Is boxer bad now? - Page 6

On June 27 2009 04:06 3clipse wrote:

Literally lol'd for about a minute.


Also, this. Boxer was a trailblazer who changed the way we think about the game today, but if we have to pick the player with the greatest all-around career in the history of sc progaming, it's clearly Nada. Many others are comparable in their breif prime, but he's outlasted EVERYONE in terms of durability and consistency.

On June 27 2009 04:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I would not say that he is bad, it is just that his play is outdated. I feel like players such as Boxer and Yellow never really got used to the macro play of modern times, hence the reason why they are performing so poorly. Unfortunately for Boxer fans, like with Yellow, I feel that Boxer will never recover from the state he is currently in for the rest of his progaming career.

On June 27 2009 06:36 geegee1 wrote:
didnt you guys saw his matches against ruby and hiya in 2007 boxer outplayed them by his brain. Have any other progammer did this? NO he's back in his old team now and practicing hard just wait for him to comeback

On June 27 2009 07:04 Make7UpYours wrote:
I thought I'd put my two cents in. Apologies in advance that this is so long; didn't think I'd get so carried away...

I haven't followed the scene at all since mid-2006 so I could be looking like a fool here, but reading some of these comments I can't help but feel people are forgetting (or never knew?) how dominating and influential Boxer was in his prime. Since I'm pulling everything from memory, I could be off, but Boxer was winning pretty much everything in 2001 and 2002. For the guy who said Boxer was never really good and consistent at all three matchups, he most definitely was good and consistent for those two years. It didn't matter who you put against Boxer he was expected to win. Sure there were guys who played him better than others (TheMarine and Reach come to mind), but no one bet against the Emperor in any game in any matchup. This guy was literally half a Nexus away from winning three consecutive OSL titles (That 3-2 classic against Garimto in SKY 2001 could easily have been a 3-0 rape considering Boxer handily won games 2 and 3), and it could have been 4 out of 5 had some things gone differently in the SKY 2002 finals against Reach. As "easy" as Reach's 3-1 victory looked and felt, I'm reminded that Reach caught a break in Game 2 on Bifrost when his zealot was able to kill Boxer's scv to prevent a bunker rush and he needed a series of miraculous defensive stops to win Game 4 on NFZ . There was an almost mythic aura of invincibility about Boxer back then that I've never really felt from any player since. This might be a strange anecdote to give as an example, but even after Reach demolished Boxer 3-0 in the KPGA 3rd Tour semis, few people gave Reach a chance in the SKY 2002 finals that came soon after. It didn't matter that Reach had won the previous series, this was Boxer, this was the Emperor, he is never the underdog (of course going undefeated in the tournament up to that point helped too). NaDa won 3 consecutive KPGA Tours and an OSL in 2002 and it still wasn't until the KT-KTF Premiere League finals in 2003 when he beat Boxer 3-1 that the torch was finally passed. Oh, and Boxer's streak of 17(?) consecutive months at #1 on the Kespa rankings only underlines his dominance in that period.

As for the comment that iloveoov arguably contributed more to the game than Boxer, unless iloveoov did some amazing shit in the last 3 years while I wasn't following, I have to disagree. Contributing to the game takes more than simply winning titles; you have to bring something new to the table that changes the way people play and the way people think about the game. iloveoov certainly did that, but not to the degree and force that Boxer did. Boxer revolutionized, not only the way Starcraft was played, but how it was thought about. He broke rules and he broke fundamental notions of what was and wasn't possible in the game. He not only single-handedly made an entire race competitively viable, but also completely changed the perception of that race from being the consensus "weakest" race to the "strongest". No one ever suggested Terran could being potentially imbalanced until after Boxer and the slew of Terran champions that ushered in his wake. And he did it all with a style and method that no one thought was possible. Even back then it was clear Boxer wasn't a "perfect" player. There were holes in his game. He didn't win the "right" way. But he was winning anyway. And it opened a lot of SC players' eyes. I remember watching my first Boxer replays, seeing him win games with a couple dropships and a handful of units, and thinking, "I can't believe he just did that." It wasn't that he won in a dominating fashion, it was that he won like that. That you could take on lurkers with just m&m and win. That you could use m&m against carriers and win. That you could lockdown 12 BCs and nuke them and win. And win doing all that against elite players, elite players with pride and championships/money on the line. I, and many other players, never saw the game the same way again. Suddenly the game was limitless. It had already been a deep strategy game before, but suddenly it was so much more than we could ever have imagined. Anything is possible. And I feel like there was a shift in thinking with that realization. Breaking a seemingly unbreakable strategy was no longer about asking for the next patch but looking for solutions in the game itself. There HAS to be a way to counter, we just haven't found it yet. That innovation has apparently lasted until today (I hear mech is now being used in TvZ?). Boxer opened the door and now people are constantly tweaking, adjusting and innovating. Even though the game moved away to a macro-oriented style I feel Boxer's fingerprints are still all over the game.

