|
BGonline.org Forums
Giants list criteria
Posted By: Keene In Response To: Giants list criteria (Stick)
Date: Monday, 20 June 2016, at 8:53 p.m.
Saying you are aware of 'cheaters' is one thing, defining criteria for them is another, which clarifies what is and what is not a cheater. But, I was able to see 3 players on the 64 list that I have heard about, that didnt include you or Tobias. I suppose that says something about the game. Fair points that you make, but to call them out by name? Thats asking for a whole lotta mud to be slung around. We as a community dont need more mud. Just recently the whole TOC thing was enough mud, and really not reflective of the players, but more of the differing standards, and cultural differences and viewpoints that people have.
Just to weigh in on the general gist of this thread, I agree that there should be better criteria, and personally, I liked Bill's suggestion in the other thread, but I also think there has to be some magic, some aura of greatness that should surround the nominated players. Sure, playing a low PR contributes, but its the reputation, its the glitz thats associated that makes it a giants list. If it was just PR and nothing else, then the same players would be at the top year in year out, with very little change. There has to be some variance, or some magic required somewhere.
Also, addressing some other points in this thread, there has to be a base level of participation. Too many players are coasting on reputation alone. I will name some of those names: Paul Magriel, Gus Hansen, Nack Ballard - how many events did they enter in the last two years? There must be tournament success / participation - thats important. Just because I call them out as notables doesnt mean I dont respect their perceived skills and talents - just that they dont show at enough events.
K
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.