First Irony - Nada and steadiness

'The Genius' which has been a nickname with the longest history, the 'GrandSlammer' when being on the prime with the title of Bonjoa, and the 'Machine' have been the three representative nicknames to describe Nada. However, when we take a close look at his nicks, although the nicknames for other players advocate their 'strength' itself, most of Nada's nicks mainly seem to focus on 'Nada's own strength.'

To me -and more recently than before- Nada's strongest asset is not the 'strength' he demonstrated during his Grand Slam, but the steadiness.

This is what I have commented on someone else's article; Will there be another player than Nada with that many matches and that many championships? He remained in both Major Leagues, even after his force as  Bonjoa has been deteriorated, for three years and won the championship. He overcame the hardship of being in both leagues' priliminaries, made through them, and again became the winner. He was always in the Proleague, however his starleague schedule was set, and did his things. He also received an award twice for the player with the most wins.

It is a pity to explain Nada's career, based upon the so-called 'force, just like the others' that have faded away after their prime. To make myself clear, I'd say that Nada's career is something that cannot be explained based upon the force. It is better to make his 'genius' a standard, however ambiguious, to analyze his career.

Of course, I understand why his steadiness does not deserve a nickname. Being in an expected position is only considered ordinary-although it's a different story for a winner of a league. As Nanami Siono has written in her book 'The Story of The Romans,' there's much to write about a person such as Julius Ceasar, with so many ups and downs and a bunch of gossips, but not very much to state about stady people such as Augustus, which gave historians headaches, 'stadiness' itself does not have much room to describe a person nor does it inspire any sort of nicknames for an individual.

What those who claim deficiency in Nada's steadiness point out is the slump, particularly stepping down to priliminaries in both leagues from 2005, due to the disasters such as his father's having passed away. However, as I have mentioned above, he was awareded for the most wins in Proleague at that time. And as ClassicMild have pointed out his Force Point, Nada marked 1200 however in a deep slump he was. So, I think the minor ups and downs does not deprive him of being steady.

I think what could possibly operate as an obstacle for him, from the past to the future, will be his own 'mindsetting.' He became so nervous and did not do well when he was obssessed with an intention to win, and was disappointed with himself for not performing as excellent as the usual himself. Quoting from Confucius, a person with such a big burden like Nada needs to 'enjoy his work' and take the golden mean.

I feel, from Nada's games, that a man's obssessive intention to win can be detrimental for him.
I also feel, from Nada's career, that God has given a man a power to overcome the momentary trial as well.



Second Irony - Nada and Strategies

If you ask people with two keywords, Nada and Strategies, their responses will mostly be one of the three below;

1. "Nada? He's very strategic. He isn't called 'free style' for nothing."
2. "Nada? I don't know about his being so strategic, but yeah he's good at massing. Why would we say 'Nada with the nat'?"
3. "Nada? Doesn't he always go for 1rax CC(or 1fac 1star, SK) nowadays?"

Perhaps there are other answers from those who have been deeply impacted by his certain games. I'm not trying to argue if Nada is strategic or vice versa. What I'm intended to do is to criticize people with the notion as answer #3, when strategies constitute a big part of Nada's play.

I will not deny that my impression is formed upon his brilliant and strategic games, among more than 570 wins, which had a deep impact upon me. An example will be the match vs sAviOr in New Peaks of Baekdu, where he grasped the victory with a hidden factory, a CC in a nat without gathering minerals, then a raid on Zerg's nat with a squad of marines. That broght him the winning trophy and the ring in Shinhan Masters. A match vs H.O.T-Forever in Emperor of Emperor, where he tried hidden 2rax and a firebat rush, which granted him the climax of the Grand Slam, is another example.

(For me, Nada's most strategic game that drove the opponent crazy was again a match vs H.O.T-Forever, in Forest of Abyss in the quarterfinals of Flea Market FindA Challenge League. He annoyed his opponent with double bunkering while the commentators were gagging, then built a factory only to cancel, went on to build 3 starports, and after his main base was swept out by Zerglings, he relocated his CC onto an island and produced some wraiths to annihilate the opponent's Drones to 'dry him up.' H.O.T-Forever was so infuriated that he ordered his Zerglings to attack his main hatchery before he called GG.)

It is absurd to argue if Nada is strategic or not. He has both sides-strategic and not so strategic, almost stubborn. Sometimes he holds on to the same strategy against a certain race for months, however low his winning rate may be. And sometimes he comes up with bizzar plays like the one I have seen. It is a pity that such a dynamic player, with many more aspects to be looked at, is evaluated with only one side. I know it's natural for a person to see things as he likes and in that perspective 'Nada's like this' arguments are acceptable. But at the same time, such claims as 'Nada's all the same' make me want to confute them.

