|
On August 30 2011 01:44 OrchidThief wrote: This is uninteresting, because essentially you're trying to correlate nationality to success and not practice tradition to success. If you wanted any interesting data, then you should be looking at how much higher your chance of finishing well is with a rigid training environment, compared to a more loose one. I know it's not meant as such and with no malicious intentions, but essentially it's a sort of reverse racism.
It'd be interesting weighing specific training amounts/patterns to MLG performance. As in Bomber trains X number of hours per day and so on, and compare it to how much Kiwikaki, Naniwa, IdrA or whoever does.
that's like denying Korea is the best country in the world !
|
On August 30 2011 01:41 broz0rs wrote: lol "white guys"
As funny as the term seems, I much prefer it over "foreigners." Problem is historically the best foreigners included many chineese or asian-americans, probably sc2 fans dont really remember but the TSL1 winner was an american called Jian Fei, and nowadays there are a tone who are either of korean chineese or japonese origin, + the actual chineese players, so white guys is even less correct, even if you count the hispanic people as white.
|
Even if they put all of the Koreans into 1-2 groups they'd still probably get top 6
|
On August 30 2011 01:48 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:41 broz0rs wrote: lol "white guys"
As funny as the term seems, I much prefer it over "foreigners." Problem is historically the best foreigners included many chineese or asian-americans, probably sc2 fans dont really remember but the TSL1 winner was an american called Jian Fei, and nowadays there are a tone who are either of korean chineese or japonese origin, + the actual chineese players, so white guys is even less correct, even if you count the hispanic people as white.
whats up with hispanic people ?
edit : btw what about "Korean-latent" people ? aka K-pop and korean idols / drama maniacs ?
|
This is like comparing the world to the USA basketball scene. U can send the top players in the NBA to any league in the world, and they'll dominate. The world can never catch up. Same with SC and koreans.
If nestea/MC/polt/MVP/losira/MMA/bomber... those guys keep coming.. everyone else is playing for 2nd. Huk is really good.. but he's no where compared to those guys. He is the best foreigner and his best placing is 7th?? Shows you there is no hope.
Only way to keep it competitive is not to invite the top tier players. I mean hero made it top 6.. and he can't even make it to code A
|
Well, the fact that the W/L ratio for Koreans is dropping progressively as each MLG passes can also be attributed to the larger number of Koreans competing each time Id also be interested to see what the statistics would be if you took out the Koreans on foreign teams (HerO, Puma, Rain)
|
On August 30 2011 01:33 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:25 positron. wrote:On August 30 2011 01:15 jj33 wrote:On August 30 2011 01:13 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 30 2011 01:09 jj33 wrote: Nice work. But you say you count Koreans as of Korean descent and living in Korea.
Using that criteria, you are being inconsistent. You count select as a foreigner just because he lives in America, but you still count huk as a foreigner when he's living in korea.
either you count select as a korean and huk foreigner or count huk as a korean as well.
I don't agree with all these arbitrary rules, I view huk as a foreigner and select as a korean.
but I wanted to bring that up as your criteria isn't consistent.
Uhh...yes it is? He says they have to both be korean and living in korea. Neither Huk or Select fulfill both of those requirements... No it's not. He's saying you have to be Korean descent and living in korea to be considered korean. yet he counts select as a foreigner, even though he is a Korean citizen. Huk is a Canadian citizen I believe and he trains in korea and lives there currently, then he should be considered a korean by his criteria. Do you understand what AND means? He made it clear that to him Korean must be of Korean descent and living in Korea. Huk is not Korean and Select is not living in Korea. Isn't Rain living in the US? The point is the criteria doesn't make much sense. Why must it be both of them? Are you comparing if the scene is stronger in Korea? If so, why not using everyone that is practicing over there? Or are you comparing if koreans are genetically superior? If so, why not counting all koreans? I can't understand the reasoning besides that criteria, except maybe to avoid the discussion that would follow because people just can't seem to agree on it. I am not saying I agree with the criteria. It's just some guy can't wrap his head around the fact why OP doesn't consider Huk and Select Korean while OP stated his criteria clearly in the post. Whether that criteria makes sense or not I don't have an opinion.
|
I don't think the best foreigner will place higher than the worst invited korean this season.
|
On August 30 2011 01:52 decaf wrote: I don't think the best foreigner will place higher than the worst invited korean this season.
didn't it already happen because sjow elminated rain ?
|
On August 30 2011 01:52 positron. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:33 SKC wrote:On August 30 2011 01:25 positron. wrote:On August 30 2011 01:15 jj33 wrote:On August 30 2011 01:13 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 30 2011 01:09 jj33 wrote: Nice work. But you say you count Koreans as of Korean descent and living in Korea.
