Best Players of All Time

[itsbme]

Delete this please. Double post.

 

[itsbme]

Interesting choices.

I picked Ken for Marth because although currently he's not the most dominate with him, he's one of the few that stuck with him through out his career, and other than some rare switches to Fox and Falcon, he toughed it out with Marth. If I had to choose someone else, PewPewU I would probably put in his place because he goes all Marth. I didn't pick M2k because although he's probably the best player that uses him, he uses Shiek so much that he's too much of a dual main for me, and I feel like he uses Sheik a lot more. Maybe i'm dumb?!

I picked NEO because he's the only one I followed. I never watched enough Sethlon to have an opinion of him.

I would've picked Hax, but he uses Fox a lot now. I was aiming for pure mains. I respect pure Falcon mains. They endure so much.

Let's just pick Mooninite for Kirby since he beat Crimsonblur with him this year. B)

Also, thanks for making me feel old. I have no idea who Qerb is. I'll have to look him up. Actually makes me want to revise my list. I love discovering someone new who's good at obscure characters.

 

[MrHazuki]

I'm almost disgusted by the lack of perception for the huge improvements in smash throughout the years. PP makes PC look like a toddler.

 

[birdy21]

mango used mario in doubles last week end and got first place.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

I didn't pick M2k because although he's probably the best player that uses him, he uses Shiek so much that he's too much of a dual main for me, and I feel like he uses Sheik a lot more. Maybe i'm dumb?!

I would've picked Hax, but he uses Fox a lot now. I was aiming for pure mains.

But you put M2K with Pichu?

 

[SwiftBass]

I'm almost disgusted by the lack of perception for the huge improvements in smash throughout the years. PP makes PC look like a toddler.

Im assuming in regards to falco play right? PP is ridiculous


Best Marth doe? M2K back then easy. Still one of the only ones who can play marth and take games off of the top guys with the character too.(even if he doesn't main him). That last game on stadium vs PP at Apex was pretty tight. The last kill he had on PP was incredible.

 

[<LyKos>]

I'm almost disgusted by the lack of perception for the huge improvements in smash throughout the years. PP makes PC look like a toddler.

This is a best players off all time list. PP may be far better than PC is right now, but this list is not exclusively about impact right now. For a best-of-all-time list, you cannot compare skill level between players who were dominant several years apart from each other. The game changes and progresses far too quickly for that even to be a legitimate argument.

What you can compare, however, is how certain players had a handle on the metagame at the time. Doing this makes for a much more even comparison.

Example: Mango held a several year-long reign over the game (beginning of '08 [roughly] through the middle of '10 [roughly]), just as Ken held a several year-long reign over the game from '03-'06. Both had reigns during several years of play. They're widely considered the top two of all time because of their reigns and how much they pushed and developed the game in their time, not because of their skill level right now.

I think making a list like this solely based upon who's on top right now is not only dumb, but insulting to the work of everyone in years past who made the game what it is today.

 

[MrHazuki]

This is a best players off all time list. PP may be far better than PC is right now, but this list is not exclusively about impact right now. For a best-of-all-time list, you cannot compare skill level between players who were dominant several years apart from each other. The game changes and progresses far too quickly for that even to be a legitimate argument.

What you can compare, however, is how certain players had a handle on the metagame at the time. Doing this makes for a much more even comparison.

Example: Mango held a several year-long reign over the game (beginning of '08 [roughly] through the middle of '10 [roughly]), just as Ken held a several year-long reign over the game from '03-'06. Both had reigns during several years of play. They're widely considered the top two of all time because of their reigns and how much they pushed and developed the game in their time, not because of their skill level right now.

I think making a list like this solely based upon who's on top right now is not only dumb, but insulting to the work of everyone in years past who made the game what it is today.

