And what if it’s a match video from a tournament? WHAT THEN? OR IS THAT A PARADOX? 
Wrong wrong wrong.
Winning does not necessarily mean you are better, especially when the skill level is really high for both players. From observing a match(whether it’s a video or in person), you can determine many things about a player’s knowledge, execution, tendencies, etc. The more videos of that same player, the more accurate your observations would be (as some videos can be misleading, of course).
This is so common sense, why are you stuck on this.
From a tournament yes that holds up if it’s vs. the people that are in question…
Bottom line is you can’t say XYZ would beat XX based off just match videos if they havent played each other. They gotta play each other in person to rule everything out.
That is true, look at dave sirlin as a example. He has poor execution and doesn’t go for flashy combo’s in his matches. There are more"appealing SF2 players online that have more flash, by pure observation u would assume the generic online players are better then sirlin.
I wouldn’t say Sirlin has “poor execution”. And I don’t think most people find players appealing on execution and combos alone.
those are called “forms of play”
thx for the positive rep back guys…
talking about pakistani players being defensive …i think most south asian play style is usually a defensive offense type of gameplay… meaning rushing down with breaks and pausing to be both a little safer and to confuse the opponent… i don’t speak for everyone but i left my back home Bangladesh in 2000… and even though i didn’t really play any fighting games more than at a casual level …that’s what i remember from most top players in the matches in kof 97, 98 & 99…
I think you guys just have different definitions of “better”.
Emil seems like he’s talking about some theoretical definition of skill. “Who is technically the best at the game?”. This is a definition where things like pressure from the crowd and other psychological factors are “distractions”, and it would be better to “test” your skill in an environment as free from these things as possible.
It makes me think of how people talk about a hypothetical Tyson vs. Ali match, and running computer simulations to see how it would work out, etc.
DG talks more about actual results. The winner on the day of the tournament is the better player… on that day. Consistent tournament wins means a better player overall. It doesnt matter if you choked from the pressure, got distracted by the crowd, was sleep-deprived from travel, had an injured hand, wasnt used to the joysticks used, etc. To DG, those things are part of being a player and how you deal with them is part of your skill.
Whereas to Emil, the presence of those factors means that it’s harder to judge a player’s “true skill” since there’s all this other BS in the way.
So maybe it’s better just to agree to disagree? Although I think Emil is pushing it a bit when he claims to be the only person in the world who can judge FG skill from watching videos, when every other player claims you can’t.
I guess, Emil: Are there KOF player on SRK who you respect for their skill and knowledge? Do they agree with you that it’s possible to judge player skill accurately from videos? If they don’t agree with you, what makes you so special?
Lol? i never claimed that…and almost everyone makes judgements from watching videos/live matches of people playing. There’s no reason why you generally would not be able to judge skill from videos, as long as you actually understand the game you are watching.
And no, when I talked about skill, I wasn’t necessarily excluding “distractions”, though I agree they shouldn’t be factored in when deciding who is better at a particular game. Matches have “random factors” in them - even if you are better than your opponent, it is possible that the opponent can get you into a situation where you are very disadvantaged, and thus still end up beating a better player - or, they can just happen to make one good choice in which the reward was very good. Winning does not necessarily make you a better player - analysis of what is happening through the match is necessary.
Wow, an intelligent post in this thread, who would’ve expected that. Someone rep this guy.
FWIW, I agree that you can judge player skill from videos, it’s just that the accuracy of your judgement will vary depending on the number of matches watched, and the variety of opponents/characters/playstyles versed.
I have agreed to disagree with him…it’s called the ignore function. If he wants to continue talking to other people that’s fine, but I’ll have no part of it, hence I don’t want them dragging his replies over as responses to me. To me it’s not what you say but how you say it. You can say everything Emil said just how you said it and it doesn’t piss off or offend anyone. The arrogance Emil brings in his posts as you brought out at the end of yours is why this discussion cannot continue (Hence he’s on ignore).
EVO- Yeah because from what I hear Ugushi in 2002 (#1 in Japan) looks like just a regular guy how he plays, he’s just super super safe.
In other words Hammer is “prettier” or his style is flashier by far, but that still doesn’t mean Ugushi isn’t better than Hammer.
Well of course, that’s why I mentioned that in another post. One match can be misleading (though can still give you a good idea especially if you see that they made very good choices). The more matches, the better the judgement.
In fact…I’d even say that you can get a better judgement from watching that player play multiple other players, then him playing you. The reason being, if you judge from the matches against yourself, he’s only playing one person.
Dark Geese, the “arrogance” I bring in my post is completely because of the nonsense you keep posting and the measures you take to attempt to win arguments.
somebody should have closed this thread with this post
Me and Dark Geese had an argument about XI cause I was saying ET is the best at KOF XI cause after his lost to Kaoru at SBO ET’s beaten Kaoru at every other major they faced each other at and this dude was talking crazy shit like like seeking a lawyers advise for our arguments. WTF this dude is nutz
Unfortunately the mods cease to exist in this section…
No it’s not nuts…it’s about what you actually have the evidence to prove…being the best in Asia is one thing…the world is another…and without solid proof of that you can’t prove it without a shadow of a doubt…it’s best to be in the middle ground about these things rather than be biased… because if you are biased it will show when your evidence and argument begins to fall apart.
I encourage education over ignorance and bias…Many biased people are ignorant sorry…they only go based off WHAT THEY KNOW…they do not take into account what they DO NOT KNOW. I take into account what I don’t know, thus I say the doors wide open. So yes saying someone is the best in the world without them having played even each countries top players is an ignorant argument.
Like what I was telling you on the XI thread I’m not biased. Like what I was saying ET is the best XI player on paper cause he’s proved it time and time again. It’s like Fedor he is the best heavyweight in the world on paper, but has he fought Randy Couture, Brock Lesner or Frank Mir no he has not, but because of his record and who he has beat and they all acknowledge that he is the best on paper. So that’s all I’m saying about ET being the best at XI on paper. Do I think he could be beat? Yes everybody is beatable.
Trust me I understand that completely. But I know people tote the “Best in the world” around too much when truth is they’d have to literally prove that like you say for that to be the case. The issue I have is since when have we all deemed SBO was the “World’s best tournament?”
By that token I could say Osmani is arguably the best KOF player in 2002 in the world no? Because he’s the best in Mexico right?
Thats the issue right there, we all deem it is the best tournament thus criteria for the best is based off that.
But I do get what you are saying, just like on PAPER Manny Pacquiao COULD arguably be the best boxer in the world…but is he? Thats too difficult to say because there are quite a few that would love to take him out…
The key qualifier I use when talking about best in the world or country is “Arguably”, then you are free to say that.
Because of the skill that is displayed by those players. Also a tournament like SBO holds more weight than say, a tournament in Mexico because Mexico tournaments generally do not have regional qualifiers like SBO does.
Agreed
I can see what “E” said without a doubt with SBO holding the edge over the tournaments in Mexico from that aspect, but that doesn’t make it the #1 tournament in the world correct? My thing is how can you say SBO is the #1 tournament in the world in all aspects? How can you be sure it’s for the “World Champion?”
It’s one thing to say SBO Champion and King of Eurasia, that’s fine, for that year, but once again World Champion is quite a stretch.
So in conclusion…if it applies to the countries invited, sure SBO holds weight over that, but it can’t apply to countries that aren’t even invited does that make any sense? Why don’t they have more countries battle for Qualifying spots in the Qualifiers like Mexico etc to determine “Who belongs”…
If they don’t even get the invitation then you can’t include them in regards to to the discussion of “Worlds best”