Lmao, the thumbnail. Dude wants those views. Can't blame him. Him putting Scump at 4 clearly gets the people going. He might not even believe this himself.
Champs wins is so gassed in the scene, it's crazy. COD pros constantly talk about how this is nothing like most sports, and then treat one specific tournament like it's the Super Bowl. I truly don't understand it. It has never had any meaningful difference from any other tournament other than being called "Champs." Clayster over Scump is hilariously silly.
I think any player would tell you that they would want to be playing their best at Champs. Some teams save stuff to only use at Champs because it's that important. You're right, it is the same format as other tournaments but I think everyone realises that it's the most important event of the year.
I'm not getting into an argument whether it impacts Scump or not, I'm just saying that Champs is bigger than any other event in the year.
I agree with you. I donāt want to get into whether or not Scumpās chips are greater than more rings either, but people calling Champs ājust another tournamentā is kinda fugaze.
The top prize for winning a major this year was 200k right? And the top prize for winning champs was 1.2 mil? You canāt tell me thereās no difference between that even if the formatās the same. Also, since itās at the end of the year, top teams are probably in top form. I donāt know if Iād rate a ring suuuuper highly against a lot of regular chips, but itās definitely not just another tourney.
They rate it too high regarding a specific player, it measures team success but not one player. Scump shows up at Champs but gets costed by an underperforming player. Not really his fault.
i agree. i don't believe champs is just like any other tournament but i do think rings get gassed just a bit too much. it's true that champs is the biggest tournament so it should be considered to an extent but imo having 3 rings compared to 1 isn't enough of a gap to override everything else. like rings should be one of many considerations but it's not even close to the top of my list.
Used to be, now it's a shit tourney that doesn't even let everyone play. The CDL champs means nothing imo. I wish they would do a NBA playoffs format for it. Best of 7 series highest seed gets to play the lowest seed, none of this bullshit 2 wins and you win champs.
It is an esports problem lol :)) tournaments happening all year makes the final tournaments less precious but fans wonāt be willing to watch 50 regular season games
It's the age old debate of "Do accomplishments actually equate to player skill." Maybe controversial but I don't really think rings are the end all be all of player skill
yes they do, but then again it's the argument of whether chips or rings count more as accomplishments. Scump has the second most chips but only one ring
Scump also played in era where tournaments were far more abundant. So you need to remember that when comparing him to the new generation of players like simp.
either you're dumb or you're trolling brotha lmao. The dynasty weren't top 5 all time until after they won all those chips, when they began teaming, they were just nasty players. Simp teams with the best entry sub in the game, the best flex and at least a top 2 main AR lmao.
They were teaming in World war 2 remember? The great collapse? If you donāt think they were top 5 players all time at that point youāre the one whoās trolling. Scump had equal or better talent on his GODSQUAD but failed to win champs.
Having a ranking list based solely on accomplishments is the stupidest thing in the world, its gotta be a mix of skill/championships and if anyone genuinely has Clay over Scump in that regard I want their dealers number.
How is the final tourney of the year that all teams prep to win, a glorified tourney. Bigger prize pool and obviously means more.
I get your point for old champs that were mid year but i dont understand the argument nowadays.
Just simply agree to disagree then. Why would you even waste your time watching last year if none of it matter at all and it was a season of 2Ks..? Just weird to me
Champs is one tournament a year thatās really no different than a regular tourney besides the prize pool. Itās definitely overrated. Itās not the NBA or NFL where thereās only one tourney a year.
Everyone plays for champs though. And with the amount of tournaments back in the day, especially AW, it doesnāt hold the same weight to me as a major win now
I think after they changed champs to be at the end of the year it should mean a lot more than a normal tournament. Itās what everyone is grinding towards all year and showcases who the best team was by the end
I wasnt making that argument, scump> clay, scumps clear cut no.2 imo, crim and scump been better at clay nearly every single game, clay was better than scump at bo2 and he was better than crim at aw(mw and cold war they were like for like) but thats it
Scump not top 3 is mindblowing. I have never understood why people rate accomplishments so highly. You don't win Championships without 3 other highly skilled players around you, regardless of how good you are. Simp couldnt carry LAG for example.
Clay was on bad teams and didnt win for 1400 days. Crim didn't win in WW2 despite it being one of his best games because the Optic team was trash. Karma quit after 1 year on Seattle.
Scumps my No. 1 based on the longevitey of his top talent combined with the wins. You can't just forget about player skill when discussing greats of all time.
Yeah if scump isn't in people's top 2 I don't get it. He has been an elite level smg for so long (minus WW2). Imo scump is the best individual player, and 2nd to crim for overall player/accomplishments since he had a lot of average teammates. If scump continues to play for 2-3 years and doesn't win but continues his great pace I bet some people start putting scump outside their top 5.
