? Controversial indeed! I get having Serral at #1 since it's the safest bet, but herO at #3 seems absurd to me as he underperformed in basically every tournament I can recall (Dallas, GSL #2, albeit he won the first one). Clem being #2 will be highly dependent on his ability to win PvT / TvP and he seems mortal in the later
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
Pigsty festival he went out 0-4 in groups. GSL season 1 he got through the first group stage 4-0 by beating Trigger and Rogue, losing subsequently to Reynor 1-2 and Gumigod 0-2. GSL season 2 he went 0-4 against Gumigod and Solar.
His Dallas run was admittedly solid, beating herO 3-2, Classic 3-1 and Solar 4-1 (although that guy just cannot beat Maru), but not incredible. I don’t think many would argue it’s nice to have both Serral and Clem lose a bit earlier, I also think Classic currently is in better form than then, and you’ve got other guys like Reynor getting into shape too.
Serral on the other hand won Master’s Colosseum, taking herO down 5-3. Got third in the LiuLiu cup, losing 2-3 to MaxPax. Then won Pigsty Festival 5, beating Clem 5-4. Then lost in Pigsty 6 to Clem 3-4 in the Ro4. Next up he lost in the Ro8 in Dallas, in a narrow 2-3 to Classic. Last up for Serral in the lead-in was a 3-4 loss to Clem in the finals of Stara Zagora.
Dallas is the bigger prize sure, but Serral has one tournament out of 6 where he placed below 4th, and that was a Ro8. He also hasn’t been eliminated in any tournament without taking it to the final set. He’s not as strong against Toss, but I think it’s going a bit under the radar that he’s not getting swept by Clem.
Even excluding that Serral has an 86% win rate against Maru in a head-to-head, I can’t think of a single compelling reason to bump him above Serral, or Clem. Indeed I’d maybe bump him back to fifth given Classic’s on a tear.
Maru isn’t a Rogue, an sOs or a Reynor who can blow hot and cold over a season but clutch a WC tier event, he’s effectively the opposite of that and add to that he’s had serious problems with injuries.
I’d love to see one of the game’s greats, and biggest entertainers (outside of interviews) do it and I’ll cheer it if it happens, but he managed to blow it versus Oliveira when he’d been basically untouchable in TvT for a long period. I don’t see how he does it when PvT is looking tough, but also that Classic has stepped his level up to join herO as a legit contender, that Serral absolutely has his number
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
Guess it’s down somewhat to discretion. Serral’s more of a habitual winner of such events.
I think they’re pretty interchangeable as favourites, should be fascinating.
I think Clem’s approach requires him to absolutely be on it, Serral has more wriggle room. Clem at 100% blitzes it, but he plays a high risk, high reward style. A few mistakes and his ‘I’m a mechanical god and I’m going to outplay you’ can fall apart. I’d favour a 95% Serral against a 95% Clem, Serral plays the percentages better than anyone in the scene while being no slouch mechanically.
Clem is Serral’s (relative) kryptonite for this exact reason. The percentages work against everyone else, but Clem warps them when he’s on it.
I think balance somewhat indirectly, somewhat directly helps Clem this tournament. I still wouldn’t bet on it in a clutch game, but Serral is definitely looking more mortal in ZvP than basically any time for the past 7 years. And on the flip side TvP is looking pretty tricky, which makes Clem’s decision to play P in that matchup probably more solid than it would have been in 2024.
I’m also fascinated to see the prep element. The likes of Clem and herO have played a crazy amount of games and shown their play hundreds of times this year. Serral has dipped his toes into a few A tier online tournaments, and Maru has shown relatively little. Reynor is a very streaky player but I’ve seen signs he’s curving upwards pretty rapidly.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Just because you value these LANs does not mean they should be valued higher. They are valued pretty highly, but this PR looks at the player resume as a whole and not just because something was offline. You don’t need to ask why, just read the explanation already given..
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
There's an argument to be made against every player in the top 5, I'd probably go with Clem #1 and Serral #2 though, simply because Clem is now decently favored against Serral in the H2H and doubts about Clem's PvT on the big stage seem about comparable to doubts about Serral's ZvP in the current meta.
Maru #4 or #3 feels fair. Dallas was the biggest tournament of the year so far and Maru won it, but to me it's really just a confirmation that Maru is still Maru after some horrible off-season performances. Classic and Solar are players Maru should beat, and herO is a player that Maru should at worst go 50-50 against. Dallas doesn't really tell us anything about Maru's ability to beat Serral. That points towards Maru being the same as he was in Katowice 23/24 or EWC 2024 - an amazing player who could win, but will probably "just" make a very deep run.
herO I have no clue about. He could get bopped in groups, but if he makes it to the final bracket I think he'll be the highest performing Toss. For whatever reason I feel in my bones Classic won't be able to beat Maru in an important match, but there's no evidence for that other than history.
Thank you Wax for the power rankings. These posts and debates help make the event feel more special and importantt. I can not wait for the action to begin and feel like many have a real shot at taking it all!
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
Stara Zagora was a LAN event that Serral got the silver in. His other LAN was a respectable but disappointing Ro8 finish.
Maru won a LAN, lost first round in another, second round in another and doesn’t have nearly the online results of Serral this year.
It’s not 2017 or whatever other past point you choose, there simply aren’t that many LAN events anymore, and A-S tier online tournaments filled that gap. And in that domain Serral has outperformed Maru in 2025 by a significant margin.
Dallas is an impressive prize for Maru and he showed a higher level than he’s shown elsewhere, likely down to managing his injuries.
Given recent records is he beating Serral if he 3-2s Classic rather than losing 2-3? Probably not I’d wager. Or Clem also exiting in the Ro8.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
Stara Zagora was a LAN event that Serral got the silver in. His other LAN was a respectable but disappointing Ro8 finish.
Maru won a LAN, lost first round in another, second round in another and doesn’t have nearly the online results of Serral this year.
It’s not 2017 or whatever other past point you choose, there simply aren’t that many LAN events anymore, and A-S tier online tournaments filled that gap. And in that domain Serral has outperformed Maru in 2025 by a significant margin.
Dallas is an impressive prize for Maru and he showed a higher level than he’s shown elsewhere, likely down to managing his injuries.
Given recent records is he beating Serral if he 3-2s Classic rather than losing 2-3? Probably not I’d wager. Or Clem also exiting in the Ro8.
Let's compare those results side by side. Maru won a big tournament, Serral got 2nd in a smaller but still competitive tournament. Serral got a ro.8 finish, Maru got a ro.8 finish. Result wise for 2025 lans it's a slight edge to Maru imo.
It's a bit tricky because Marus ro.8 GSL Serral wasn't competing and missing many global players, but the same can be said for Serrals BGE run, it was also missing a lot of players, such as Maru vice versa. But on the biggest stage of the year thus far, and with the most stacked player lineup, Maru came out on top. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
Stara Zagora was a LAN event that Serral got the silver in. His other LAN was a respectable but disappointing Ro8 finish.
Maru won a LAN, lost first round in another, second round in another and doesn’t have nearly the online results of Serral this year.
It’s not 2017 or whatever other past point you choose, there simply aren’t that many LAN events anymore, and A-S tier online tournaments filled that gap. And in that domain Serral has outperformed Maru in 2025 by a significant margin.
Dallas is an impressive prize for Maru and he showed a higher level than he’s shown elsewhere, likely down to managing his injuries.
Given recent records is he beating Serral if he 3-2s Classic rather than losing 2-3? Probably not I’d wager. Or Clem also exiting in the Ro8.
Let's compare those results side by side. Maru won a big tournament, Serral got 2nd in a smaller but still competitive tournament. Serral got a ro.8 finish, Maru got a ro.8 finish. Result wise for 2025 lans it's a slight edge to Maru imo.
It's a bit tricky because Marus ro.8 GSL Serral wasn't competing and missing many global players, but the same can be said for Serrals BGE run, it was also missing a lot of players, such as Maru vice versa. But on the biggest stage of the year thus far, and with the most stacked player lineup, Maru came out on top. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
If we were talking other years and Maru had better LAN results, sure. We’re not though. And he bombed out of both GSL seasons quite early.
The LAN factor is even less relevant given Maru has never managed to leverage his undoubted talent to win a stacked ‘World Champ’ tier event, with all of the big players present.
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if he does it, but I will be very surprised indeed.
