I think this misses the point of the Giant List
Posted By: phil simborg In Response To: Reduce the number of players people vote for to no more than 25 (neilkaz)
Date: Thursday, 10 April 2014, at 7:47 p.m.
In Response To: Reduce the number of players people vote for to no more than 25 (neilkaz)
If you only vote for a small number of people, then we are using the Giant voting as an attempt to rank the best players in the world. I believe the Giant voting can never do such a thing. It is too subjective. Most of us voting have not personally seen enough games and know enough about the very best players in the world to make an informed decision as to whether Mochy is better than Michy or MCG, or whether Neil should be ahead of Petko or Michy, etc. etc.
I believe the purpose of the Giants list is to give players a chance to vote for people they believe to be "amongst" the best players, in addition to other criteria that they believe is important to the game. For example, I intentionally don't vote for people I think are poor sports, and I am more likely to vote for people who help promote the game and share their knowledge and bring new players into the game....Mochy is a prime example. I am more likely to vote for someone who plays in a lot of tournaments and is more willing to show his skills to the world than someone like Sander or Gus or Wells, who I know are great players, but seldom compete.
So let's not try to use the Giants list to rank the best players....we can use PR and W/L statistics better to do that.
The Giants list is extremely interesting to "most" of us to see who made the top 32...which active players are most respected by other active, Open players. I am just as interested to see how is at the bottom of that list as who is at the top. It was also very interesting to see who made the top 64....these are people who might well be on the way up and on the way down, and again, that's fun and interesting to see. Limit the voting to 10 or 25 any dozens of people that might get some recognition for their skill might never be mentioned.
The fact that the list takes in a lot of names and people makes it far more interesting to most of the world. Neil, you have always been very near the top, and in my opinion, some years you even should have been at the top. So naturally you are looking at this from a very myopic perspective. 99 percent of us participating in the voting and interested in the voting are very interested in who made the top 32 and even who made the top 64.
As for the very top, we already know who is likely to be there, and whether you, Mochy, Falafel, MCG, or Michy makes No. 1 doesn't prove a damn thing to me about which one of you is really the best player, and I believe everyone else knows this too. That's not to say it isn't a great honor to be No. 1, and also 2, 3, 4, and 5 and so on, but we all know it's not an accurate depiction of who really is best. And the same is true for the next 5 or 10 on the list...they could all easily be interchangeable depending on who had a hot streak the past two years or who showed up at more tournaments and got to be known by more people. And of course, to some extent, it is a popularity contest.
If we only vote for the top 25 or top 10, I'm not even sure I would take the time to vote in the future....and I think many would feel the same way.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.