replicate:
one, ken would go fox vs jiggs. two, m2k is miles better against space animals than ken is because he punishes a lot more efficiently and gimps way better than ken ever did.
basically your entire post comes from thinking M2K playing like a robot and that somehow being bad.
m2k's fox is >>>>>>>> ken's fox. going marth v jiggs is dumb, just go fox.
and it seems like a lot of people may not understand what someone's prime is. ken was better player in a vacuum in 2007 than he was in 2006. just because he dominated more back in the day doesn't mean you would want that ken; that ken would get destroyed by a lot of pros. have you guys watched those old ken v isai matches? and then watch someone like cactuar or M2K play versus falcon? like watch M2K on FD at I think it was FC:D, where he'd just camp the ledge and as soon as you got close you got insta gimped, it was v Darkrain I believe (or another ridiculously amazing Falcon like Jiano).
Hahaha my post was garbage--give me a break, I was tired.
Yeah, Ken would go fox against jiggs. Most people (little fuumi) probably don't remember him for his amazing secondary fox, though; I figured I'd talk about his marth.
I know m2k is way better against spacies then Ken was; he basically reinvented the matchup.
M2k's style, I think, relies on a lot more practice and a lot less intuition than Ken's did. He has space animals down to a science, but even m2k himself admitted that he barely knows the vs. jiggs matchup, especially as marth.
He can try to wall-of-pain jiggs back, but that doesn't work against Mango cause he'll wait it out, then rest him.
Mew2king is definitely a more "robotic" player than Ken; the MLG announcers said he's very methodical, and he "burns through" his brackets because he'll analyze his play in the video, find any mistakes he made, then correct them. I've heard that he's mildly autistic, and it's clear that he has a head for data; I've seen him say that he had no natural talent starting out at the game and had to slowly work his way up.
Obviously, Ken is the opposite--the Shikamaru of smash, ridiculously good at reading his opponents, natural talent, huge ego, etc.
M2k can't play against jiggs, and especially not with marth--he has no experience, which is what his entire playstyle seems to be based around. I was thinking that Ken would fare a little better since he is not as reliant on matchup knowledge and can play on the fly a little better.
Mango beats m2k's marth, but I think he would have had a harder time against Ken, assuming that all players were "in their prime," which I take to mean of equal skill. This question of "in their prime" is an ambiguity in the original post--I'm assuming that either Ken would have caught back up to the current metagame, or we're analyzing things relative to their own time frames, like fantasy football or computers revolutionizing the industry.
To recant my last post, which was ****ty, loose, and didn't have anything to prove, I'd say that regardless of "who would win," Mango would certainly have a harder time against Ken, and even though he beat the current best marth, it's not necessarily appropriate to draw a comparison between Ken and m2k in this context.
(Which is something I erroneously tried to do last time, but even fell short of that, because I suck.)