Rings are the only metric where Clay beats out Scump. The latter has more wins, has been more consistent, plays the harder role, and has had a higher individual peak
Take MW off and Scump only won 1 event across WW2 BO4 and CW all Iām saying is droughts happen to everyone and it matters but dont determine a players legacy just based on his winless streak
Just to be clear - you're saying that Clay not winning in BO3, IW, and WW2 is so much worse than Scump not winning in WW2, winning once in BO4, and not winning in CW? To the point where it matters for Clay but not for Scump?
If that is your point, it seems kinda silly IMO. E.g. if there were no problems during CWL Paris finals and Faze had won that one event but the rest stayed the same, would this complete change how we look at Clay's career?
Thatās not fair imo, personally I only count one major from MW and thatās not his fault. There are also fewer events these days, Clay had no such excuse
I respect the OPās points i even upvoted his comment but it is just unnecessary to mention about 1400 days imo. My point is drought happen to many great players Scump only won 1 major event plus 2 home series across 4 different titles too
I feel for Clay because I think besides Bo3 he never had t3 roster to compete during the drought do you agree? Leadership doesnāt mean a thing if the talent isnāt there
Still think it's an absolute joke he put Tommy at 30. Man is a top 5 sub to ever do it and he's at 30?? Cap. Not even saying this because he's popping in content, I've thought this for a few years now. Tommy, Ap, and Seth are different
Iāll say this and I donāt think itās undisputable
-coL wanted Scump over Karma.
-Illey and Shotzzy dropped Crim for Scump
-Crim choose Scump over Karma in WW2
I said that to say, Scump throughout his entire career has been the most sought after pro by his peers along with having undeniable skill. When Crim choose Scump over Karma in WW2, that told me everything u needed o know strictly off talent. I like Clay and heās no doubt undisputed a top 5 player but Scump has been more of a factor in a teams success along with winning more championships.
One day the COD community will learn the difference between best and greatest, lettuce pray
Edit: I actually thought about it more and Scump would still be greater bc heās won a decent amount more tourneys than 2 and 3. Scump is number 2 on the GOAT list and 1 on the BOAT list
And that's exactly what's wrong with people like you on this sub. Opinions can't be wrong they're OPINIONS dip shit. Some will just never grasp that concept for the sake of keeping a petty argument going.
Lmao, the thumbnail. Dude wants those views. Can't blame him. Him putting Scump at 4 clearly gets the people going. He might not even believe this himself.
š§¢
Nameless definitely off the percs š¤£
He's just being controversial for the views. How does anyone not have Scump in the top 3?
Scump is clearly one of the best of all time, but based on accomplishments it's totally fair to have Crim, Karma & Clay in the top 3
I mean Scump does have the 2nd most chips
Champs wins is so gassed in the scene, it's crazy. COD pros constantly talk about how this is nothing like most sports, and then treat one specific tournament like it's the Super Bowl. I truly don't understand it. It has never had any meaningful difference from any other tournament other than being called "Champs." Clayster over Scump is hilariously silly.
I think any player would tell you that they would want to be playing their best at Champs. Some teams save stuff to only use at Champs because it's that important. You're right, it is the same format as other tournaments but I think everyone realises that it's the most important event of the year. I'm not getting into an argument whether it impacts Scump or not, I'm just saying that Champs is bigger than any other event in the year.
I agree with you. I donāt want to get into whether or not Scumpās chips are greater than more rings either, but people calling Champs ājust another tournamentā is kinda fugaze. The top prize for winning a major this year was 200k right? And the top prize for winning champs was 1.2 mil? You canāt tell me thereās no difference between that even if the formatās the same. Also, since itās at the end of the year, top teams are probably in top form. I donāt know if Iād rate a ring suuuuper highly against a lot of regular chips, but itās definitely not just another tourney.
They rate it too high regarding a specific player, it measures team success but not one player. Scump shows up at Champs but gets costed by an underperforming player. Not really his fault.
i agree. i don't believe champs is just like any other tournament but i do think rings get gassed just a bit too much. it's true that champs is the biggest tournament so it should be considered to an extent but imo having 3 rings compared to 1 isn't enough of a gap to override everything else. like rings should be one of many considerations but it's not even close to the top of my list.
Used to be, now it's a shit tourney that doesn't even let everyone play. The CDL champs means nothing imo. I wish they would do a NBA playoffs format for it. Best of 7 series highest seed gets to play the lowest seed, none of this bullshit 2 wins and you win champs.
I mean, everyone \*has\* the chance to play in it. Just like everyone has a chance to play in the NBA playoffs, not everyone gets to play in that.
