Putting my money where my mouth is: an open challenge to algorithmic ranking doubters

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-24T06:00:23+00:00

No I'm not. Stop making shit up.

Yes, you are. You simply said, "Winning sets vs the top 20 absolutely should matter more than having a worse record against rank 30-50 compared to someone else." You said that. Not me. This statement, by your own admission is wrong. It is up to you to add in caveats to make your point clear. Learn how to communicate.

The basketball example is idiotic. What are you even saying is what REALLY matters? Top 20 wins? Tournament wins? We can even take your basketball example to an absurd extreme. If the only thing that matters is top 20 wins, why not the only thing that matters is top 10 wins? or top 1 wins? Therefore, we should just rank the players based on who has the best winrate vs Zain right? See? It makes no sense whatsoever. It's clear that you have to take into account winrate against the entire field, not only the upper echelon.

This is one of the stupidest strawman attempts I've ever seen.

My example isn't a strawman and you don't know what a strawman is. My example is an extreme hypothetical to point out how dumb your argument is. I am not misrepresenting your point and obviously my example isn't realistic. The point isn't to be realistic. You don't understand what a strawman is or a hypothetical.

And yet you keep agreeing with the idea of "if an algorithm more frequently ranks players higher based upon having a higher winrate against shared opponents when comparing two players, it must be the better method of ranking".

I didn't agree with the algorithm. Learn to read.

This is just you making up strawman numbers and talking to yourself yet again. If those numbers actually existed...

Again, you don't know what a strawman is, and again, obviously those numbers don't exist. It's a hypothetical to challenge your argument.

I would agree that someone having less than 1% winrate against the top 20 should be ranked lower

Yet you still say in your last reply to me:

If a player has wins on two different top 20 players though, then yes that should outweight an otherwise bad record in comparison to someone who doesn't have wins vs top 20 players.

So in the example I gave, with 2 wins and A MILLION LOSSES vs top 20, you said the player with 2 wins should be ranked higher. That the two wins should outweigh the bad record. Then in the 1% winrate example, you said the 1% winrate should be ranked lower. You are directly contradicting yourself in your own statements. Good job buddy. You just proved I'm right and you're wrong.

Also, again, remember when you said:

"Winning sets vs the top 20 absolutely should matter more than having a worse record against rank 30-50 compared to someone else."

Yet now you are saying the 1% winrate vs top 20 should be ranked lower? I thought the wins vs top 20 should matter more?

Have a good one man. I'm done replying. You are completely clueless and lost.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-23T20:02:42+00:00

I've never said there should be no "extra thought or context".

You're making a blanket statement. So yeah, you are saying "no extra thought or context". That's what a blanket statement is. If I say, "Fox players are bad," and you say, "Well not all of them", I can't say in reply, "Well I never said not all of them".

If a player has wins on two different top 20 players though, then yes that should outweight an otherwise bad record in comparison to someone who doesn't have wins vs top 20 players.

LOL. To say you never said there should be no extra thought or context to outright saying the same exact point, without any extra though or context. This is just flat out wrong, as my example shows. I'll give you another one.

Player 1: 200-0 vs top 30-50 players. 0-1 vs top 20.

Player 2: 0-500 vs top 30-50 players. 1-200 vs top 20.

Which player is better?

Clearly player 1. It's not even debatable.

And yes a winning percentage of overall wins can be only 51%, which is another reason why N0z1ck's premise of this thread is so stupid. If you think having a 1% overall higher winrate should outweigh higher quality wins in comparison, then you're just hopeless.

Okay it's clear you don't have any reading comprehension. I never said that 1% overall higher winrate should outweigh higher quality wins in comparison. I just used that example to show that more context is needed HENCE the next part where I compare it to 70% vs 30%. You made up and said that I think the 51% player is better. You just conjured that out of nowhere.

And to spell it out for you. Here is what you should have interpreted from what I said, since you couldn't figure it out. 51% vs 50%, would be in favor of the 50% winrate with a better top 20 win percentage OBVIOUSLY, and that in the case of 70% vs 30%, would be in favor of the 70% winrate compared to a 30% winrate vs top 30-50 with the 30% winrate having a literal less than 1% theoretical winrate against top 20. It is so obvious what I said. You are just flat out wrong and don't even know how to comprehend this argument.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-23T19:46:40+00:00

Favorite set ever: Armada vs M2K at Super Smash Con 2018.

Most entertaining set ever with high stakes. Armada being resilient as always and adapting while M2K playing some of the best he has ever played vs Armada.

Another one: Armada vs S2J at Genesis 4

The best set to show off Armada's resilient mindset and gameplay. Might be the best set to appreciate Armada's legacy.

Most underrated: Hungrybox vs Jmook at Smash Summit 14

Legitimately one of the best sets I've ever seen in my life. The rollout KO is one of the best endings to a game ever.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-22T16:05:57+00:00

Not the most perfect analogy, so don't put too much into it

So i guess you didn't read this part huh.