I actually like the position Maru is in, No.4 is "lowkey" enough for him to not feeling pressured, and he can focus on the performance while chasing the title. This is the exact same position he had before Dallas and he did kinda well there.
thanks for the PR! my only issue with this is to where should Classic place. Classic recent results should put him higher, maybe top 2 imo but on the other hand i kind of understand Wax explanation. well, lets enjoy the EWC
On July 22 2025 11:25 tigera6 wrote: I actually like the position Maru is in, No.4 is "lowkey" enough for him to not feeling pressured, and he can focus on the performance while chasing the title. This is the exact same position he had before Dallas and he did kinda well there.
I’m super interested to see what he’s cooked up, he’s one of the players to have not grinded a bunch of public games.
I mean we’re trying to assess top level TvP without a huge amount of Maru games to look at.
I do think ultimately he has to dodge Serral, you can’t really argue with a 14% win rate.
If he can capture his best form his TvT is probably the best in the field, his TvZ is super potent, especially against certain opponents stylistically. Well probably most, even now most Zerg seem to struggle against his style, it’s really only Serral who stomps it, and he’s probably still got the best TvP going outside of Clem.
On July 22 2025 11:25 tigera6 wrote: I actually like the position Maru is in, No.4 is "lowkey" enough for him to not feeling pressured, and he can focus on the performance while chasing the title. This is the exact same position he had before Dallas and he did kinda well there.
I’m super interested to see what he’s cooked up, he’s one of the players to have not grinded a bunch of public games.
I mean we’re trying to assess top level TvP without a huge amount of Maru games to look at.
I do think ultimately he has to dodge Serral, you can’t really argue with a 14% win rate.
If he can capture his best form his TvT is probably the best in the field, his TvZ is super potent, especially against certain opponents stylistically. Well probably most, even now most Zerg seem to struggle against his style, it’s really only Serral who stomps it, and he’s probably still got the best TvP going outside of Clem.
Without Gumiho, I dont think Maru would face any threat in a TvT Bo5 in this tournament. His TvP is actually might be just as strong as Dallas if not more, the ability to SCV pull for an all-in at any moment between 4th-8th minutes, also the ability to switch back and playing macro is very good. For his TvZ, I think what Maru has been missing is the variability of build order, and his standard TvZ are just too "generic" at time. Even when he come up with new build order, he just tend to repeat them again too often and got hard-countered. His early 2 EBay for 2-2 8-racks timing was killing Solar left and right in Dallas, but he used it in GSL and Solar just effing kill him with early Roach all-in the moment he saw it.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
Stara Zagora was a LAN event that Serral got the silver in. His other LAN was a respectable but disappointing Ro8 finish.
Maru won a LAN, lost first round in another, second round in another and doesn’t have nearly the online results of Serral this year.
It’s not 2017 or whatever other past point you choose, there simply aren’t that many LAN events anymore, and A-S tier online tournaments filled that gap. And in that domain Serral has outperformed Maru in 2025 by a significant margin.
Dallas is an impressive prize for Maru and he showed a higher level than he’s shown elsewhere, likely down to managing his injuries.
Given recent records is he beating Serral if he 3-2s Classic rather than losing 2-3? Probably not I’d wager. Or Clem also exiting in the Ro8.
Let's compare those results side by side. Maru won a big tournament, Serral got 2nd in a smaller but still competitive tournament. Serral got a ro.8 finish, Maru got a ro.8 finish. Result wise for 2025 lans it's a slight edge to Maru imo.
It's a bit tricky because Marus ro.8 GSL Serral wasn't competing and missing many global players, but the same can be said for Serrals BGE run, it was also missing a lot of players, such as Maru vice versa. But on the biggest stage of the year thus far, and with the most stacked player lineup, Maru came out on top. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Maru had a very friendly road to the championship. Biggest reason why he won was because classic eliminated Serral.
Other than that Maru opponents were pretty much the usual GSL guys. And not to mention he faced his whopping boy solar in the final
Yay, a power ranking. As per usual, I'm largely in agreement with Wax' evaluation, although I'd put Clem very slightly ahead of Serral for this reason alone:
On July 22 2025 09:48 dysenterymd wrote: I'd probably go with Clem #1 and Serral #2 though, simply because Clem is now decently favored against Serral in the H2H
All other placements seem fair enough. Classic feels stronger than herO at the moment, but I guess it's reasonable to give herO's long period of being the best (offline) protoss due credit.
On July 22 2025 08:15 CicadaSC wrote: You don't rank the tournament winners of 2025 lans high enough. Maru winning Dallas needs to be bumped up Serral under performed every lan this year how he #1 favorite? And rogue should be higher too you make decent argument but still talk about military when Reynor gets ro8s and rogue get 2nd you say u put higher cuz Reynor 2020 good but rogue went military so gg but rogue just 2 so how can say?
Serral is 116–56 (67.44%) in games and 33–10 (76.74%) in matches.
Maru is 47–26 (64.38%) in games and 19–9 (67.86%) in matches
Looking into 2025 results beyond those numbers, for Maru, outside of Dallas, he has two set wins all year that weren’t qualifiers for tournaments.
well look at those numbers. maru has played far less. but he already won lan while serral didnt. personally i value lan a lot more when we are talking about a lan tournament ewc. you can say he only has 2 set wins, or you can say it only took him 47 total wins to win a major tournament and serral played almost 200 games and still hasnt won. so yeah serral has been putting in more reps but maru has a higher PR if that makes sense. thats how i see it at least
Stara Zagora was a LAN event that Serral got the silver in. His other LAN was a respectable but disappointing Ro8 finish.
Maru won a LAN, lost first round in another, second round in another and doesn’t have nearly the online results of Serral this year.
It’s not 2017 or whatever other past point you choose, there simply aren’t that many LAN events anymore, and A-S tier online tournaments filled that gap. And in that domain Serral has outperformed Maru in 2025 by a significant margin.
Dallas is an impressive prize for Maru and he showed a higher level than he’s shown elsewhere, likely down to managing his injuries.
Given recent records is he beating Serral if he 3-2s Classic rather than losing 2-3? Probably not I’d wager. Or Clem also exiting in the Ro8.
Let's compare those results side by side. Maru won a big tournament, Serral got 2nd in a smaller but still competitive tournament. Serral got a ro.8 finish, Maru got a ro.8 finish. Result wise for 2025 lans it's a slight edge to Maru imo.
It's a bit tricky because Marus ro.8 GSL Serral wasn't competing and missing many global players, but the same can be said for Serrals BGE run, it was also missing a lot of players, such as Maru vice versa. But on the biggest stage of the year thus far, and with the most stacked player lineup, Maru came out on top. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Maru had a very friendly road to the championship. Biggest reason why he won was because classic eliminated Serral.
Well that is another point I didn't even think of, and could even be used to strengthen my argument. Serral has a chance to face Classic in Round 2. Maybe Serral would be favored vs Maru, or whoever else but he has to get through a very scary opponent early on and with that I think his chances go down.
In this scenario, if he does lose to Classic, its not complete doom and gloom because he would have to face either Rogue or a Play-In bracket opponent next, which he should be favored against but then in the playoff bracket that means he would have to face a #1 seed immediately from the ro.8, and just have possibly the hardest route to the championship. So Maru winning because he didn't have to play serral/clem, or serral losing because he got sniped by classic could come back to bite him again in this tournament.
Classic's lowest position in a tournament this year is 4th.
If you expand to 2024 then Maru is the favourite.
I appreciate how high herO is despite him and Clem not having the hottest streak at the latest, for me they are in the same camp, they can blow up or peter out. I don't see Reynor in the same position, you can't win a world championship with only 3 month practice, or what it's been. The fact is Protosses and Clem are the ones that have practiced the most during this downtime we had. Serral and Maru are different though, they never played in everything and still win the big leagues.
On July 22 2025 18:00 ejozl wrote: Classic's lowest position in a tournament this year is 4th.
If you expand to 2024 then Maru is the favourite.
I appreciate how high herO is despite him and Clem not having the hottest streak at the latest, for me they are in the same camp, they can blow up or peter out. I don't see Reynor in the same position, you can't win a world championship with only 3 month practice, or what it's been. The fact is Protosses and Clem are the ones that have practiced the most during this downtime we had. Serral and Maru are different though, they never played in everything and still win the big leagues.
Serral’s average position over his entire career is slightly better than fourth.
On the bolded, how?
Serral only dropped 1 series in the whole of 2024 to someone not named Clem (to Maru, who he then swept in the rematch), won multiple tournaments, including a dominant Katowice performance and had a very strong EWC performance before Clem smacked him in the finals.