And a final point, I think more than impressing and astounding good players, what was arguably more important was that Boxer was impressing and astounding casual players and bringing them into the game. The types who played BGH or Fastest maps and never even considered playing on anything else. The types who played just for fun. Boxer's style could capture their imagination in a way that no other player could. Back then I could show a replay of NaDa sending a wave of tanks at a hapless Protoss player and even the most basic player could see and acknowledge that Nada was very, very good. But they'd be absolutely floored by what Boxer would do. They would want to see Boxer dodge lurker spines over and over again. Or dodge reaver scarabs by lifting units into his dropship. The difference was that Nada was what you'd "expect" a good player to look like. Especially for a fastest player, their mental image of domination is wave after wave of 200/200 armies - that's how the game works. Boxer threw that out the window. People didn't think the things he did were possible, at least in the context of a "real" game. And best of all it was easy to see. You didn't have to explain timing, build orders, map nuances, all you had to do was pick a replay and press play. Some of my friends would convert to playing competitive "non-money" maps after that. Later on they'd gain a greater understanding of the game, appreciate the nuances better, and pick new favorite players, but they almost all started after watching the Emperor do the "impossible".

On June 26 2009 04:29 RivetHead wrote:


I certaintly see it. Rabid fanboyism is annoying, especially when no one calls it out. As much as people say they like to watch boxer, win or lose, i certainly don't. Because I know I am going to see a subpar game. Its the same way I don't like to watch ACE proleague matches: I want to watch the game being played at the very top level. I like long games with back and forth action, tons of units, and high multitasking. In other words, i wanna watch bisu, flash, jaedong.

Boxer has done a great many things for professional starcraft, but unfortunately that is all in the past. Sure he might be able win games here and there due to his deep understanding of having played the game for so long professionally, but in straight up games he would most likely be dominated.

He still has aspects of the game that are really good, such has his small unit micro and strategic-outside the box thinking, but the game has developed beyond that. He would probably lose to anyone in kespa 30 in a bo5.

His true strength now lies in coaching and leadership.

PS. Response to post above, I'd take NaDa any day over boxer. NaDa was how i got into broodwar, so I can see how people might view boxer the same way, but NaDa is just better.

On June 27 2009 04:41 GHOSTCLAW wrote:


that's what people said about boxer after the first transition to the macro age "oh he'll never make it, he's too much of a micro based player". Granted, he still lost to oov, but...(there was a tfle, but I can't think of it at the moment.

On June 27 2009 10:14 Tom Phoenix wrote:


Perhaps so, but his current plays have been more remiscent to the metagame of the past then the metagame of the present, hence why he failed to qualify for any major event.

Let me put it this way. Boxer has been back to SKT1 since late last year. He has had enough time to practice, enough time to get used to the scene, enough time to prove himself....yet, he has not shown any results. Unlike JulyZerg, he did not adapt and then take his Golden Mouse. For all the praise Boxer gets for being so adaptable, his current performance is remiscent to how he performed in ACE. This shows that it was never ACE that held back his performance.

So if he is getting enough practice and has good practice partners, what else is there? The only remaining option is that his gameplay in general is faulty and not up to standards. Unless he changes that, he will never recover from the state he is currently in.

On June 27 2009 10:22 IdrA wrote:
you havent gotten to see his current performance
there have been 2? offline qualifiers since he got back, and he made group finals in at least one of them. theres a bunch of proleague caliber players who didnt make it that far.
as for proleague, hes on skt, and theyre in the playoff hunt, no one expected him to come back and outperform best bisu and fantasy.
ya, hes not gonna win another starleague, but calling boxer of all people unadaptive is just retarded. he made 2 starleague finals well after the macro revolution.

On June 27 2009 11:07 fearus wrote:
I think the other question every1 wants to know is - are we going to see Boxer play again???????

On June 27 2009 10:56 Tom Phoenix wrote:


I find the bolded part of your post interesting, especially when considering the rest of your reply. If he is not unadaptive, what is then keeping him from being a favourite again?

Poor gameplay? Even the biggest haters will agree that Boxer is a good player. Not enough experience? Boxer has more progaming experience then any other active progamer. Too old? Biologically, your reflex do not start to deteriorate until your late 30`s. Past his prime? Both Nada and JulyZerg have won titles even during periods when they were not considered dominant. Lacks winning material? Two major and two minor titles, coupled with several StarLeague finals say otherwise.

So if his gameplay is up to par to modern standards, what is then keeping him from being the great player he once was? What is then causing him to lose to players who people have never even heard of before, such as herb? Beacuse considering everything the above, there should be no problem for him to at least qualify for a major event, if not win it.