Using that criteria, you are being inconsistent. You count select as a foreigner just because he lives in America, but you still count huk as a foreigner when he's living in korea.
either you count select as a korean and huk foreigner or count huk as a korean as well.
I don't agree with all these arbitrary rules, I view huk as a foreigner and select as a korean.
but I wanted to bring that up as your criteria isn't consistent.
Uhh...yes it is? He says they have to both be korean and living in korea. Neither Huk or Select fulfill both of those requirements... No it's not. He's saying you have to be Korean descent and living in korea to be considered korean. yet he counts select as a foreigner, even though he is a Korean citizen. Huk is a Canadian citizen I believe and he trains in korea and lives there currently, then he should be considered a korean by his criteria. Do you understand what AND means? He made it clear that to him Korean must be of Korean descent and living in Korea. Huk is not Korean and Select is not living in Korea. Isn't Rain living in the US? The point is the criteria doesn't make much sense. Why must it be both of them? Are you comparing if the scene is stronger in Korea? If so, why not using everyone that is practicing over there? Or are you comparing if koreans are genetically superior? If so, why not counting all koreans? I can't understand the reasoning besides that criteria, except maybe to avoid the discussion that would follow because people just can't seem to agree on it. I am not saying I agree with the criteria. It's just some guy can't wrap his head around the fact why OP doesn't consider Huk and Select Korean while OP stated his criteria clearly in the post. Whether that criteria makes sense or not I don't have an opinion.
i like how people fight over how if huk is korean, but not haypro, and how select is korean, but not moonan
|
Clearly trickster needs to be invited to every MLG so the foreigners dont become too depressed. His fail makes sense too because of talk that trickster practices more like americans than koreans, goofing off and boozing as much as he practices. But hey, maybe he benches 200 pounds too.
|
On August 30 2011 01:55 darkest44 wrote: Clearly trickster needs to be invited to every MLG so the foreigners dont become too depressed. Makes sense too because of talk that trickster practices more like americans than koreans, goofing off and boozing as much as he practices.
still boozing soju and beers are two entirely different things
|
On August 30 2011 01:23 CptGrackSparrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:22 farnham wrote: why is select a foreigner when rain is considered a korean ?
we should just go with nationalities. its a objective and easy criteria in comparison to those other criterias like team (fxo is a foreign team. is fxosc or fxoleenock foreigner now ? what about liquid hero or eg puma ?) or place of practice (huk and jinro are practicing in korea. are they koreans ?) Simple answer: Select does not live and train in Korea, Rain does. Really simple answer: It's my criteria. I choose players how I want. Rain lives in New York and trains there now
|
On August 30 2011 01:52 positron. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:33 SKC wrote:On August 30 2011 01:25 positron. wrote:On August 30 2011 01:15 jj33 wrote:On August 30 2011 01:13 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 30 2011 01:09 jj33 wrote: Nice work. But you say you count Koreans as of Korean descent and living in Korea.
Using that criteria, you are being inconsistent. You count select as a foreigner just because he lives in America, but you still count huk as a foreigner when he's living in korea.
either you count select as a korean and huk foreigner or count huk as a korean as well.
I don't agree with all these arbitrary rules, I view huk as a foreigner and select as a korean.
but I wanted to bring that up as your criteria isn't consistent.
Uhh...yes it is? He says they have to both be korean and living in korea. Neither Huk or Select fulfill both of those requirements... No it's not. He's saying you have to be Korean descent and living in korea to be considered korean. yet he counts select as a foreigner, even though he is a Korean citizen. Huk is a Canadian citizen I believe and he trains in korea and lives there currently, then he should be considered a korean by his criteria. Do you understand what AND means? He made it clear that to him Korean must be of Korean descent and living in Korea. Huk is not Korean and Select is not living in Korea. Isn't Rain living in the US? The point is the criteria doesn't make much sense. Why must it be both of them? Are you comparing if the scene is stronger in Korea? If so, why not using everyone that is practicing over there? Or are you comparing if koreans are genetically superior? If so, why not counting all koreans? I can't understand the reasoning besides that criteria, except maybe to avoid the discussion that would follow because people just can't seem to agree on it. I am not saying I agree with the criteria. It's just some guy can't wrap his head around the fact why OP doesn't consider Huk and Select Korean while OP stated his criteria clearly in the post. Whether that criteria makes sense or not I don't have an opinion.