You did a fine job in explaining that, but my perspective is different.
Just because the times are different doesn't mean we get to dismiss the progress that has been made.
Why should GOAT mean "greatest of his/her time", and not "greatest of all time"?
Take Greco-Roman wrestling as an example: Aleksandr Karelin, GOAT, would beat anyone of today's elite when he was at his prime, regardless of the techniques and new styles that has entered their metagame.
Should Ken and Isai always be the GOATs just because they were ahead when so little had been discovered? If I search for the "best smasher ever" on YT, I don't want to see a match that's a disgrace to how the game is played today, just because everyone at that time were crap at the game. My argument is essentially that the title of GOAT should be timeless.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

If I search for the "best smasher ever" on YT, I don't want to see a match that's a disgrace to how the game is played today, just because everyone at that time were crap at the game. My argument is essentially that the title of GOAT should be timeless.

Good news: You don't need to see a match that's a disgrace to how smash is played today
Bad news: you see this instead

 

[X WaNtEd X]

This is a best players off all time list. PP may be far better than PC is right now, but this list is not exclusively about impact right now. For a best-of-all-time list, you cannot compare skill level between players who were dominant several years apart from each other. The game changes and progresses far too quickly for that even to be a legitimate argument.

What you can compare, however, is how certain players had a handle on the metagame at the time. Doing this makes for a much more even comparison.

Example: Mango held a several year-long reign over the game (beginning of '08 [roughly] through the middle of '10 [roughly]), just as Ken held a several year-long reign over the game from '03-'06. Both had reigns during several years of play. They're widely considered the top two of all time because of their reigns and how much they pushed and developed the game in their time, not because of their skill level right now.

I think making a list like this solely based upon who's on top right now is not only dumb, but insulting to the work of everyone in years past who made the game what it is today.

Yeah so here's what's wrong with that.

The op was clearly asking for the players that are the best of all time, NOT FOR THEIR TIME PERIOD. Everyone itt seems to think it's the latter, or has different criteria for who the best is. "Well he doesn't only main that character so he can't be the best at that character!"

If you want people to respect the efforts of the past, go make a thread asking for the top influential players/dominant players of their time. This isn't that thread.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

Interesting choices.

I picked Ken for Marth because although currently he's not the most dominate with him, he's one of the few that stuck with him through out his career, and other than some rare switches to Fox and Falcon, he toughed it out with Marth. If I had to choose someone else, PewPewU I would probably put in his place because he goes all Marth. I didn't pick M2k because although he's probably the best player that uses him, he uses Shiek so much that he's too much of a dual main for me, and I feel like he uses Sheik a lot more. Maybe i'm dumb?!

I picked NEO because he's the only one I followed. I never watched enough Sethlon to have an opinion of him.

I would've picked Hax, but he uses Fox a lot now. I was aiming for pure mains. I respect pure Falcon mains. They endure so much.

Let's just pick Mooninite for Kirby since he beat Crimsonblur with him this year. B)

Also, thanks for making me feel old. I have no idea who Qerb is. I'll have to look him up. Actually makes me want to revise my list. I love discovering someone new who's good at obscure characters.

I think a better title for your list would be "favorite players for each character". You have too many excuses for picking players that are obviously not the best at their respective character for that list to be even remotely objective in its intent.

 

[itsbme]

But you put M2K with Pichu?

I was joking about Pichu. But funny thing is he probably is.

Also wanted, I don't care if you don't like my list. You can call it my excuses or whatever you like. No one is going to agree 100% on lists like this. If we're talking pure results then my list of the best of all time fits that better.

Now, if the op meant the greatest current players, then yes I'd change my list. Off the top of my head:

1. Mango
2. Mew2King
3. DrPeePee
4. Armada
5. HBox
6. Hax
7. Shroomed
8. SFat
9. Wobbles
10. SilentWolf

 

[caLviN-1260]

I feel like Westballz is above Sfat and Silentwolf for sure

 

[X WaNtEd X]

I was joking about Pichu. But funny thing is he probably is.

Also wanted, I don't care if you don't like my list. You can call it my excuses or whatever you like. No one is going to agree 100% on lists like this. If we're talking pure results then my list of the best of all time fits that better.

