Explain to me why the world championship matters if Magnus isn’t playing!
Sort:
Whoever wins the world championship won’t really be the undisputed best, Magnus isn’t playing. What are your arguments for and against this?
So by that logic Fischer was World Champion from 1972 to his death.
He even successfully defended his title in 1992.
Interesting perspective
The point of being the defending champion of something is that you have to defend your championship.
True, true.
Are you serious rn bro? It's like saying basket ball doesn't matter anymore since Lebron isn't playing.
PromisingPawns wrote:
Are you serious rn bro? It's like saying basket ball doesn't matter anymore since Lebron isn't playing.
Actually, there are a lot of fans who are like this. They worship their chosen idol, then when the idol retires they lose interest in the sport. Not unusual at all.
The logic is that the new World Champion will be just that. It doesn't mean they are the best player in the World, just as the World Champion sprinter might not be the fastest runner in the World.
I think that people in general prefer the world champion to actually be the best at a sport.
chirpbird23 wrote:
I think that people in general prefer the world champion to actually be the best at a sport.
Well, Magnus should retire and problem solved. He's semi-retired already.
Sometimes underdogs win championships… doesn’t mean they’re better than everyone else who competed. It just means they performed better in this one event.
We see this time and time again where a world champion wins a sport or competition and then they lose the next year terribly.