You’re confusing terms. Knowledge, execution, and insight =/= mind, body, and heart, even though they may seem similar. If anything, the latter are umbrella terms that include the former, and more so than that, they are overly-generic…
Different Words, Same Meaning.
*Shrug *
But you don’t need execution/knowledge for insight. You don’t need knowledge for execution. You didn’t even expalin what each one means. Knowledge for what? Insight? [quote=“GalacticGeek, post:8000, topic:1877”]
This is simply knowing. Once you have that, execution comes next and allows you to actually play the game.
[/quote]
Once you have what? Knowing what? Can you elaborate? I’m having a hard time understanding. Just a simple what does each one mean can help 
I didn’t say you can’t have 1 without the other (at least that’s not what I was trying to get across), I said you can’t master 1 without the other being mastered 1st - otherwise, issues creep through that hurt your game. It’s a matter of priority.
@GalacticGeek man, take whatever wins you can get and enjoy them. I infinitely prefer winning one match in a FTanything rather than going 0-X. But you can’t really think that winning one match is as significant as winning a larger number of matches or greater than 50% of matches. That all seems pretty incontrovertible.
As far as tournaments, ft10 and “skill,” any game measures only your ability to play the game by whatever rules their are. So winning a tournament shows that you can win that particular tournament by those rules at that time under those conditions. Winning one game shows that you can win one game. Winning a FT10 shows you can win a FT10. When you start talking about some sort of abstract “skill at the game,” that is undefined and not linked to winning, it’s impossible to devise a perfect test. You can’t test for something you can’t define - and if you can’t define “skill at the game” by the ability to win matches then I sure as hell don’t know what you mean by skill.
You’re simultaneously arguing that one match victory is meaningful, but that a best of 3 or a best of 5 isn’t a measure of skill. And you don’t see any inconsistency with that.
1 Like
I never argued that it was as, or more, significant - only that it was significant, period. Many are arguing that it is not significant at all, and to them, I ask, why not? It shows promise, possibility, and hope - many of the things needed to do better and continue winning. Sure, luck may be a factor, but you have to remember - it goes both ways…
As far as skill goes, it’s the very fact that we can’t readily define it that prevents us from being able to measure it effectively. It’s not measurable, because it’s not static; it’s fluid. Therefore, the only way were can measure it is by setting our own limitations…
Hey remember that thread where Vlad beat Ita Master and you went in ranting about how a single win doesn’t mean anything and that it could have just been luck or he let him win and that it was meaningless unless he could do it again?
10 Likes
That’s why I suggested 2 wins - it eliminates luck as a factor, but a single win is still significant. It’s a win, after all…
Quite frankly, as analytical as everyone is here, I’m surprised anyone considers luck as a factor at all, but you all insist on 10 wins to make sure. Why not less? Why not 5? Surely that’s enough to eliminate luck and determine skill? If it isn’t then, why not? Why 10? By that same token, why not go bigger? Why not 50? Or 100? Lifetime results? Surely that would more accurately measure skill? In the end, it’s all relative. Fluid. Immeasurable.
Unless you put it into a man-made bubble…
I love philosophy. 
Ah, Geek against the world again, of course
Everybody says A, but Geek says B and he is right
I already watched this movie, I don’t like the ending
8 Likes
That’s kind of why I feel like tournaments should always be a best 3/5 format instead of 2/3. But perhaps due to time constraints they don’t do that.
Because as many times as I’ve played in Ranked I’ve faced players that I know are better and spend more time on the game than me. Some matches I’ve gotten destroyed in while others I’ve kept it close and competitive. And still others I’ve beaten the better player handily.
So when I win a 2/3 match I don’t feel like I’m better than the other player by any stretch of the imagination. I just think that things went my way more so for two matches than it did my opponent.
But there isn’t any true way to tell who is better than the other except if we had an extremely large sample size of Player A vs Player B.
1 Like
I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just getting philosophical and trying to get people to look at it differently.
@BubbRubb4Real I agree.
1 Like
Anyone want to play?
About to hop on
I actually think KI is pretty good even in a FT2. There’s great comeback potential even if you lose the first lifebar, and the break mechanic means you are never doomed by a single mistake. The rounds eat up a big chunk of time and have tons of decision points. It’s not like Virtua Fighter where a single mistake can get you half killed and a match might last ten seconds.
Obviously the bigger the sample the better, but I think KI had relatively few “lucked out” wins compared to some other fighters.
3 Likes
That’s true. While a larger sample size is great and all we have to be realistic. If every KI tournament was a FT10 for all matches that would take FOREVER!
When I was at CEO, they did 1st-to-3 across the board - it took a long time, but it made it feel like it was enough (and fair). 1st-to-2, IMO, isn’t enough.
Just to avoid confusion from previous posts, from my perspective: 1 win/match is okay for getting a feeling of personal growth, 2 is good for eliminating luck as a factor, 3 or 5 is just right, and 10 allows for detail or long-term adjustment against a single opponent. More than that is just unnecessary or tedious.
GGs @ItzTymeToDul for the FT-I-Don’t-Remember earlier! It was fun but I could see a lot of my short comings as a player starting to emerge, hopefully I can build on it yet again as a learning experience. 
1 Like
GG’s to @SlenderCashew50
Very crazy matches IMO. I love it.
1 Like
To the extent that I don’t care about dropping a single game, I don’t care because variance says at some point a bunch of stuff will go wrong in my opponent"s favor, and sometimes ■■■■■ happens.” I’ve played matches where someone broke literally everything I did - delayed autos, delayed linkers, manuals, stagger normals, etc, off of pure and unadultered guessing. That sucks and I’ve often lost that game, but at the same time I’m never worried about beating people like that in the next 2 or 3 games. That kind of luck isn’t sustainable, and the first time they guess wrong I’m going to really, really hurt them for it.
You lucking me out in this manner isn’t concerning to me because long term I know that my base level of play is superior. The same principle applies across wins mostly through shenanigans or gimmicks - to be sure I got hit by cross up tail flip six times, but at the same time I know that I will murder that guy the instant I adapt in the next game.
A single loss is often the result of luck and a bit of "huh…really didn’t think he’d go for that 
" I’m not worried about that, because luck swings both ways and now that I know you’re a nut, I can pick you apart piece by piece.
On the other side of the ledger, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being proud of taking a game off a very good player. Like I keep repeating though, you can’t necessarily expect others to then say “well yeah, you can totally take Player Y”.
The key difference is most people who post “hey look I took a game off top player Y” are just being happy about that isolated claim. They won’t then turn around and say “I’m close to beating them in a FT10” or that the skill gap is maybe a lot closer than the thought or whatever. They are just proud of that small accomplishment and that’s super great.
The issue only comes when they try to play it up into something that it’s not. Use it as encouragement to keep playing and enjoying KI, and that you improved from where you were 6 months ago where you could never have beaten this player. But be realistic about what the result tells you, that’s all.
3 Likes
You’re still thinking along the lines of me thinking I’m a better player, when it has nothing to do with that - or that it has anything to do with you for that matter. It’s a matter of personal improvement, and nothing else. I know I did well during any particular win, and I know why. Luck has nothing to do with it.
For example, I know I’m no good at using DPs, but if I practice that, and then go into a set against someone better, and get a single win during that set because of my practice with the DP, that counts for something. It doesn’t mean I’m better than my opponent, or that it was luck, or that I can even keep it up under pressure - but it’s still an improvement on a personal skill level, however small, regardless of what others may think of the he 1 win or the entire set.