Now, if the op meant the greatest current players, then yes I'd change my list. Off the top of my head:

1. Mango
2. Mew2King
3. DrPeePee
4. Armada
5. HBox
6. Hax
7. Shroomed
8. SFat
9. Wobbles
10. SilentWolf

But what makes a player "better" than another? Getting better results at their respective tournaments for their respective times? Or just being a better player in terms of raw skill regardless of results? Personally, I think it's the latter. And that's why the current top players embody what the top players of all time list would probably look like from a purely objective standpoint.

 

[Vixen]

"Of all time" implies, over the co

I think the being the "best" with a character is more about skill than tournament placings. That being said, J666 would absolutely decimate Chaos in a link ditto. And had he been around that time, he'd have insane tournament placings. I think that A Rookie might actually be better than Mango's Mario. Remember, Scropadorp is about 5 years old now. A Rookie has taken some heads within the last year that Scorp at his peak wouldn't be beating with Mario.

"of all time' also implies overall record, etc. I'm thinking of how well players did/placed over the course of history.

Character dittos do not show who is a better player. Trevyn actually outplaced Germ on several occasions during the mlg era. This was even during Germ's Falco stint when he wanted to play a high tier to increase his chances of winning.

Also I wasn't implying scorp. I was thinking more along the lines of green mario, brown mario, the cape, etc, who all had some extremely good placings during the mlg-era.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

"Of all time" implies, over the co


"of all time' also implies overall record, etc. I'm thinking of how well players did/placed over the course of history.

Character dittos do not show who is a better player. Trevyn actually outplaced Germ on several occasions during the mlg era. This was even during Germ's Falco stint when he wanted to play a high tier to increase his chances of winning.

Also I wasn't implying scorp. I was thinking more along the lines of green mario, brown mario, the cape, etc, who all had some extremely good placings during the mlg-era.

But how well people place just shows they were good at beating bad players and it's an unfair comparison because modern players have to go up against a much steeper level of competition on average. Instead, you should be asking "what if player x and player y played at the same time at their peak?" That's basically what the op was asking for and instead people modeled their lists your way and it just looks ridiculous.

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

But how well people place just shows they were good at beating bad players and it's an unfair comparison because modern players have to go up against a much steeper level of competition on average. Instead, you should be asking "what if player x and player y played at the same time at their peak?" That's basically what the op was asking for and instead people modeled their lists your way and it just looks ridiculous.

The only reason why using pure statistics/records/etc. is easier is because there's not a lot of room for debate: either x player has won y amount of times or he hasn't. When you start saying stuff like "but what about if x player played y player" there's a lot of variables for the outcome, it's much easier to just say "x player is better because he has more wins." Yes, the possibility that player x just beat a bunch of bad players is very plausible (see Wichita State, they were a seed 1 college for March Madness yet they really only played bad teams during the season), but that is often not the case.

Do I agree with this thinking? Not necessarily, but I can see why it's used

 

[X WaNtEd X]

The only reason why using pure statistics/records/etc. is easier is because there's not a lot of room for debate: either x player has won y amount of times or he hasn't. When you start saying stuff like "but what about if x player played y player" there's a lot of variables for the outcome, it's much easier to just say "x player is better because he has more wins." Yes, the possibility that player x just beat a bunch of bad players is very plausible (see Wichita State, they were a seed 1 college for March Madness yet they really only played bad teams during the season), but that is often not the case.

Do I agree with this thinking? Not necessarily, but I can see why it's used

I just can't see how people can be so ignorant to how superior the modern players are. Like guys, are you even playing the game? People are just so much better these days. It's insane. I'm not even that great and am pretty confident I would body 2005 Ken.

 

[Joe73191]

The idea of who is the best with a specific character is interesting. I'd like to give this a shot. I'm these choosing 11 characters because the first 7 are probably the 7 best characters in the game. (in no particular order) The next 4 have been used by notable players at very high level play.

Marth - I'm gonna say Dr. Peepee is probably the best Marth with Ken having the potential to being the best Marth because of his long term proficiency. However I will say that Mew2king could beat either in a Marth ditto because he is the best Marth ditto player.

Shiek - M2K for best Shiek right now with props going to KoreanDJ for potential best Shiek. However again I would give the Shiek ditto to M2K.

