by this logic, SF is scrubby too and guilty gear is the one true fighting game.
fact: GG players have won far, far more in SF4 than SF players ever have in GG. see: kazunoko, dogura, etc. meanwhile the SF community's biggest success story in GG was daigo, who beat up american scrubs at evo then always went 1-and-done at SBO because everyone kept baiting his DPs. hell, the same is true for virtua fighter - nuki was great in VF4Evo but you have fuudo & itabashi in SF4.
i'm not saying this to bash SF, i'm saying it to point out the flaw in this argument. this whole way of thinking is based on assuming that "true skill" is represented by general fundamentals rather than game-specific knowledge and tactics; i think this does a disservice to each individual game, and it's also not a historically accurate view. usually "fundamentals" will win in the first couple years of a game, and after that it becomes dominated by those who play the most and know the most; think of daigo's declining evo placing each year, and the rise of infiltration & xian.
tl;dr - there may be a best SF player, a best MK player, and a best Tekken player. there is no "best fighting game player". even though we think of them as belonging to the same genre, the games are just too different from each other to allow for that kind of generalization.