Serral went 86.21% in offline match win rate in 2024. Clem went 79.55%. Maru’s 75.56% is still very impressive, but you can’t be the favourite if you’re around 10% off Serral’s win cadence in both 2024 and 2025
Maru’s true level is something of a mystery. He’s clearly in the category of ‘dangerous and can win if he’s cooking’, but based on the evidence below a few players who’ve generally outperformed him.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Love the power ranking, to get people to discuss and make the community active. So thanks a lot, Wax!
Heart, in order of preference: 1. My boy - Maru 2. Putting an end to the decade-long Protoss drought - herO 3. Craziest underdog story - Lancer/Cyan (repeat of Oliveira? And he only got in last minute because of a scandal)
Head, in order of my guess on the probability of winning: 1. The top player rn - Clem 2. Just a cool player to turn around an entire race - herO 3. If he shows up - Maru
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
He was playing BW before StarCraft II, but Maru's mom, in an interview with SSL, said that they turned down a spot on SKT because Maru was already getting treatment for his shoulder.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
He was playing BW before StarCraft II, but Maru's mom, in an interview with SSL, said that they turned down a spot on SKT because Maru was already getting treatment for his shoulder.
Interesting Miz, first I’d ever heard that and rather interesting!
It's fine and dandy the win rate and avg placement, but serral was surpassed this year by classic and by maru, even if you expand that to 2024. Serral is still the big name that he is, but I think his form is more in question if we are to be fair. His 2024 was insane, but we honestly don't know about 2025.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
He was playing BW before StarCraft II, but Maru's mom, in an interview with SSL, said that they turned down a spot on SKT because Maru was already getting treatment for his shoulder.
Pretty interesting piece of trivia. Couldn’t they « solve » the issue with physical therapy / working out though?
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
He was playing BW before StarCraft II, but Maru's mom, in an interview with SSL, said that they turned down a spot on SKT because Maru was already getting treatment for his shoulder.
Pretty interesting piece of trivia. Couldn’t they « solve » the issue with physical therapy / working out though?
If it’s anything like my right elbow, no, especially considering Maru had issues at such an early age. It may just be defective and you’re not fixing that.
Even in my early teens I couldn’t throw a ball consistently without getting elbow pains, and I wasn’t regularly doing things that would potentially put strain on it. As a giant cricket fan it stopped me pursuing playing it as I couldn’t bowl or field properly.
On the flipside I had wrist issues from doing a lot of bad habits and hobbies that centred around my wrists and countless hours, but I was able to sort those out with better habits and breaks.
If Maru’s shoulder is anything like my elbow it’s just a bit of bad luck, there’s really nothing that can be done. My joint just doesn’t have the resilience to be pushed at all, even if I’m conscious of ergonomics and best practice.
It’s not everyday debilitating, but actions that require a lot of twitch effort in the joint I can’t do without pain
On July 23 2025 23:39 ejozl wrote: It's fine and dandy the win rate and avg placement, but serral was surpassed this year by classic and by maru, even if you expand that to 2024. Serral is still the big name that he is, but I think his form is more in question if we are to be fair. His 2024 was insane, but we honestly don't know about 2025.
Not if you expand it to 2024, which was one of the best years anyone has ever shown in SC2 history.
2025 Serral’s had extremely solid results overall, we just don’t have a particularly large sample size to work with in terms of LANs
On July 23 2025 23:39 ejozl wrote: It's fine and dandy the win rate and avg placement, but serral was surpassed this year by classic and by maru, even if you expand that to 2024. Serral is still the big name that he is, but I think his form is more in question if we are to be fair. His 2024 was insane, but we honestly don't know about 2025.
That's why small sample sizes like 2025 are not good. They heavily distort.
But your statement is also wrong... the average placement for Serral is much better than Maru's in 2025 and also better than Classic's. Serral's win rates for both years are better than Maru's and Classic's (who played a lot more weeklies versus weaker opponents). With what numbers are you working?
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
Very impressive power ranking after day 2. The top 4 has all qualified. 8 of the 9 following players are in the lower bracket (all except poor Byun at #12)
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
I’d probably put Clem at 1 and Maru at 7. I suspect Maru is still injured that’s the only reason why I’d drop him a bit further.
Maru was receiving treatment at a hospital for his shoulder before StarCraft II was even released. He's always been injured.
Uh Interesting, Do you know more? I always assumed it was due to his SC2 career. I guess playing SC2 doesnt help neither.
He was playing BW before StarCraft II, but Maru's mom, in an interview with SSL, said that they turned down a spot on SKT because Maru was already getting treatment for his shoulder.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
I kinda disagree here. There was an interview with soO sometime after his 2nd four finals run or so, maybe a bit later, where he said the game is more competitive than ever, despite team houses disbanding and the players skill ceiling is also higher than ever. You can see that with your own eyes. Just watch a match from the past few years's finals or semifinals from the biggest tournaments and compare that to end of Hots which is the so called "most competitve era" by many. Let's just say after getting used to todays standard you will not be amazed how they played back then.
Seems like with age comes wisdom, just look at Classic. He is 33(edit) and just recently beated the 23 year old Clem in RSL twice, and now once in EWC after having like a 20 matches losing streak against him. An aged man doesn't necessarily mean an old man.
On July 25 2025 15:42 PremoBeats wrote: Classic is 33... but with the rest I agree
I'm sorry. Damn chatgpt.
Dont use chatgpt for StarCraft; I was trying to see if it could make stat compiling easier the other day, and it kept telling me Taeja was a code s champ (among numerous other mistakes)
On July 25 2025 15:42 PremoBeats wrote: Classic is 33... but with the rest I agree
I'm sorry. Damn chatgpt.
Dont use chatgpt for StarCraft; I was trying to see if it could make stat compiling easier the other day, and it kept telling me Taeja was a code s champ (among numerous other mistakes)
Can confirm... you have to be extremely cautious when using it with SC2 data.
I'm actually predicting zvz finals from this standing. It seems this year that T>Z>P>T, and with this Zerg gets stronger because now Protoss are able to take out the big Terran names helping the Zergs. By median outcome Solar might actually win, lol, Serral should beat Cure, Solar should beat Classic and then Solar vs Serral is pretty 50/50, but maybe if I had to chose I would pick Solar. I wouldn't predict Solar though, since Serral's chance of beating Cure should be higher than Solar beating Classic. Classic should demolish Cure in a 3rd place match.
On July 26 2025 01:31 BonitiilloO wrote: This is why larva production has to be torn down a little bit, serral had 70 supply lead... there is no way to hold that....
Reynor lost to Maru and all races where resembled as best as possible in the Ro8, Ro4 and 1st to 3rd place. I mean... do you seriously have to whine about balance the second the biggest outlier in the history of the game is crowned world champion? Ffs...
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Gotta go, so a quick answer must suffice atm: No, we are not comparing over 100 with 8, because these 100 were not top tier. A lot of these names only won big tournaments, because there were so many tournaments. If we had only 15 tournaments back then as well, the tier lists would have been much steeper too. Pros are also sustained by their teams, not only prize pools.
You probably didn't read the reasoning in my new GOAT list, but I will write a short summary how I arrived at my multipliers. I think it makes more sense to put numbers on this intangible discussion.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Honestly, don’t waste your time arguing with someone who denying the significant decline of competitiveness of the scene and also saying Zerg was not op in 2019……I mean how can you convince someone denying water is wet and fire is hot.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Gotta go, so a quick answer must suffice atm: No, we are not comparing over 100 with 8, because these 100 were not top tier. A lot of these names only won big tournaments, because there were so many tournaments. If we had only 15 tournaments back then as well, the tier lists would have been much steeper too. Pros are also sustained by their teams, not only prize pools.
You probably didn't read the reasoning in my new GOAT list, but I will write a short summary how I arrived at my multipliers. I think it makes more sense to put numbers on this intangible discussion.
Buddy, don't reply now if you don't have time. Take the time to read and then reply, like I've done so with your previous posts. That's a bit disingenuous.
You can't just dismiss proposed numbers without providing counter-numbers of your own. It's easy to deny anything without providing evidence or arguments. This is textbook deflection tactics. Dismiss the evidence, offer no counter-data, then pivot to vague promises about "multipliers" and "GOAT lists". Please address the actual arguments or concede the point.
Your "only 15 tournaments" hypothetical proves nothing - we're comparing what actually happened, not imaginary scenarios.
"These 100 weren't top tier"? I literally listed Dark, soO, Zest, Bisu, Cure, Rogue at ranks #101-243 in 2013 List 75. These are great players in SC2, most with chances of winning major tournaments.
Now, look at EWC 2025, which is supposedly the top 18 players in the world, which I agree all the top players are there. There's Trigger and Cyan/Lancer, no disrespect to these guys, decent players, but not related to great at all, especially with Cyan being 32 and on the decline since awhile ago.
