Warrior General Games

i don't know ESL still has that one SEAPL championship loss to Singapore....but ya #1 and 2 has to be ESL and Garudas....

1) a team that promotes should be >>> a team that never promoted (unless it was before WL ldo)
2) If they promote once and stay in the WL for a long time (Saigon) they are most likely the best TEAM ever but not nec. the best "SEAPL Franchise" ever
3) any team with Madcow is obv disqualified

Originally posted by SLZmonster
i don't know ESL still has that one SEAPL championship loss to Singapore....but ya #1 and 2 has to be ESL and Garudas....

And Garudas have the Super Wok loss to the Smurfs.

FWIW, Wendigo is undefeated in Super Woks. TBC this year.

Originally posted by boomer82

3) any team with Madcow is obv disqualified

Madcow is punishment enough, no need to disqualify.

If you include WL success TKW has to be on the list as they spent a few seasons there.

I still think though that it should be SEA Pro deeds only as the early teams didn't have access to WL.

Originally posted by Texan DTD
If you include WL success TKW has to be on the list as they spent a few seasons there.

I still think though that it should be SEA Pro deeds only as the early teams didn't have access to WL.

eventually you have to abandon that standard, though.

the best talent in SEAPL will invariably end up in the WL for stretches from here on....so to expect their superwok success mirror the best teams who spent all their time here is impossible.

BUmp for the smurfs besting the #2 seed in the w/l and losing in the CCG their first season,



and now we stole the 5th seed in our 2nd season and we are coming back for a 3rd season....still havent been demoted

Originally posted by whatje
Originally posted by Texan DTD

If you include WL success TKW has to be on the list as they spent a few seasons there.

I still think though that it should be SEA Pro deeds only as the early teams didn't have access to WL.

eventually you have to abandon that standard, though.

the best talent in SEAPL will invariably end up in the WL for stretches from here on....so to expect their superwok success mirror the best teams who spent all their time here is impossible.

It's definitely a valid argument, but then you have to combine standards to keep the historical teams in the mix, which I think is important.

Using that standard TKW is in the top 5 for sure and the Smurfs are at least in the top 10 somewhere, maybe top 5.

Originally posted by Texan DTD
It's definitely a valid argument, but then you have to combine standards to keep the historical teams in the mix, which I think is important.

Using that standard TKW is in the top 5 for sure and the Smurfs are at least in the top 10 somewhere, maybe top 5.

you cant penalize teams for being good and sticking in the w/l... every season a team is in the w/l, they would be more than competeing for Gold in SEA.. think of this season, if there was no W/L, The gold would mean alot more than it would now because it would have ESL Smurfs Whore and the red bulls fighting for gold... instead someone is going to win a weak SEA. how does this gold mean more than staying in the w/l for multiple seasons

Originally posted by MadCow DTD
Originally posted by Texan DTD

It's definitely a valid argument, but then you have to combine standards to keep the historical teams in the mix, which I think is important.

Using that standard TKW is in the top 5 for sure and the Smurfs are at least in the top 10 somewhere, maybe top 5.

you cant penalize teams for being good and sticking in the w/l... every season a team is in the w/l, they would be more than competeing for Gold in SEA.. think of this season, if there was no W/L, The gold would mean alot more than it would now because it would have ESL Smurfs Whore and the red bulls fighting for gold... instead someone is going to win a weak SEA. how does this gold mean more than staying in the w/l for multiple seasons

I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying you can't phase out the pre-WL teams from any top 10 list.

Originally posted by Texan DTD
I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying you can't phase out the pre-WL teams from any top 10 list.

tbh the game is so much different than back then, most of those team have gut and left, perhaps we do a ranking every 10 seasons, you cant compare the teams from back then to the teams now..the w/l has also made it impossible to compare... before the w/l teams were judged by trophies, now you cant do that...


so have fun trying to rank all 18 seasons on teams, but you just cant...

Originally posted by MadCow DTD
Originally posted by Texan DTD

I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying you can't phase out the pre-WL teams from any top 10 list.

tbh the game is so much different than back then, most of those team have gut and left, perhaps we do a ranking every 10 seasons, you cant compare the teams from back then to the teams now..the w/l has also made it impossible to compare... before the w/l teams were judged by trophies, now you cant do that...


so have fun trying to rank all 18 seasons on teams, but you just cant...

You can't but people want to do it.

It's kind of like comparing old school baseball players to today. Babe Ruth would get schooled by modern pitching yet he's still considered the "greatest'.

Originally posted by MadCow DTD
tbh the game is so much different than back then, most of those team have gut and left, perhaps we do a ranking every 10 seasons, you cant compare the teams from back then to the teams now..the w/l has also made it impossible to compare... before the w/l teams were judged by trophies, now you cant do that...


so have fun trying to rank all 18 seasons on teams, but you just cant...

I must agree here... there are two different eras... pre WL & decline and post WL and extended plateau eras...

and for the first 8 or 9 seasons it was more a matter of who found the game first...

nevermind the playbook/DPC/AI/GPing was nonexistant for the first 4 or 5 seasons beyond 80%run/20% pass...

I also think WL success should play a factor... TKW was one of the top 5 teams in all of GLB for a three or four season stretch.

Originally posted by Texan DTD
You can't but people want to do it.

It's kind of like comparing old school baseball players to today. Babe Ruth would get schooled by modern pitching yet he's still considered the "greatest'.

Modern pitching is better than old-school pitchers? Based on what? Back in the day, they would throw spitters, scuff the ball back then and throw a lot more junk. More than that, they also lowered the mound after 1968 to make it easier on hitters. Steroids, juiced balls, shorter fences, smaller strike zone, etc skew the modern game. Ruth outhomered all but one team in 1921...that is domination. He's considered the greatest slugger because he was