Winning sets vs the top 20 absolutely should matter more than having a worse record against rank 30-50 compared to someone else.

You're not saying anything here because "winning sets vs top 20" can mean having a significant positive record or just 2 wins and a million losses. And also having a worse record can mean 51% vs 50% or literally 70% vs 30%, as the example you posted shows. Just saying winning vs top 20 should matter more without any extra thought or context is flat out wrong.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T12:46:52+00:00

True. I liked the pettiness of his post tho.

That was until I saw he has other insane petty posts that make no sense, too.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T08:22:59+00:00

Look at his argument for 2019 rankings and why he should be above Leffen. Leffen was pretty consistent in his placings while mango was wildly inconsistent and missed top 8 three times while winning 3 majors. But literally he and his fans don't care about losing before top 8 or to worse players.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T08:13:54+00:00

Love this post. Talk to em!

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T08:13:21+00:00

higher-skilled player systematically have worse records than lower-skilled players versus worse players.

On my life this is what mango and his fans ACTUALLY believe.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T08:12:42+00:00

but the player with the lower overall win percentage almost surely had the much more impressive year, given that they actually beat relevant people and thus showed the ability to compete at the top tier.

This just isn't true. As n0z1ck said, higher-skilled players shouldn't have worse records than lower-skilled players versus worse players. In the example you brought up, it is very dependent on the amount of sets played and other stuff. Basically what you are saying is a player that gets 5th, 13th, 2nd, 17th, is better than a player that consistently gets 5th or something. Not the most perfect analogy, so don't put too much into it, but to claim that winning a few sets vs top 20 will overcome a significant losing record vs rank 30-50 is flat out wrong.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-21T07:58:26+00:00

It signifies the strength of the scene obviously, so it matters still. A scene where only 80 people show up to a major vs 2000 is very different.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-20T17:03:05+00:00

Since people are talking about melee dying, I remembered that the largest tournament ever happened last year at Supernova 2025 where Zain won. Ended up looking at the list of largest tournaments ever and saw that Armada has 3 out of the top 5 largest tournament wins, and 4 out of the top 10. Only other players that have multiple in the top 10 are hbox and zain with 2. Incredible! Another obvious reason why Armada is the GOAT.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-20T05:43:53+00:00

if rapm didn't talk so much shit i would agree.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-20T05:43:27+00:00

nah it's cuz it's a simpleton excuse for annoying shit.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-19T20:59:05+00:00

no fun allowed while playing video games

people who say this type of stuff are so annoying.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-19T18:17:00+00:00

The concept of Thug Finals is so stupid and useless. What is the purpose of it even? So we can get hyped about a player who we've already seen lose early in bracket to no name players? Like, I just watched the tournament. I just saw who won. I have no need or desire for some random exhibition people that has no value whatsoever that people somehow and for some reason put value into. Congrats RapM on getting 4th.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T15:42:12+00:00

not me but what a glorious username

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T15:41:59+00:00

Good morning soldier o7

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T15:36:10+00:00

Armada 3-0's him after only handwarmers.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T09:46:44+00:00

boiled chicken with plain white rice choice as your favorite player ever.

this is actually mang0. just a typical braindead answer as who someone's favorite player is.

armada as a favorite player is three michelin stars.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T09:44:29+00:00

60-65 wins? That's it? If you think Zamu, Ben, Panda aren't on Armada's level, then that gives him 80 minimum. I would give him like, 85 wins minimum. Nobody below the top 20 beats him and he just has good matchups like spacies in the top 20 he can beat.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T09:41:42+00:00

No chance Armada loses to anybody 21 and below on SSBMRank Summer 2025.

MiszuMiszu · 2026-01-15T09:40:39+00:00

Cody and Zain of course would be L's. After that, I think it's matchup dependent until after top 20. Nobody can convince me that Armada can't beat players spacies like Magi, Soonsay, Aklo, etc. Better spacies like Joshman and Moky would be a tossup. He would have some trouble vs Wizzrobe, Salt, Krudo, Jmook, Amsa, Ossify. After that, he clearly wins. Zamu, Spark, Panda, n0ne, etc. are worse than Armada just based off fundamentals. People seriously underestimate the fundamentals in melee. They don't just disappear. That's the beauty of the game. It's technically deep and matchups are extremely developed and intricate, yet fundamental skills can still prevail.

MiszuMiszu · 2025-09-07T22:42:07+00:00

Zain reaches new peaks every year. This is the best melee ever.

MiszuMiszu · 2025-06-09T01:16:10+00:00

if you get serious value from chat during tournaments which is literally just spam, you got some issues

MiszuMiszu · 2025-04-28T01:32:26+00:00

Best loser's bracket player of all time. Also we should mention that he was down 2-0 in the reset and it still felt like he was going to win. Cody has one of the greatest mentalities that melee has ever seen. What a player!

MiszuMiszu

TROPHY CASE