Now, if you want to say that they only got in because of region locks (American qualifiers and Asian qualifiers respectively), I agree. But this also further proves my point in that many regions simply don't have competitive players anymore. Back then, every region (Americas, EU, Asia, KR) all had actual competitive players.
Also, my point on 2025's List 402 #131 is PiG, who I only know as a caster. If you think 2013's depth wasn't "top tier," then today's scene is amateur hour.
The fundamental question remains: If today's scene is so competitive, why can 30+ year old military returnees immediately crack top-16? Why has no significant new talent emerged since MaxPax, who joined in 2019?
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Honestly, don’t waste your time arguing with someone who denying the significant decline of competitiveness of the scene and also saying Zerg was not op in 2019……I mean how can you convince someone denying water is wet and fire is hot.
You're right. Think I'll stop here as well.
I enjoy genuine discussions with people who engage with evidence and provide counter-arguments, but this has devolved into dismissals without substance it feels.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Gotta go, so a quick answer must suffice atm: No, we are not comparing over 100 with 8, because these 100 were not top tier. A lot of these names only won big tournaments, because there were so many tournaments. If we had only 15 tournaments back then as well, the tier lists would have been much steeper too. Pros are also sustained by their teams, not only prize pools.
You probably didn't read the reasoning in my new GOAT list, but I will write a short summary how I arrived at my multipliers. I think it makes more sense to put numbers on this intangible discussion.
Buddy, don't reply now if you don't have time. Take the time to read and then reply, like I've done so with your previous posts. That's a bit disingenuous.
You can't just dismiss proposed numbers without providing counter-numbers of your own. It's easy to deny anything without providing evidence or arguments. This is textbook deflection tactics. Dismiss the evidence, offer no counter-data, then pivot to vague promises about "multipliers" and "GOAT lists". Please address the actual arguments or concede the point.
Your "only 15 tournaments" hypothetical proves nothing - we're comparing what actually happened, not imaginary scenarios.
"These 100 weren't top tier"? I literally listed Dark, soO, Zest, Bisu, Cure, Rogue at ranks #101-243 in 2013 List 75. These are great players in SC2, most with chances of winning major tournaments.
Now, look at EWC 2025, which is supposedly the top 18 players in the world, which I agree all the top players are there. There's Trigger and Cyan/Lancer, no disrespect to these guys, decent players, but not related to great at all, especially with Cyan being 32 and on the decline since awhile ago.
Now, if you want to say that they only got in because of region locks (American qualifiers and Asian qualifiers respectively), I agree. But this also further proves my point in that many regions simply don't have competitive players anymore. Back then, every region (Americas, EU, Asia, KR) all had actual competitive players.
Also, my point on 2025's List 402 #131 is PiG, who I only know as a caster. If you think 2013's depth wasn't "top tier," then today's scene is amateur hour.
The fundamental question remains: If today's scene is so competitive, why can 30+ year old military returnees immediately crack top-16? Why has no significant new talent emerged since MaxPax, who joined in 2019?
The scene having more depth does make it more competitive across the board. However, if we segment players into tiers for the sake of argument, if you’re an S class player, it’s mostly other S class and A class players that are relevant to your tournament chances. There could be 100 B tier players, and that’s great, but if they can’t beat you as an S class player, they’re not that relevant in terms of competitiveness at your level of play.
Like, tennis has depth, and a top 200 player is going to be bloody good at the game, but Roger Federer ain’t worrying about them. Which I think is Premo’s general thrust I believe.
I’d also add that the pool is certainly less deep, but that is somewhat compensated by most of the top dogs generally being in the same pools.
At SC2’s peak level, certainly you had more S/A tier players, but at the same time things were all over the place. Proleague was a closed shop, with a totally different format, some Koreans played in foreign regions, it was a bit fragmented to say the least. Some weekenders would be stacked, some not. WCs would be lacking potential winners in the field. Lots of great StarCraft, kinda hard to get an idea of who’s the best player at any particular time
As the scene contracted, fewer players around, but you have a good chunk of top dogs at basically every event.
I don’t think the scene is as competitive, sure absolutely. But the absence of many top talents breaking through I think is testament to the level still being bloody high.
As it pertains to the auld Serral debate, it’s hard to argue that the field is weaker by a distance come 2025 for me! However, can one really argue that this was significantly the case in say, 2018?
I think he’s just too much of an outlier not to be the GOAT. Specifically in the combination of his overall win rates, average tournament placement, and having a winning H2H against most of his contemporaries.
Even if he won a similar amount of tournaments, for me if he dropped down a bit in those categories he enters the realm of best of his era, too difficult to compare to other eras. But he’s so atypically crazy in areas such as these that I think it outweighs competitiveness of era.
You guys realize Maru and Serral played in the same era right? Maru winning some random tournament a few years before Serral started dominating world SC2 does not mean they did not have 95-97% of their accomplishments at the same time. You can’t use it to detract from Serral without also having it detract from Maru. And no one prior to them (or since) should even be in the GOAT discussion.
On July 22 2025 08:15 lokol4890 wrote: I get why maru was "only" top 4 here even though I disagree, but I'm still having a hard time understanding the serral #1, clem #2. Serral's best result the past couple of months is losing to clem. Instead, the pick is reliant on the ever subjective "dominant for 7 years" point, despite clear evidence there were several years in that time span where he wasn't the top player, let alone dominant.
That said, I appreciate the writeup. We'll see soon enough how everyone does.
I think one of the bigger changes of the post-Blizzard scene (2020+) is that people who are good are just always gonna be good, and short term results really don't matter quite as much. It's a huge difference from like 2010-2016 where careers were like three years long, and your 'prime' could be like 8 months long.
It's boring in a way, but the big picture kinda demands the same-ish people be in the top four all the time.
This is a great point, tho I’m curious why you chalk it up to the post-Blizzard era specifically? Strategy games tend to have high early volatility and then decreasing volatility over time as stable metas develop and start to cycle in and out. Which then makes it less about strategy and more about skill expression/execution. Hero is a very big exception here, tho I’m honestly not sure why unless his weird plays are somehow very off meta/unpredictable (I’m not a good enough player to know).
Wax mentioned 2010-2016 for a reason. 2016 is when Proleague ended.
Without a stable route for talented Korean amateurs to practice, progress, and become top-tier professionals in their own right, the top of the Korean scene has stagnated to the point that going into the military no longer ends careers. The top Korean players haven't gotten better, they've slowly regressed due to a lack of fresh blood.
It has nothing to do with the meta settling. It's just that everything after Proleague is an ever paler shadow of what came before.
I still love watching though!
I think it’s a mix. Many of today’s top players are undoubtedly better than their past selves; in terms of execution, strategy, and game understanding. Reflexes and speed may decline over time, but the settled meta rewards experience, which in turn raises the entry barrier for newer players. Also, a lot of the names from the KeSPA era only appeared so frequently because there were far more tournaments to win. If there had only been 10 - 16 major events per year back then, we’d have seen fewer rotating champions and more consistency at the top... similar to what we see today. You’re absolutely right that new blood had better chances to break through in the earlier years, due to a stronger infrastructure and a more volatile competitive environment. But let’s not forget that the two expansions introduced drastic changes to the game. That constant flux naturally reshuffled the competitive field, rewarding different player strengths. Post-2015, with only minor patches, the game has stabilized, making it easier for veterans to stay on top longer. What we have seen in recent years, may competitively - in terms of different players or new names - not been the best, but we have definitely seen skill ceilings that by far have not been reached in 2013-2016.
I mean, current players stand on the shoulders of giants. So sure, they might be better today, but the tournaments are nowhere as competitive as the past.
I think it's common sense by now that progamers peak in the early 20s, and if someone crunched the numbers quickly, I'd say the current median age of the top players (e.g., the 16 or 18 here at EWC) would be close to 30. Meaning very few new players.
Without new players, the game declines in competitiveness.
To me, the new players are giants in their own right... the stable meta simply was not meant for many players from the prime era. How do we know that? Because there are many from that time still around getting great results, despite the new players that entered post 2016. It was further not impossible to stay in the game or to even pick it up like a later world champion has shown. You are right that the competitiveness changed, but as I said in my previous post: Wouldn't there have been so many more tournaments, many players names wouldn't even have been mentioned as often.
I don't agree with your phrasing of "competitiveness changed" - it's "competitiveness has declined significantly." It's almost like comparing the competitiveness of winning a national championship in a medium-sized country (Australia or the Netherlands) versus winning the Olympics, if you compare winning SC2 tournaments today versus back in 2012-13.
