good idea, but keith kinda inactive. i havent seen him for a long while. even if he played well at evan's tourney still not enough to say hes better than so n so. we all know hes busy but 1 day smashing just not enough to say hes better than someone even if he beats them say a set. but if he was to show up at a couple of smashfest and hes doing well constantly then you can say keiths good.
people can usually tell if someones being dum and tries to lose. that means when people play smash they are average good, even if they're not doing their best, their style of playing won't change much. their best and average good wont have a big difference.
he might have beaten matt/evan couple times b4 i saw their matches, but if he was to play a round robin from 6-10 + sion + quinn over a spam of say 50 games, the result might be different. this is why theres smashfest, games stack up overtime and show how well people do against one another. in this case keith got one of the least in number of games played, so i would say evan and matt is better than he, for now.
I think this is utterly ridiculous. Keith is not kinda inactive. He's gone to every major tournament that I can think of in the last 4 months at least. He's not gone to a few smashfests, so what, he's inactive? And Tim isn't inactive, then? How about I play Keith all the time, and I can guarantee you he's top 10, does that mean nothing? If Ken came to one single tournament and did well and was living here, you wouldn't say "we all know hes busy but 1 day smashing just not enough to say hes better than someone even if he beats them say a set". Of course you would take his skill into consideration. Why not do the same for Keith?
Thanks for the +rep, Manuel. I plan to get a lot better throughout the days, so I guess I must practice.
You are ****.
There should just be 'inactive but good' and 'honourable mentions' sections beneath the actual rankings. Both would be unranked, but I think it would give a better indication of where people in this community are at. It just doesn't feel right being ranked so many points higher just because John, Manuel, and Eric aren't listed anymore, because I know they're still better than me. It also makes sense to give a mention to those who are actually very close to being on the list, but barely fell short.
I agree
1rd: tony
2th: manuel
3nd: ryan
4rd: adam
5th: me
6th: tiep
7th: evan
8th: sion
9th: matt
10th: daltsy
Manuels not allowed to quit so his staying on the PR.
>_o
Lol, and you are going to drag me to tournaments >.>? Or "well, if manuel were here, he probably would have come 2nd, brought it to last stock, so yeah he should stay at 2nd."
The problem I see with Sion though, is that he mains Link. I know his Falco is also good, but I think he focuses a lot more on Link. All I have to do to beat Link is pick Sheik and d-throw. I think he'll only go so far with Link before he has to switch mains.
This is ridiculous logic. No one is placing him above you, though I personally think he gives anyone below Adam a run for their money. His link *****.
Most of our names are engraved on that PR forever, like a stonehenge *****!!
:O
What ridiculous discussion is taking place. If my opinion matters:
1) Tony
2) Adam
3) Ryan
4) Roby
5) Tiep
6) Evan
7) Sion
8) Daltsy
9) Keith
10) Matt/Nathan
And of course, honourable mentions.
And of course, inactive rapers.