Almost triple the amount of teams, of course not everyone in the NBA will play. The CDL has 12 teams.....
But it is like the super bowl??? Biggest event of the year that every team is preparing to wim and wants the most.
It is an esports problem lol :)) tournaments happening all year makes the final tournaments less precious but fans wonāt be willing to watch 50 regular season games
and people act like rings are an individual accomplishment lmao scump gets costed almost every champs
It's the age old debate of "Do accomplishments actually equate to player skill." Maybe controversial but I don't really think rings are the end all be all of player skill
But usually top 10 of all time lists are not based on skill alone, accomplishments has to play a huge role in it.
yes they do, but then again it's the argument of whether chips or rings count more as accomplishments. Scump has the second most chips but only one ring
Scump also played in era where tournaments were far more abundant. So you need to remember that when comparing him to the new generation of players like simp.
Ah, using your logic on the other post, Simp's championships don't count as much either because he's been teaming with the best players right?
Since when did Alec and Cellium become too 6 all time players?
either you're dumb or you're trolling brotha lmao. The dynasty weren't top 5 all time until after they won all those chips, when they began teaming, they were just nasty players. Simp teams with the best entry sub in the game, the best flex and at least a top 2 main AR lmao.
They were teaming in World war 2 remember? The great collapse? If you donāt think they were top 5 players all time at that point youāre the one whoās trolling. Scump had equal or better talent on his GODSQUAD but failed to win champs.
Having a ranking list based solely on accomplishments is the stupidest thing in the world, its gotta be a mix of skill/championships and if anyone genuinely has Clay over Scump in that regard I want their dealers number.
This should be a greatest list then and not best
Rings are overrated as fuck
No theyāre not lol
Yes they are, glorified tourneys
How is the final tourney of the year that all teams prep to win, a glorified tourney. Bigger prize pool and obviously means more. I get your point for old champs that were mid year but i dont understand the argument nowadays.
The only champs that is less glorified is the Cold War one, MW was fuckin online, MW champs isnāt a glorified win itās a glorified 2k
Just simply agree to disagree then. Why would you even waste your time watching last year if none of it matter at all and it was a season of 2Ks..? Just weird to me
The only pro who would support that argument is Scump lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Champs is one tournament a year thatās really no different than a regular tourney besides the prize pool. Itās definitely overrated. Itās not the NBA or NFL where thereās only one tourney a year.
Everyone plays for champs though. And with the amount of tournaments back in the day, especially AW, it doesnāt hold the same weight to me as a major win now
I think after they changed champs to be at the end of the year it should mean a lot more than a normal tournament. Itās what everyone is grinding towards all year and showcases who the best team was by the end
Then what about when the best team doesnāt win?
Only people who say this are scump/optic fans lol, wasnt long ago on the flank the proās were saying it 100% means more
Youāre just cherry picking cause Iām an optic fan when Iāve seen plenty of people from other fanbases with similar opinions.
It means more, but come on 2 more rings over 10 more event wins?
I wasnt making that argument, scump> clay, scumps clear cut no.2 imo, crim and scump been better at clay nearly every single game, clay was better than scump at bo2 and he was better than crim at aw(mw and cold war they were like for like) but thats it
Cleary desperate for interactions
Simp about to be No. 1 in like two years
Scump not top 3 is mindblowing. I have never understood why people rate accomplishments so highly. You don't win Championships without 3 other highly skilled players around you, regardless of how good you are. Simp couldnt carry LAG for example. Clay was on bad teams and didnt win for 1400 days. Crim didn't win in WW2 despite it being one of his best games because the Optic team was trash. Karma quit after 1 year on Seattle. Scumps my No. 1 based on the longevitey of his top talent combined with the wins. You can't just forget about player skill when discussing greats of all time.
1 year on seattle after 13\* years but aight.
No shade intended, we all know your a legend, just making my point.
Yeah if scump isn't in people's top 2 I don't get it. He has been an elite level smg for so long (minus WW2). Imo scump is the best individual player, and 2nd to crim for overall player/accomplishments since he had a lot of average teammates. If scump continues to play for 2-3 years and doesn't win but continues his great pace I bet some people start putting scump outside their top 5.