Let me explain (definitely not a perfect analogy, but interesting and relevant) from some quick prize pool math:
First, I want to break down how many players the prize pool can realistically sustain: - 2025: Total prize pool $1M USD. Divided by $40k living wage = sustains about 25 pro players. But $700k of that is just one tournament (EWC). Without EWC, you have $300k / $40k = enough to sustain 7 maybe 8 full-time pro players. - 2012: Total prize pool $4.2M USD. Adjusted for inflation (~50% since then), $26.5k living wage then. $4.2m divided by $26.5k = sustains around 158 players. Even removing the biggest tournament (WCS at $250k), you still have $3.95M / $26.5k (2012 dollars) = enough to sustain 149 full-time pro players.
In short, we're comparing 149 vs 7 (or 8) players, that's 4.7% of the number of pro-playes the prize money excluding world championship can sustain. Afterall, you can't just rely on 1 single bonus that you may or may not get. Like, would you take a job that pays a livable annual bonus depending on the company and on your performance, but you receive near $0 base salary. I know I wouldn't unless I'm already rich. (Granted, this perspective is more beneficial to my argument, so for sure I would be biased towards it)
So why did I mention Australia or the Netherlands before, let's do an Olympics comparison. The most recent Olympics being the 2024 Paris Olympics, it had 329 gold medals total. Multiply by 5.37% and you get 17.7 medals. Countries that won around 17.7 gold medals? Australia at (18) or France (17), but since they are the host countries, let's skip it, the Netherlands (15).
You're essentially arguing that winning the UK or Netherland national championship is just as competitive as winning Olympic gold because "the competition changed, not declined."
Let's also look at Aligulac (admittedly, not a great measurement of skills in SC2 for most of its life, but it is a datapoint), let's look at - List 402 (Latest, July 23, 2025): who's at #100+, FIGARO (#100), nanO (#101), Deca (#102), LunaSea (#103) it's honestly only at #131 at PiG do I even know the player, and I only know PiG because he's a caster, not because of his competition. - List 75 (first in 2013, January 9th, 2013): who's at #100+, monchi (#100), Dark (#101), Jim (#102), JYP (#103), I know so many players that are actually strong and active but are ranked lower like GanZi (#105), Special (#106), soO (#108), FanTaSy (#111), ByuL (#112), herO (#115)
Honestly, in - 2025, there are probably 10 players that are competitive (consistent with our prize pool point above) - 2013, there are like 200ish players that are competitive, I'm looking at around #200, we got Zest (#199), Bisu (#208), XY (#217), Cure (#222), Harstem (#228), True (#240), Rogue (#243), etc. (also consistent with our prize pool point above)
Your "stable meta" argument misses the point entirely. Yes, some 2013 players adapted and survived, some didn't. But they're now competing against 6 or 10 other serious players instead of 148 or 200 (1st number: prize pool sustain, 2nd number: Aligulac approximate). If you take the first number, today might be 4% as competitive as back in 2013. That's not evolution, that's the decline of competition and the scene.
Gotta go, so a quick answer must suffice atm: No, we are not comparing over 100 with 8, because these 100 were not top tier. A lot of these names only won big tournaments, because there were so many tournaments. If we had only 15 tournaments back then as well, the tier lists would have been much steeper too. Pros are also sustained by their teams, not only prize pools.
You probably didn't read the reasoning in my new GOAT list, but I will write a short summary how I arrived at my multipliers. I think it makes more sense to put numbers on this intangible discussion.
Buddy, don't reply now if you don't have time. Take the time to read and then reply, like I've done so with your previous posts. That's a bit disingenuous.
You can't just dismiss proposed numbers without providing counter-numbers of your own. It's easy to deny anything without providing evidence or arguments. This is textbook deflection tactics. Dismiss the evidence, offer no counter-data, then pivot to vague promises about "multipliers" and "GOAT lists". Please address the actual arguments or concede the point.
Your "only 15 tournaments" hypothetical proves nothing - we're comparing what actually happened, not imaginary scenarios.
"These 100 weren't top tier"? I literally listed Dark, soO, Zest, Bisu, Cure, Rogue at ranks #101-243 in 2013 List 75. These are great players in SC2, most with chances of winning major tournaments.
Now, look at EWC 2025, which is supposedly the top 18 players in the world, which I agree all the top players are there. There's Trigger and Cyan/Lancer, no disrespect to these guys, decent players, but not related to great at all, especially with Cyan being 32 and on the decline since awhile ago.
Now, if you want to say that they only got in because of region locks (American qualifiers and Asian qualifiers respectively), I agree. But this also further proves my point in that many regions simply don't have competitive players anymore. Back then, every region (Americas, EU, Asia, KR) all had actual competitive players.
Also, my point on 2025's List 402 #131 is PiG, who I only know as a caster. If you think 2013's depth wasn't "top tier," then today's scene is amateur hour.
The fundamental question remains: If today's scene is so competitive, why can 30+ year old military returnees immediately crack top-16? Why has no significant new talent emerged since MaxPax, who joined in 2019?
I don't think we have too much of a contention. I agree that the KeSPA period was more competitive in the sense that it had more players. But these were distributed over more tournaments. And not all of them were serious contenders. You talk about Bisu, Dark and Zest or Cure? What exactly did the mentioned players achieve around January 2013 that makes you call them great players? Do you think they were title contenders? If anything, they still had to mature and hit their peak a lot later (some even post KeSPA). I don't think that rank 50-200 were truly competitive all year round and even mostly for singular events. That is where my point about less tournaments links in as well. The players you mentioned had win rates of less than 60% in that time frame. WombaT said it perfectly: "Roger Federer ain’t worrying about them"
These more players were more separated, there were more Premier Tournaments to win... that meant players who wouldn't win if there were only 15 tournaments collected PT wins, which we wouldn't even know had the tournament count not been as high.
Plus GSL with its unforgiving group stages made favorites topple more often.
My biggest message to put out there is, that it isn't necessarily easier to win tournaments when there is a 87% win rate shark lurking around in comparison to one more round where you need to beat 55% win rate players. This is simply looking at the difficulty from the perspective of a 65% win rate player that can be considered a GOAT contender.
On July 27 2025 00:26 onPHYRE wrote: You guys realize Maru and Serral played in the same era right? Maru winning some random tournament a few years before Serral started dominating world SC2 does not mean they did not have 95-97% of their accomplishments at the same time. You can’t use it to detract from Serral without also having it detract from Maru. And no one prior to them (or since) should even be in the GOAT discussion.
I'd throw in INnoVation and Mvp, although both have weaknesses to their claim too.
On July 27 2025 00:26 onPHYRE wrote: You guys realize Maru and Serral played in the same era right? Maru winning some random tournament a few years before Serral started dominating world SC2 does not mean they did not have 95-97% of their accomplishments at the same time. You can’t use it to detract from Serral without also having it detract from Maru. And no one prior to them (or since) should even be in the GOAT discussion.
Same era? Where was serral when Maru won OSL in 2013 and dominating proleague? That “a few years ago” matters the most as it’s stated many times that the scene was at its most competitive in Kespa era, and Maru’s OSL and SSL(random tournaments? It’s literally star league and go check the bracket to see who’s playing in it) and his dominating proleague performance (if you don’t know how important proleague was in kespa era then no need to discuss more) in prime years are the best arguments for his GOAT claims.
And no one prior to them (or since) should even be in the GOAT discussion
Acting like the game only started in 2018 just because Serral achieved nothing from 2010–2017 is classic.
The GOAT discussion doesn’t center around Serral, it’s about comparing every player’s full resume to determine why they are the greatest of ALL TIME. MVP, Rain, and sOs are all on that list because of their legendary accomplishments in WoL and HotS, and Innovations and Maru’s HotS performance contribute to their resume too.
Even by your own logic, the debate revolves around Serral, yet from 2018–2022 Maru’s record (4 Code S titles + 1WESG) still outweighs 1Blizzcon. It wasn’t until after 2022 that Serral surpassed Maru in achievements and head-to-head. But as the scene keeps shrinking year after year, 2022–2025 is clearly weaker and less competitive compared to 2018–2022, even if Serral’s 2 IEM wins and 1 EWC are solid titles. The it comes to the logical question, if the scene remains or keeps shrinking and someone started to win 5 EWC in a row, is he the goat? If you think serral is the goat now because he has more wc titles, then that 5 EWC champion should be the goat. For me, I won’t call anyone dominating a weak era the greatest of all time, even it’s 10 EWC titles.