Fox - M2K for best Fox, Mango for second best Fox

Falco - Dr. Peepee best Falco, Mango second best Falco.

Captain Falcon - Mango best Captain Falcon

Jigglypuff - Hungrybox best Jigglypuff

Peach - Armada best Peach


Samus - HuGs best Samus

Ice Climbers - Fly Amanita for most skilled IC player. Wobbles for best results with IC. ChuDat for IC pioneer.

Young Link - Armada best Young Link

Ness - Hungrybox best Ness

 

[SpiderJerusalem]

I just can't see how people can be so ignorant to how superior the modern players are. Like guys, are you even playing the game? People are just so much better these days. It's insane. I'm not even that great and am pretty confident I would body 2005 Ken.

I know, I agree

 

[itsbme]

I just can't see how people can be so ignorant to how superior the modern players are. Like guys, are you even playing the game? People are just so much better these days. It's insane. I'm not even that great and am pretty confident I would body 2005 Ken.

you probably wouldnt. Kens fundamentals were good even then. If youre just an average player then you'd probably crack and lack the reflexes to respond right and fast enough. The question I have is would you beat ken now? Edit: also, I think a misconception is that because the metagame has changed, that everyone now is automatically better than how everyone was in the past. Someone like m2k adapted and got better through practice, and he had the ability to get better and had the ability to apply the things he learned, plus he's practiced his winning ways for about 10 years. 10 freaking years deliberately to get good. The average player now has access to learn advances tactics, but doesn't mean they will apply them correctly. Then there's the human element, people don't all handle pressure well, and we've all experienced the ones that lose their cool when they start losing control in a game. There are other factors than just the mechanics of the game, there's the human element.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

you probably wouldnt. Kens fundamentals were good even then. If youre just an average player then you'd probably crack and lack the reflexes to respond right and fast enough. The question I have is would you beat ken now?

No because now ken is better than he ever was and is probably within the top 70 players

 

[strawhats]

I think the being the "best" with a character is more about skill than tournament placings. That being said, J666 would absolutely decimate Chaos in a link ditto. And had he been around that time, he'd have insane tournament placings. I think that A Rookie might actually be better than Mango's Mario. Remember, Scropadorp is about 5 years old now. A Rookie has taken some heads within the last year that Scorp at his peak wouldn't be beating with Mario.

No...love A Rookie's mario but his mario is not as good as mango's mario. MaNg0 during his scorpion master phase took games off of armada's peach, m2k's marth and sheik, beat hbox's puff and terrorized most of Cali/some of AZ (beating people like SS, MacD, lucky, shroomed, zhu, hugs, tai)

 

[Zekk]

1: Dr. Pee Pee

2: Armada

3: Mango

4: MewtwoKing

5C Chris

6:KDJ

7: Ken

8:Wobbels

9: Chilln

10: Hungry Box

 

[X WaNtEd X]

No...love A Rookie's mario but his mario is not as good as mango's mario. MaNg0 during his scorpion master phase took games off of armada's peach, m2k's marth and sheik, beat hbox's puff and terrorized most of Cali/some of AZ (beating people like SS, MacD, lucky, shroomed, zhu, hugs, tai)

How many years ago was that?

As said before, the better player has nothing to do with how well someone did in their time.

 

[Zekk]

1: PP its not about how long you were good its about how well you competed with strong players

 

[Zekk]

lololollolololo

 

[VoiD-]

It was pretty obviously a joke dude.

 

[OrangeJuice]

#1 M2K
#2 Mang0
#3 Ken
#4 Armada
#5 Isai
#6 Hungrybox
#7 PPMD
#8 Azen
#9 Wobbles
#10 Bill Trinen

 

[Khairi]

Too be honest I think the list should go

1-Kage
2-Dung
3-Mang0
4-m2k

 

[AirFair]

I think we all know that Reggie is the best of all time.

 

[CT_Emerl]

I think even though ken is burnt out he still does some weeklies, he could catch up

 

[Blackavar]

None of you know what the **** you're talking about.