If you're referring to me. Clearly I see what he stated, but that's the point. His criteria doesn't make sense and is a double standard. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.
|
On August 30 2011 01:55 darkest44 wrote: Clearly trickster needs to be invited to every MLG so the foreigners dont become too depressed. His fail makes sense too because of talk that trickster practices more like americans than koreans, goofing off and boozing as much as he practices. i am amazed how badly he played again foreigners but
trickster showed very brilliant games against DRG and Hero
|
On August 30 2011 01:53 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:52 decaf wrote: I don't think the best foreigner will place higher than the worst invited korean this season. didn't it already happen because sjow elminated rain ?
Rain was not invited IIRC. According to the OP's criteria (but not his post, surprisingly), Rain is not even among the koreans. I believe the worst performance from invited koreans was from Trickster, so it has already happened.
|
The data in the OP is definitely not 100% correct. Moon didn't lose to Huk in Columbus. Huk wasn't even there. Maybe you should check the data again.
|
All this nationality talk is just retarded. We should be comparing other things like teams and the actual player. Ranking them according to skill. Not just saying foreigner or koreans. Its so stupid. Who cares if they are korean or foreign. Its not plastered on their shirts. Sponsors don't care where you are from. Practice doesn't either. Why should we?
|
On August 30 2011 01:58 jj33 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:52 positron. wrote:On August 30 2011 01:33 SKC wrote:On August 30 2011 01:25 positron. wrote:On August 30 2011 01:15 jj33 wrote:On August 30 2011 01:13 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 30 2011 01:09 jj33 wrote: Nice work. But you say you count Koreans as of Korean descent and living in Korea.
Using that criteria, you are being inconsistent. You count select as a foreigner just because he lives in America, but you still count huk as a foreigner when he's living in korea.
either you count select as a korean and huk foreigner or count huk as a korean as well.
I don't agree with all these arbitrary rules, I view huk as a foreigner and select as a korean.
but I wanted to bring that up as your criteria isn't consistent.
Uhh...yes it is? He says they have to both be korean and living in korea. Neither Huk or Select fulfill both of those requirements... No it's not. He's saying you have to be Korean descent and living in korea to be considered korean. yet he counts select as a foreigner, even though he is a Korean citizen. Huk is a Canadian citizen I believe and he trains in korea and lives there currently, then he should be considered a korean by his criteria. Do you understand what AND means? He made it clear that to him Korean must be of Korean descent and living in Korea. Huk is not Korean and Select is not living in Korea. Isn't Rain living in the US? The point is the criteria doesn't make much sense. Why must it be both of them? Are you comparing if the scene is stronger in Korea? If so, why not using everyone that is practicing over there? Or are you comparing if koreans are genetically superior? If so, why not counting all koreans? I can't understand the reasoning besides that criteria, except maybe to avoid the discussion that would follow because people just can't seem to agree on it. I am not saying I agree with the criteria. It's just some guy can't wrap his head around the fact why OP doesn't consider Huk and Select Korean while OP stated his criteria clearly in the post. Whether that criteria makes sense or not I don't have an opinion. If you're referring to me. Clearly I see what he stated, but that's the point. His criteria doesn't make sense and is a double standard. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.
HE is defining the criteria. Whether you disagree with the criteria or not doesn't fucking matter. What YOU don't seem to understand is by HIS definition, both Huk and Select are considered foreigners. I would agree with him.
Secondly, it isn't a double standard if you consider over half of Huk's starcraft career was not spent in korea, while someone like Rain just BARELY left, and clearly still has atleast 95% of his career reflected from korean training, while being of korean descent.
|
On August 30 2011 01:59 Paragleiber wrote: The data in the OP is definitely not 100% correct. Moon didn't lose to Huk in Columbus. Huk wasn't even there. Maybe you should check the data again.
Neither was Rain as a returning player in Anaheim and put into pool play. He came from the open bracket.
|
|
|
|