This topic was spawned in another thread. The argument was whether or not certain people were “top players”. So we don’t derail that thread further, I wanted to make an actual thread for the discussion. This reminds me a lot of “what constitutes a major” and also is related somewhat. People actually have different definitions for what a top player is, and consequently different criteria that a player must meet in order to achieve the “top player” status. - The first thing I feel makes a top player is that it’s a player who can perform well consistently against any player in the world. This doesn’t mean someone who can beat everyone always, not at all. But someone who can realistically hold their own no matter who they’re facing. - Another aspect of a top player to me is a player who can do well under pressure. Namely in tournaments where a lot is on the line. This isn’t a huge factor, because there’s a lot of players that I know who are some of the best players in the world, but they just choke when it comes to competing in tournaments. That said though, the best out there can adapt and overcome the nerves and pressure. - At first I thought a top player was someone who consistently placed in major tournaments. But I think the quality of competition is far greater of a measuring tool than the prestige of a tournament and the quantity of opponents. What I mean by this is, if your local for instance has 30 top players including players like Dragon, SonicFox, Theo, Whiteboi, REO, etc etc, and you’re winning a lot of these or doing very well consistently, that’s just as valuable as getting top 8 at majors. Just as valuable as far as being considered a top player. I propose this question. Which is more impressive as a player. Winning 5 locals with 20 out of 32 players being top players? Or getting top 8 at 2 majors that had only 3 top players out of 100? Both are great accomplishments, but again to me, quality of competition means much more than the prestige of the tournament or the overall number of entrants. I think some people reserve the term “top player” only for players like Dragon, SonicFox, Theo, Slayer, Tekken Master, Forever King, etc who can travel to most majors and consistently make top 8. To me, I don’t think being a “top player” is that exclusive. While those players are definitely top players, they are among the absolute best in the world. Which again, some people feel that’s the only people worthy of being called top players. For me, I always just saw it as a player who can beat the absolute best on any given day, or any given match, because they’re simply good enough to do so. Anyway, I’d love to hear everyone’s opinion on this. Y’all can blow me up if you think I’m dead wrong, I just think this is an interesting topic.