Part Deux I didn’t fully crunch the numbers, but I did some initial investigations re the question of competitiveness. Amongst the real top Kespa players I looked at, there have been some who’ve jumped up a bit, a couple significantly and most have remained with pretty stable win-rates between Kespa years and post-Kespa
Rogue was the real notable mover, somewhat to be expected given he was a solid pro in Kespa era, but only a championship contender afterwards.
In general, there wasn’t a huge amount of a shift, it was quite stable actually. If the competitive level was appreciably dropping, I’d have expected more movement from a few potential categories: 1. Top players who become more dominant as others drop off. 2. People who weren’t top players becoming contenders for the same reason. 3. Some change in Korean vs foreigner dynamics. In either direction, unless the two scenes are declining at the exact same rate.
I don’t observe a massive amount of these, incidentally on point 3 I’m excluding Serral, he’s the outlier we’re trying to place. We haven’t seen the ex-Kespa level drop sufficiently in say, players like Showtime or Heromarine doing much better. Zero shade on those guys, incidentally, I’m just using them as an example of a solid foreign pro who hasn’t shown much of an uptick even post-Kespa versus Koreans.
I’ll add the caveat that I’m not as rigorous as some at sticking things in a spreadsheet and showing my working, this stuff is ballpark, but some further observations/arguments: 1. Kespa players’ win rates are, with a few exceptions generally within a sub-5% range of improvement between Kespa and post-Kespa 2. Clem and Reynor’s international LAN records are within the range of the top Kespa players. 3. Serral is way, way out there in Serral land. His LAN win rates record(including WCS) from 2018 to now is 18% better than Clem and Reynor’s. Eighteen!
Why are Clem and Reynor’s careers way more similar to a top Korean champ contender now, and why did it take them a while to get to that level (more Clem), if the competitive level fell off a cliff?
I hope this isn’t disputed, I think it’s fair to say that the scene has stopped producing S tier players, and quite a while ago. I also think it’s fair to say Reynor and Clem are, as yet the last S-class players to break through. I hope nobody is going to argue that at the very least they’re two of, if not the mechanically fastest players of all time.
If the level had significantly dropped, one would expect a few things versus the increasingly old men. Reynor to be more consistent, Clem to make his international LAN breakthrough sooner. Obviously other factors also come into play.
But their overall profile is more similar to a top Korean than Serral. Similar win rates, can win big, but also can lose early.
On July 27 2025 04:52 WombaT wrote: Part Deux I didn’t fully crunch the numbers, but I did some initial investigations re the question of competitiveness. Amongst the real top Kespa players I looked at, there have been some who’ve jumped up a bit, a couple significantly and most have remained with pretty stable win-rates between Kespa years and post-Kespa
Rogue was the real notable mover, somewhat to be expected given he was a solid pro in Kespa era, but only a championship contender afterwards.
In general, there wasn’t a huge amount of a shift, it was quite stable actually. If the competitive level was appreciably dropping, I’d have expected more movement from a few potential categories: 1. Top players who become more dominant as others drop off. 2. People who weren’t top players becoming contenders for the same reason. 3. Some change in Korean vs foreigner dynamics. In either direction, unless the two scenes are declining at the exact same rate.
I don’t observe a massive amount of these, incidentally on point 3 I’m excluding Serral, he’s the outlier we’re trying to place. We haven’t seen the ex-Kespa level drop sufficiently in say, players like Showtime or Heromarine doing much better. Zero shade on those guys, incidentally, I’m just using them as an example of a solid foreign pro who hasn’t shown much of an uptick even post-Kespa versus Koreans.
I’ll add the caveat that I’m not as rigorous as some at sticking things in a spreadsheet and showing my working, this stuff is ballpark, but some further observations/arguments: 1. Kespa players’ win rates are, with a few exceptions generally within a sub-5% range of improvement between Kespa and post-Kespa 2. Clem and Reynor’s international LAN records are within the range of the top Kespa players. 3. Serral is way, way out there in Serral land. His LAN win rates record(including WCS) from 2018 to now is 18% better than Clem and Reynor’s. Eighteen!
Why are Clem and Reynor’s careers way more similar to a top Korean champ contender now, and why did it take them a while to get to that level (more Clem), if the competitive level fell off a cliff?
I hope this isn’t disputed, I think it’s fair to say that the scene has stopped producing S tier players, and quite a while ago. I also think it’s fair to say Reynor and Clem are, as yet the last S-class players to break through. I hope nobody is going to argue that at the very least they’re two of, if not the mechanically fastest players of all time.
If the level had significantly dropped, one would expect a few things versus the increasingly old men. Reynor to be more consistent, Clem to make his international LAN breakthrough sooner. Obviously other factors also come into play.
But their overall profile is more similar to a top Korean than Serral. Similar win rates, can win big, but also can lose early.
I found similar results in my article when looking at Neeb, Scarlett, Mana and Nerchio, hence I am not surprised. Many players who had good results in 2017 and following weren't even ripe in the KeSPA time, thus I would value 2017-2020 higher than 2010-2012.
As I said before: Old age drops some reflexes and speed. But SC2 is a game with an immensely high skill ceiling, where experience and knowledge is super rewarding. I remember that I learned LoL in a couple of months to reach diamond after the game has been going for 6 years. Back then I think that was around top 0.5% of EU... I would have NEVER been able to do something similar with SC2.
But it is a notion that goes against the narrative so I guess this opinion war won't be over anytime soon
On July 27 2025 04:52 WombaT wrote: Part Deux I didn’t fully crunch the numbers, but I did some initial investigations re the question of competitiveness. Amongst the real top Kespa players I looked at, there have been some who’ve jumped up a bit, a couple significantly and most have remained with pretty stable win-rates between Kespa years and post-Kespa
Rogue was the real notable mover, somewhat to be expected given he was a solid pro in Kespa era, but only a championship contender afterwards.
In general, there wasn’t a huge amount of a shift, it was quite stable actually. If the competitive level was appreciably dropping, I’d have expected more movement from a few potential categories: 1. Top players who become more dominant as others drop off. 2. People who weren’t top players becoming contenders for the same reason. 3. Some change in Korean vs foreigner dynamics. In either direction, unless the two scenes are declining at the exact same rate.
I don’t observe a massive amount of these, incidentally on point 3 I’m excluding Serral, he’s the outlier we’re trying to place. We haven’t seen the ex-Kespa level drop sufficiently in say, players like Showtime or Heromarine doing much better. Zero shade on those guys, incidentally, I’m just using them as an example of a solid foreign pro who hasn’t shown much of an uptick even post-Kespa versus Koreans.
I’ll add the caveat that I’m not as rigorous as some at sticking things in a spreadsheet and showing my working, this stuff is ballpark, but some further observations/arguments: 1. Kespa players’ win rates are, with a few exceptions generally within a sub-5% range of improvement between Kespa and post-Kespa 2. Clem and Reynor’s international LAN records are within the range of the top Kespa players. 3. Serral is way, way out there in Serral land. His LAN win rates record(including WCS) from 2018 to now is 18% better than Clem and Reynor’s. Eighteen!
Why are Clem and Reynor’s careers way more similar to a top Korean champ contender now, and why did it take them a while to get to that level (more Clem), if the competitive level fell off a cliff?
I hope this isn’t disputed, I think it’s fair to say that the scene has stopped producing S tier players, and quite a while ago. I also think it’s fair to say Reynor and Clem are, as yet the last S-class players to break through. I hope nobody is going to argue that at the very least they’re two of, if not the mechanically fastest players of all time.
If the level had significantly dropped, one would expect a few things versus the increasingly old men. Reynor to be more consistent, Clem to make his international LAN breakthrough sooner. Obviously other factors also come into play.
But their overall profile is more similar to a top Korean than Serral. Similar win rates, can win big, but also can lose early.
I found similar results in my article when looking at Neeb, Scarlett, Mana and Nerchio, hence I am not surprised. Many players who had good results in 2017 and following weren't even ripe in the KeSPA time, thus I would value 2017-2020 higher than 2010-2012.
As I said before: Old age drops some reflexes and speed. But SC2 is a game with an immensely high skill ceiling, where experience and knowledge is super rewarding. I remember that I learned LoL in a couple of months to reach diamond after the game has been going for 6 years. Back then I think that was around top 0.5% of EU... I would have NEVER been able to do something similar with SC2.
But it is a notion that goes against the narrative so I guess this opinion war won't be over anytime soon
Intriguingly as a mini-stat, Innovation almost passes the magic 70% overall match win rate in peak Kespa, he’s .5% off or so. He’s like 3% up on some notable rivals like Maru and Voldemort. But the complete opposite of Maru in that his winrate dropped in the post-Kespa era. Maru hits the magic 70 in post-Kespa times.