Of course, for Nada, the strong-maybe a little overwhelming- 'force during his term of Bonjoa' has somehow put a veil over his strategic side. A good example comes from 'Nada with the nat.' Isn't the power of a word so strong, that those who actually saw his games during his primetime would retort the argument that 'Nada won the game with the nat and massing no matter what his opponent did', pointing out that 'Nada has won this particular match with this strategy and that tactic, without a nat.' However, for those who have long forgotten about his games back then or have not had a chance to actually watch them, 'Nada with the nat' is still a valid phrase.

It is more than just obvious, especially when we think about his genius, that Nada is Nada.
He can be hardly analyzed by the mere standards such as 'strategic' or 'not strategic.'


Third Irony - Nada and popularity(or acceptance)

To be honest, I was agonized if I should say anything about this. There were two considerations.

One was that myself, 'The xian' is a fan of Nada and although I feel what has to be called 'a spiritual resonance' from his games, I have not met him in person at all, not to mention that I know almost nothing about his personal life. Therefore the popularity here is simply from a fan or a stranger.

For the other, you will find it for yourself as you read along. I'm determined to say what I have to say when I'm given a chance.

It is very ironic that a player, without any serious defects in his personality or private life, and with the most remarkable career including winning a championship every year(not every season), does not get the best praise and popularity from the fans. But that's what's happening in StarCraft. The underestimation of Nada's career, in my opinion, is mainly because of his career itself, however ironic it may be.

That means Nada was devaluated because he piled up the most remarkable records while even 'the Emperor,' the absolute E-sports icon was still in existence yet without achivements not as marvelous as Nada as a player. It was rather the negligence of the Media than the problem with fans; they weren't going to introduce a 'new icon' when the throne was already occupied by 'the Emperor.' As a fan, I'm thankful for the media for the golden mouse, having special programs on air and giving him nicknames such as the 'King of Masters' after he won the Championship. But shouldn't it have been done already?

It is absurd to compare these two players and argue who's better than who. 'The Emperor' BoxeR was given the name and received his crown  for the achievment of the championship in both leagues at the same time for the first time in StarCraft history, promotion of Progamers through himself and being a reason and a motive for creating the Air Force Ace. If that's the case, then Nada should be treated the same. He has renown for a Grand Slam, a Golden Mouse, and legendary records such as the number of matches and the winning rate, which he tops without a doubt. He deserves to be 'the Genius' and 'the GrandSlammer,' and at the same time he's entitled to the crown that matches his fame.

Unfortunately he cannot get that much praise nor did the reality be that way. It wasn't only the media, but also the fandom. I will not talk about my personal behind stories. It's more than enough with what I have seen and heard happening in PGR. The atmosphere right after his game in 'Iron Curtain' or right before the Shinhan Starleague Season 3 finals proves that it's undeniable that the popularity and favor towards Nada have been so much depreciated, sometimes cruelly, for his career whether it was because of the force or the matter of his fandom.

It is deplorable for a fan and the hurt individual, the player. When the nature of a fan brings about more demands for his/her icon even when he can't be more praised, what do you think he/she'd feel when he/she has to witness the depreciation, devaluation and underestimation over and over again? Just his luck to be in the 'deadliest group' every time he was in the league, not to mention the number of matches, to be exploited in Proleague, stories about receiving the prize; as a fan who feels that Nada wasn't with a fortune to have good people around him, needless to say about his misfortune in general, I have to express my regret to Nada's 'having been underestimated(to an undue extent sometimes).'

But there is no reason to care about the past; at least I think so.

Nanami Siono wrote in her book 'The Story of The Romans' when she talked about the legendary Five Wise Emperors;

"Once in Japan, people used to say 'we should vote for the ones whom we'd like to have represent ourselves than the ones who want to be designated' whenever there was an election. But I think the statement is still vaild until nowadays. Under this standard, Trajauns is an even mixture of 'wanting to be designated' and 'a qualified representative,' whereas Hadrianus is a 100% candidate wannabe. And Antonius Pius, whom I will be talking from now on, will definately be 'someone who'd make a qualified representative.'" (Nanami Siono, 'The Story of The Romans' vol. 9, p.424)

If someday I was going to define the legendary players of my own,

I don't know if Nada is a 'candidate wannabe' because I can't read his thoughts,
and I don't know what others will think of Nada in terms of a 'qualified representative,'

One certain thing is that he has to be a 'legend' in any case.

I still love to be his fan, however hard it may be to forget about the hurts from the past and
to stop the alternation of joy and grief.

It's a long road to enjoy the irony he presents before me, and Nada and I have a lot more days to come to figure things out.

-The xian-

----------------------------------------------

Original Article by The xian
Translation by PurpleRain