| |
BGonline.org Forums
I almost never say anything about Giants, but... agree and some other points...
Posted By: Albert Steg In Response To: I almost never say anything about Giants, but... agree and some other points... (Phil Simborg)
Date: Friday, 4 December 2015, at 3:57 p.m.
Given the ability to quantify playing strength by an objective-measure -- PR rating -- and the existence of annual Tournament results like the ABT ratings etc. that show who's playing often and successfully, it makes sense that the Giants list might seek to capture something somewhat different (and maybe something different than it did 20 years ago).
"Giants" doesn't suggest a purely quantitative measure. It asks "Who are the players who walk tallest in our midst?" (Giants walk among us!) It doesn't even specify Tournament activity.
A "Giant" should be hard to miss. People are drawn to watch their matches, join their chouette, study their play. People might ask if they will be at an event -- and if so, more people might be drawn to go, too. Is personality is a valid criterion? -- since the ballot doesn't say otherwise, people are free to weigh that or not. "Best Players" to some might be a pure matter of PR, and they can vote that way. I think it makes it a more meaningful and interesting list if personality / style / Presence / general regard is part of it.
A 'Giant' should be a great player -- but if someone wants to take the schoolteacher approach that the "Best" players are those who show the best sportsmanship regardless of skill, they are free to vote that way -- taken in aggregate, the few who might take this approach probably wouldn't affect the outcome significantly. But maybe a couple of good sports will get a small bump over the soreheads. Not a bad thing.
Giants should be the ones you most want to play like, and the ones you most want to show up.
Albert
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.