Mvp barely hits 70 in WoL alone, and Rain hit 70% in WoL and in his short but sweet career overall hit 69% which is pretty close.
No prizes for guessing who else resides (extremely comfortably) in that particular zone.
I hadn’t set out with investigations centring around 70% in mind, but some observations they emerged somewhat organically.
I’ll add the caveat that the spans are pretty arbitrary, but if you’re selecting for significant spans, there’s a handful of players in the history of the game who’ve ever managed to break 70% in an iteration of the game, or over a career span or at least a span not selected to coincide with a player peaking. So yes, one can pick say, 2024 Clem, for example but then you’re selecting for peaks and not troughs.
I’m not going to Aligulac every single player going, so I’ve missed a player, my bad. In all likelihood there is a brain fart somewhere.
Anyway, players with a 70% win rate across eras WoL - 2, MvP and Rain, basically right on 70% Kespa Era - 0, Innovation is barely just off the mark though Post-Kespa - 3, Maru, Serral and Dark. Maru’s reasonable comfortably past 70, Serral extremely and Dark scrapes it.
It’s a single arbitrary line, but I think it does show that both pre Kespa and post-Kespa are less competitive. Outside of Serral, other players overlap, and some have pushed past 70 when they either could, and couldn’t sustain it (as Mvp), or couldn’t hit it, but did subsequently. But it’s also not a massive switch where you ended up with a bunch hitting 70. Additionally, as I’d mentioned earlier, the players I looked at didn’t have particular big upswings in general in the post-Kespa era.
If we’re talking more general GOAT observations, and incidentally something I’ve said previously in various threads. Innovation and Dark are consistently underrated in such discussions, especially if someone is bringing out the eras argument. Inno > Maru in the Kespa era, not by a mile but he does. Dark > Rogue in Kespa era by a bigger distance than Rogue > Dark post-Kespa.
For the record I’m not personally saying that would be my ordering, but then I don’t completely disregard the post-Kespa era very selectively.
I need to get better at querying Aligulac haha, I find I’m having to do too much manual counting for certain specific things I’m looking for. Probably a skill issue, I’ll perhaps have to ask you for tips!
Unfortunately no tips... I counted most of my statistics manually, as I wrote in the article. For me this is like meditation... I am entirely dull :D But I keep it consistent. On weekends I have a time slot where I invest 1.5h into data research, before my girlfriend wakes up.
A couple of questions in regards to your methodology: 1. Did you use overall win rates or only versus Koreans? 2. If you only looked at Koreans, did you control for Serral?
Because I got mixed results when checking for best years or best 2 to 3 year periods. A lot of that was in KeSPA, either from players who started in WoL or ones that kept playing into LotV. I couldn't really tell that KeSPA meant a big drop in win rates across the board.
On July 27 2025 21:29 PremoBeats wrote: Unfortunately no tips... I counted most of my statistics manually, as I wrote in the article. For me this is like meditation... I am entirely dull :D But I keep it consistent. On weekends I have a time slot where I invest 1.5h into data research, before my girlfriend wakes up.
A couple of questions in regards to your methodology: 1. Did you use overall win rates or only versus Koreans? 2. If you only looked at Koreans, did you control for Serral?
Because I got mixed results when checking for best years or best 2 to 3 year periods. A lot of that was in KeSPA, either from players who started in WoL or ones that kept playing into LotV. I couldn't really tell that KeSPA meant a big drop in win rates across the board.
I was at a wedding where I knew nobody but my better half, so in a period of boredom was limited to my phone and notes app! Not super efficient for crunching.
I basically just went core offline winrates for the most part. Not ideal but, it was an initial investigation. Basically if I’d found huge swings I would have delved a bit deeper. My hypothesis was that if competitiveness had really declined, you’d see at least a handful of players who are still fully grinding jump up notably in win rates, which I didn’t generally see. Rogue notably did, from like 55% Kespa to 68% post, IIRC. An interesting pointless stat is the biggest jump from a Kespa player in the post-Kespa era, of 13% is still lower than the gap in win rate from many Kespa players to Serral’s
Essentially, especially as I’m looking at quite long periods, I was looking at hundreds of games for most. So say, a single offline tournament with an atypical field shouldn’t skew it so much.
Reynor and Clem’s numbers actually include foreign only tournaments. I left it in to show that two players considered world class still took time to develop. They’re ’merely’ at high 60s now even with years of region locked tournaments.
I’ll deep dive a bit on this I think because I do find the fundamental question interesting, the Aligulac API seems to allow for more specific queries than you can do on the site. I’m not good at maths or modelling though!
One thing that’s definitely a pain is Covid era StarCraft. Which I thought was actually great and, ping aside super high level. Maru was super good in this period for example, he’s got a bit of a reputation of not being great outside of Korea in general.
But if you filter for offline, obviously the online (but still Premier) stuff disappears. But if you enable online then the weekly cups come in.
I shall investigate though, I do sense a collaboration incoming at some point :p
Yeah, the issue about online cups is true. But if they are included in the KeSPA and the non-KeSPA periods I wouldn't mind them too much. They are more of an issue when comparing players who play them a lot (MaxPax, Reynor, Clem, herO, Classic) versus others that don't (Maru, Serral, etc.). Then the win rate comparisons massively lack context, as the online players boost their win rate in relation to the players who do not participate in them with lower skilled pros (Similar to the findings I had in regards to Serral versus the Koreans). Clem versus Serral's 2025 is a good example. Clem's win rate is around 5% higher than Serral's versus Koreans, but if you control for players like grape or LunaSea who aren't even in the top80, his win rate is actually a lot lower.
Funny that you mention it... when I looked at all the work I still have to do I thought about other people who might contribute. We could even fuse some data to look if they correlate. Definitely something to think about!
Don't know if you saw it beneath the wall of text in the other thread.. but here are the fun facts/quirks/statistics I talked about:
- He was on rank 1 on Aligulac for over 40% of the game’s existence. If you include rank two it is over 50%. - Serral is the only player to be listed as the best versus all three races multiple times at different points of time in his career and did so four times overall. - Only player to go over 3800 Aligulac rating - Only player to go over 3900 Aligulac rating - Serral is either rank 1 or 2 since the beginning of 2018. - Serral wasn’t overtaken by anyone on Aligulac since April 2023. - Longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 26 - 2nd longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 19 - 3rd longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 18 - Longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match: 47 - Highest yearly win rates ever achieved (only versus Koreans): 96,30%, 85,71%, 2x 85,11% - Highest career long match win rate, despite others having much shorter careers (only versus Koreans): 70,73 - Highest career long match win rate overall: 79,17% - Highest prime match win rate versus Koreans: 80,27% - Highest prime match win rate overall: 86,23% - Highest life time tournament win percentage: 38,10% - Even if you include all GSLs that Serral missed from 2018-2025 as a loss, his tournament win percentage is the highest in the history of the game. - When he goes into a tournament, he on average reaches the semi-finals (average place of 3,24) - Player with the most official and unofficial World Championships - Participated in 9 consecutive World Championships, won 3, has an average place of 4,39 and win rate of 33,33% - Most Premier Tournaments wins with top Korean participation by far (tied with Maru) - Most Premier Tournament wins overall by far - One of two players (Mvp being the other) to achieve the Triple Crown twice - Played his longest match against Trap, with an in game time of 3 hours 5 minutes and 38 seconds - Serral has a positive match record versus every pro he played regularly, including all relevant GOAT contenders from his time: Dark, Cure, GuMiho, herO, Solar, Maru, ByuN, Classic, Bunny, Stats, soO, INnoVation, Rogue, Trap, Zest, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax. Dark, Rogue and Clem are the only 3 players that achieved to put Serral below a 60% win rate versus them. Dark -10:6:1- 58,8% Cure -24:2:1- 88,9% GuMiho -11:4:0- 73,3% herO -10:3:0- 76,9% Solar -18:7:1- 69,2% Maru -19:4:2- 76,0% ByuN -14:6-0- 70,0% Classic -12:3-0- 80,0% Bunny -9:2:0- 81,8% Stats -9:4:0- 69,2% soO -8:4:0- 66,7% Innovation -16:8:0- 66,7% Rogue -8:7:0- 53,3% Trap -14:3:0- 82,4% Zest -10:5:0- 66,7% Reynor -34-15:0- 69,4% MaxPax -21:7:0- 75,0% Clem -32:23:0- 58,2%
On July 28 2025 17:08 PremoBeats wrote: Haha, pretty different weddings we had :D
Yeah, the issue about online cups is true. But if they are included in the KeSPA and the non-KeSPA periods I wouldn't mind them too much. They are more of an issue when comparing players who play them a lot (MaxPax, Reynor, Clem, herO, Classic) versus others that don't (Maru, Serral, etc.). Then the win rate comparisons massively lack context, as the online players boost their win rate in relation to the players who do not participate in them with lower skilled pros (Similar to the findings I had in regards to Serral versus the Koreans). Clem versus Serral's 2025 is a good example. Clem's win rate is around 5% higher than Serral's versus Koreans, but if you control for players like grape or LunaSea who aren't even in the top80, his win rate is actually a lot lower.