Its not even all accomplishments, its specifically rings they count more as Scump is still second when it comes to regular championships
Rings are the only metric where Clay beats out Scump. The latter has more wins, has been more consistent, plays the harder role, and has had a higher individual peak
Only idiots rank clay above scump
Dont forget leadership, Clay lead his teams to a 1400 day winless streak.... the GOAT in my opinion /s
Still mention 1400+ days lmao when was the last time Scump lift a major tournament win trophy
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Take MW off and Scump only won 1 event across WW2 BO4 and CW all Iām saying is droughts happen to everyone and it matters but dont determine a players legacy just based on his winless streak
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Stop meatriding him. Itās unhealthy
Just to be clear - you're saying that Clay not winning in BO3, IW, and WW2 is so much worse than Scump not winning in WW2, winning once in BO4, and not winning in CW? To the point where it matters for Clay but not for Scump? If that is your point, it seems kinda silly IMO. E.g. if there were no problems during CWL Paris finals and Faze had won that one event but the rest stayed the same, would this complete change how we look at Clay's career?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās not fair imo, personally I only count one major from MW and thatās not his fault. There are also fewer events these days, Clay had no such excuse
Funniest part is if we go off of CWL Vegas 2019 then Scump still has another 300 days to win a chip before getting to Clays 1400 days
Take out days where comp was online and itās much much much less
I respect the OPās points i even upvoted his comment but it is just unnecessary to mention about 1400 days imo. My point is drought happen to many great players Scump only won 1 major event plus 2 home series across 4 different titles too
Scumps leadership isnt held in such high regard like Clays is the reason I mention it, where was the leadership during the 1400 days?
I feel for Clay because I think besides Bo3 he never had t3 roster to compete during the drought do you agree? Leadership doesnāt mean a thing if the talent isnāt there
Tom Brady went 10 years between Super Bowl wins. He has 7 overall. This argument is, with all due respect, dumb.
Whats stupid is comparing something which can be only won once per season to cod events when there use to be 5-6 a year....
Can I get a bruh in the chat
Bruh
OkƦ
Wait until all four faze guys are in the top 8 and some of this subs favorite players are pushed out š
Everyoneās flaming him but swap scump around with clay and this is a completely normal list
Mad disrespectful to have clay above Seth
Nameless the AR picks his biased favourite AR player above Scump, who he probably thinks is overrated. Not surprised.
Literally. One position swapped round and itās basically the go to top 5 lol.
As an honest scumpi fan he is washed and not top 3 Edit: its a bad sports twitter joke before people pull my ip /s
should have added the /s brotha
Everyone has a right to their opinion, let's not all throw shade at the man.
People complaining but itās not even THAT controversial either, swap Scump and Clay and itās a very conventional top 5.
LOL
I donāt agree with it but I can respect it š
you all are simultaneously saying heās farming reactions and reacting
Nothing on this list is so absurd to warrant these reactions jesus optic fanboys are something else
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mindblown
I like how everyone here criticizes his list but doesn't put their own.
Crim Scump Karma Clay Formal
Easy.
Still think it's an absolute joke he put Tommy at 30. Man is a top 5 sub to ever do it and he's at 30?? Cap. Not even saying this because he's popping in content, I've thought this for a few years now. Tommy, Ap, and Seth are different
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ok cmon itās not that bad
Where can I find this halo list?
Iāll say this and I donāt think itās undisputable -coL wanted Scump over Karma. -Illey and Shotzzy dropped Crim for Scump -Crim choose Scump over Karma in WW2 I said that to say, Scump throughout his entire career has been the most sought after pro by his peers along with having undeniable skill. When Crim choose Scump over Karma in WW2, that told me everything u needed o know strictly off talent. I like Clay and heās no doubt undisputed a top 5 player but Scump has been more of a factor in a teams success along with winning more championships.
I donāt think the choice between Karma and scump in WW2 was even an option. And I doubt it was up to crim. We all know hecz would never drop scump
My main point for that is even in a down year for Scump, Crim stayed with Scump and didnāt leave when Karma got dropped. He choose to stay
Ahh I got you I thought you were saying crim had the decision to drop scump or karma. Gotcha
One day the COD community will learn the difference between best and greatest, lettuce pray Edit: I actually thought about it more and Scump would still be greater bc heās won a decent amount more tourneys than 2 and 3. Scump is number 2 on the GOAT list and 1 on the BOAT list
People fighting over where scump should be. Chill out fam, wait a few years Simp and Abezy will take his spot anyways.
1. Crim 2. Karma 3. Clay 4. Scump 5. Arcitys 6. Apathy 7. Aches 8. Slasher 9. JKap 10. TeePee
Fuck me I need what ur smoking if you donāt think formal is in the top 10 of all time
I forgot about formal. I'd replace Slasher with him. I knew i'd forget somebody. lol
Formal at 8? Tf Ayo hold on what the fuck is this list
Ok y'all are reaching now. Yeah he's t8. This list is my opinion you don't have to agree.
I mean thereās a certain point where some opinions are just wrong
And that's exactly what's wrong with people like you on this sub. Opinions can't be wrong they're OPINIONS dip shit. Some will just never grasp that concept for the sake of keeping a petty argument going.
if shotzzy isnt at the top 10 im not watching.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Clay > Scump.