Actually you don't. When comparing competitors from different eras you do not look at peak skill you look at peer dominance. Bobby Fischer playing at his peak would lose to Magnus Carlsen today but nobody has ever had the win record he did against top grandmasters. Garry Kasparov would (and has and continues to) lose to Magnus Carlsen but nobody has dominated the game for as long as he did in his prime.

To quote Garry Kasparov on chess "If I've been able to see further it is because I've stood on the shoulders of giants"

And PC Chris in the doc, referring to a set between Ken and Isai "After we saw that, and that was possible it felt like everyone started getting so good so fast"


Ken would lose to Pewpewu but that is irrelevant when comparing a historical great to a modern player. Fischer placed Paul Morphy on the number one spot in his list of great chess players AND he acknowledged that if Morphy were brought back to life at his former peak skill from hundreds of years ago he would get absolutely trashed by even master level players today, and if you think that's a contradiction you're an idiot.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

Actually you don't. When comparing competitors from different eras you do not look at peak skill you look at peer dominance.

but but

Consider each player at their peak ability and then write out your top 10.

ooooooooooo awwwwwkkkkkwwwarrrrrddddd

 

[SSBMLahti]

G$ for best of all time.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

but but



ooooooooooo awwwwwkkkkkwwwarrrrrddddd

daaaaaaaaaamn shots fired

 

[Blackavar]

but but



ooooooooooo awwwwwkkkkkwwwarrrrrddddd

I, as well as many others read the topic as asking who, at their peak were the best at the game, which makes Ken a strong contender for first, but probably third or fourth behind mango, m2k and Armada. If you want a list of top ten current players then go read the power ranking list of top ten players...

It's worth noting that Mango puts Ken on his list above m2k despite the fact that today m2k absolutely destroys Ken.

You can also make the pretty easy argument that innovation and inventiveness is a huge aspect of skill in the first place. Sure Ken existed in an era where there was more to discover, but if it was so easy why was he in particular unbeatable for so long?

That said, my list is

Mango - For simply being the best competitive melee player of all time
Mew2King - Whose passion to understand melee in its entirety drove the game to new heights, also I think a slightly underrated player because he chokes and is a weak competitor compared to other top players, the indisputibly best Sheik and Marth
Armada - The second best competitive melee player of all time
Ken - The best for the longest
Ppmd - The third best competitive melee player of all time
Isai - Years ahead of his time and a good doubles player, I would probably leave him off my top ten if he weren't the 64 GOAT, which makes me think he really did have the skill in melee
Hungrybox - He makes everyone who isn't an absolute top player look like a joke
Leffen - Good fox, getting better
Hax - For technical innovation
Someone else - I dunno who else to put

 

[ATH_]

If by best you mean funnest to watch, personality, etc, then:
1. Armada
2. Mew2King
3. Mango
4. Ken
5. Azen


If you mean skill peak in their time, then:
1. Mew2King
2. Ken
3. Mango
4. Armada
5. Dr. PP

 

[The Prince L]

1. Mango
2. Ken
3. Armada
4. M2K
5. PPMD
6. Azen
7. Hbox
8. PC Chris
9. Isai
10. Chu

Isai is not as unbeatable as people thought. Mango is.

 

[LoneSalBug]

The way some people (such as X Wanted X) are doing this is so flawed it isn't even funny..
Greatest of all time in anything would be top 10 CURRENT players/athletes going by your logic, completely disregarding anything that came before it as it was from a less advanced time.

You can't look at it as player X from the present has more 'pure' skill than player Y from the past. Of course he does. That's what time and progress are for. You have to look at it relatively.

To use a football (soccer for you 'muricans) comparison, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff etc etc would all be considered **** if we were to use your logic... Players now are faster, stronger, and more capable than ever. Doesn't mean these older players were any less impressive for dominating their sport/being at a much higher level than everyone else in their era.

Bair (cwatididther) with me on this, theoretically, in 20 years time, in the year 20XX when everyone is super duper amazing at this game ... would it be right to look back on the current players and say they're bad? That Mango/Armada etc. are bad? Absolutely not!

This didn't come out anywhere near as well as I'd hoped, but Blackavar said it much better than I did with his chess comparison.