Funny that you mention it... when I looked at all the work I still have to do I thought about other people who might contribute. We could even fuse some data to look if they correlate. Definitely something to think about!
Don't know if you saw it beneath the wall of text in the other thread.. but here are the fun facts/quirks/statistics I talked about:
- He was on rank 1 on Aligulac for over 40% of the game’s existence. If you include rank two it is over 50%. - Serral is the only player to be listed as the best versus all three races multiple times at different points of time in his career and did so four times overall. - Only player to go over 3800 Aligulac rating - Only player to go over 3900 Aligulac rating - Serral is either rank 1 or 2 since the beginning of 2018. - Serral wasn’t overtaken by anyone on Aligulac since April 2023. - Longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 26 - 2nd longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 19 - 3rd longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match versus Koreans: 18 - Longest ever consecutive run of not losing a match: 47 - Highest yearly win rates ever achieved (only versus Koreans): 96,30%, 85,71%, 2x 85,11% - Highest career long match win rate, despite others having much shorter careers (only versus Koreans): 70,73 - Highest career long match win rate overall: 79,17% - Highest prime match win rate versus Koreans: 80,27% - Highest prime match win rate overall: 86,23% - Highest life time tournament win percentage: 38,10% - Even if you include all GSLs that Serral missed from 2018-2025 as a loss, his tournament win percentage is the highest in the history of the game. - When he goes into a tournament, he on average reaches the semi-finals (average place of 3,24) - Player with the most official and unofficial World Championships - Participated in 9 consecutive World Championships, won 3, has an average place of 4,39 and win rate of 33,33% - Most Premier Tournaments wins with top Korean participation by far (tied with Maru) - Most Premier Tournament wins overall by far - One of two players (Mvp being the other) to achieve the Triple Crown twice - Played his longest match against Trap, with an in game time of 3 hours 5 minutes and 38 seconds - Serral has a positive match record versus every pro he played regularly, including all relevant GOAT contenders from his time: Dark, Cure, GuMiho, herO, Solar, Maru, ByuN, Classic, Bunny, Stats, soO, INnoVation, Rogue, Trap, Zest, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax. Dark, Rogue and Clem are the only 3 players that achieved to put Serral below a 60% win rate versus them. Dark -10:6:1- 58,8% Cure -24:2:1- 88,9% GuMiho -11:4:0- 73,3% herO -10:3:0- 76,9% Solar -18:7:1- 69,2% Maru -19:4:2- 76,0% ByuN -14:6-0- 70,0% Classic -12:3-0- 80,0% Bunny -9:2:0- 81,8% Stats -9:4:0- 69,2% soO -8:4:0- 66,7% Innovation -16:8:0- 66,7% Rogue -8:7:0- 53,3% Trap -14:3:0- 82,4% Zest -10:5:0- 66,7% Reynor -34-15:0- 69,4% MaxPax -21:7:0- 75,0% Clem -32:23:0- 58,2%
Yeah for sure. The problem comes just in that period of Covid time where prestige Premiers had to be played online. Filtering just for offline events excludes a sizeable chunk of very competitive, serious events just because of those unique circumstances. Maru and Trap were notably very strong in that period to pick two examples.
I was just doing some initial eyeballing, I’d be interested to do something more rigorous on the ‘weak era’ question. Almost certainly pointless in terms of changing minds, especially given people’s propensity to count or discount results when it suits. So post-Kespa is super weak, but Maru’s GSL quad or Rogue’s WCs add to their GOAT claims, but it counts against someone like Serral. If we can’t even establish when the ‘weak era’ is, how do you analyse it?
I tend to agree with you that scene depth and top tier champ contenders exist in the same ecosystem, but are ultimately different things. If we look at peak Kespa, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t harder to win the big prizes consistently. On the flip side, you also don’t really see many names outside the current crop contending that much. There are fewer of them now, but it’s the same names. Peak Kespa was deeper and with more scary A or B tier players, and they could eliminate the big dogs, but they didn’t generally actually contend for titles. WoL was probably the only era this actually happened with any regularity.
Put another way, in terms of competitive depth, take Serral out of the equation at the recent EWC and who wins? I’ve genuinely got zero idea. Amongst the rest it really felt placement was down to narrow margins, who showed their best on the day, and bracket/matchup luck.
Cure had a fantastic tournament and looked absolutely locked in. Except he ran into Serral with his 10% win rate versus that opponent. Reynor looked super strong, but had narrow defeats to both Maru and Serral. Classic was in monster mode, Clem didn’t look like peak Clem, but good enough to potentially win if he dodged Classic’s PvT. Maru showed strong games. herO underperformed, Solar was pretty locked in and seemed to just tilt after being eliminated and show a bad series in the 3rd/4th playoff which I think wasn’t representative of his overall play. Zoun showed some good stuff too.
I think it’s crazy to argue that that this epoch is as competitive as some others, but I think Serral skews this perception by virtue of being Serral. If you take the win rate king, who doesn’t have a weak matchup, nor seemingly ever massively underperforms on the biggest stages out of the equation, and I think you see way more variance and volatility, consistent with SC2’s general history. Indeed, minus Serral there were probably more players who you could realistically expect to win the tournament than some other WCs from the past.
Merci for the various statistical and factoid nuggets!
How do you not lose a match in 47?! A big part of why I rate such things so highly, is simply that I didn’t think they were possible. The topic of ‘Will there be an SC2 Flash?’ used to crop up pretty frequently, and most folks thought no, at least not with comparable win rates.
I was amongst that cohort. I felt SC2 was in a middle zone of increased volatility given its mechanical difficulty and sheer speed, between BW and WC3.
My rationale was a double one, WC3 is slower, less BO dependent, so if you’re the better player overall, you can still generally show it. A bad engagement, or build disadvantage is a disadvantage may still put you behind, but you don’t necessarily get put massively behind as much. Conversely, because BW is so mechanically difficult, someone like Flash can still claw back disadvantages through purely better macro alone. Less so in SC2. Some players do have a mechanical advantage for sure, but most decent pros can max out and keep their money down to a similar level. An S class player will be better than a B class, obviously, but SC2’s macro is ‘easy’ enough that if there’s a game state where the S class player ends up 30/40 supply down and 20 workers down based on a bad build interaction, or a few errors it’s a gap they can close and come back, but not just from macroing better.
I’ll also add that it wasn’t that it wasn’t that I didn’t think it was possible in elite level play, I didn’t even think it possible in elite versus non-elite play either. Say S class versus a bunch of B class players. The B class players are still good enough, and SC2 ‘easy’ enough that they can win a set if they’ve a sufficient build choice advantage, they’re good enough to close that out, even if they won’t generally win in an even game state. Given Bo3 is the norm for earlier tournament stages, this means that worse players simply need to get a sufficiently big BO advantage in 2 out of 3 games.
He’s difficult to fully parse because he was something of a crazy maverick talent, but I think it’s interesting to look at someone like Stephano versus Serral. The gap between foreigners and Koreans was bigger, and only Stephano could really close it. So naturally one would assume he’d be super dominant against other foreigners. Except he wasn’t. Super strong obviously, but not that. This is no diss on Stephano, I’m just pointing out that even if you’re the better player overall, it’s really hard to be that much better that you don’t have the odd Bo3 where your builds don’t match up well versus your opponents, or you make a big irrecoverable error in a set.
To my knowledge the only players who have similarly dominant records in any comparable sense to Serral at any level are Special versus Latin Americans, and TIME/Oliveira against other Chinese players. Serral’s not just done this versus foreigners overall, he’s basically done it against the entire field
I recall a pretty funny exchange on one of Harstem’s shows, where he was asked if it was tilting playing Serral on ladder. To paraphrase, ‘I don’t like losing, but I only drop 4 MMR so it’s not too bad.’ When then asked how much he gets for a win, his response was ‘You know what? I don’t know.’
EPT
