| |
BGonline.org Forums
I almost never say anything about Giants, but... agree and some other points...
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: I almost never say anything about Giants, but... (neilkaz)
Date: Thursday, 3 December 2015, at 2:36 p.m.
I agree completely with Neil. If there was no list on the back, the first thing I would do is look at the previous results to make sure I don't miss anyone. It is not very likely that one of my top choices would not be on the previous 32 list.
It would not take me long to figure out my top 15 or so, but after that, I believe even someone who really knows most of the players well is just making blind guesses as to who the rest of the giants should be. We simply don't have enough information about players who are not at the very top of the list...most simply don't play in enough events around the world for us to appreciate their skill. I have no doubt there are Iranian and other players that I have never heard of that are much better than players I typically vote for.
The biggest problem I have with the Giant list, and I know many others have this same problem, is the lack of a clear list of criteria or qualifications for the voting. And I know that the creators of the list intentionally do not want to make it more specific, but it sure makes it hard.
For example, just how much should a player be playing to be considered active and entitled to be on the list? Everyone knows great players who rarely or ever play in tournaments (Gus, Sander, Svobo, Grandell, etc.)...should they get a vote? What about a great player who only plays in a few tournaments (like Senk, Magriel)? Should I put them on my list somewhere? Where should I put Falafel, who I know is still one of the best in the world but doesn't play in many tournaments lately?
How much should I weigh tournament results? Akiko has had amazing results and deserves to be high on the list, but I know her PR's don't compare to players like Petko and Michy and MCG and Wachtel and Weaver and Sax and Russell and O'Hagan and others.
Also, other factors such as good sportsmanship and contribution to the game are, I have been told, supposed to be considered. I certainly don't want to see someone who is a cheater or bad actor on the Giant list, but how much should that count?
Now we have MBAB and recorded matches which clearly show a players skill. There are players with very low PR's that rarely play in any live tournaments...where should they be on my list?
These are all very subjective and poorly-defined aspects of the Giant voting, and of course, all of this is why we all know that the list clearly is not a list of strictly the best by skill. Certainly the top of the list seems to always have truly great players who probably are at least close to the best, if not the best, but after the top 10 or so, and certainly when you get past the top 32, it is not all about skill at all, as many people on that list (including myself) are not there just because of pure backgammon playing skill.
So we have a very nebulous approach that each voter must determine on his own, and I guess that as long as we recognize this list for what it is...strictly a subjective opinion of the players based on each individual's definition of who deserves to be called a "giant," that's fine.
But recognizing that this is not a well-defined designation, it is then not completely accurate for people to insist that players with low PR's who make the BMAB or other lists are necessarily entitled to be included on the Giant list or even high on the list.
Bottom line, I will vote for players who I believe are great players; who come to many events to test and prove their skill; who have had good results; and I will not vote for people who do not demonstrate good sportsmanship or say and do things that I believe hurts the game or growth of the game. And for people like Mochy, who not only play great, but share their skills and promote the game in their own country and elsewhere, I will place them even higher on my list. In fact, I have no problem saying he is at the top of my list, as in the past many others have shared their views on this forum.
Great players like Neil, Falafel, Stick and others who have always been at or near the top of my list, I am dropping because of their lack of play, and players like Marty Storer, Joe Russell and Bill Robertie and others who have started playing more and proving how great they are because of their wins and their posted PR's will go much higher on my list. And players who I know are great, like Nack and Gus and Sander who hardly ever play or never play, go off my list. I believe the Giant list is supposed to recognize current players...it is not supposed to be a hall of fame or we would have to include Levermann and Oswald and many others who no longer play.
So that's my 4 cents for what it's worth. I am NOT telling others how to vote, I am simply sharing my thoughts, and I am also most interested in hearing others, as it might influence how I vote.
Bottom line, I think the Giants list is cool. It brings more attention to the game and it does help us create heroes and idols, and every game needs that to make it more exciting. And it rewards great players for their skill and good sportsmanship and overall contribution to the game.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.