What makes you think you're any good in first place ?

Being good is a matter of opinion. On what basis do you consider yourself ? You can be the fastest one day on a track and the next day average because you were feeling sick.

Does losing to a guy you used to beat, when you think you were a better player back when you beat him, has any interesting output on your level if your opponent is a better player himself now ?

Nadal won 14 Roland Garros. He lost in 2009 to Soderling - a player who had no major success whatsoever in elite tennis - after dominating the tournament four years in a row, beating three times out of his four first triumphs Federer which was number one most of the time during this period. What is your appreciation of this ?

I'll give you hints on how to conquer third place at your next bowling games : politics, policies, economics, philosophy, knowledge, hard work, perseverance, sacrifices, mortification of the spirit...

it's enough to look at the bell curve ... there is not just pro level, it's also about the time invested and what you got out of it ratio ... thing is about all these pro players, there were already the best in their field at sub 20 years age level, I don't think anyone of them really put 'effort' into their sport, they were all supported and guided by a big team behind them to make them execute, they got to the top mostly through innate ability and guidance/support network, not through conscient effort on their own ... but with every good thing comes a bad thing as well, most of them are 'einseitige Krüppel' (oneside cripples, Nietzsche), and when their 'career' halts, their life halts as well ... for some people their purpose is getting insights from many different things, creating synergy effects, which will enable them to create new things

Yeah. I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Not sure about the part on the effort though.

Form is temporary, class is forever.
You don't need much form to beat players who are legit worse than you. I bet old pros like socrates/fooki with their 2005 ability could still beat most players today because their meta is so high and the games if anything have gotten easier.

If you're losing to such a player then the chances are you were not that much better and just have a rosy view of yourself.

Its very easy to lose to someone quite badly and still be close to them in terms of actual skill, DMG received/dealt were always interesting to see, sometimes a player could do more damage, but still lose badly as they lacked something very subtle as the number of metrics at play in quake is vast & complex.

Sure, being out of form is not good, but the player you think you are better than could have been in that state when you played.

could have, but if you know someone, you know them longterm, so your verdict is not based on a single event ... anyway, you are right, you are back to form quite quickly, but it still requires you to invest at least 2-3 weeks consistently playing ... I mean if something is fun, it's fun, Quake is not hard to motivate myself, unlike chess, I think Quake can be played casually, at least for TDM, there is only an internal skil rating, and you compare yourself to the 4-8 players in the current match, and after the match is a new match, while in online chess every game is elo based, and you compare yourself against the world, and don't to lose your world 'rank', which 'lasts' forever, which makes things too serious for casually playing

Touché!

I had a random CA game a couple of nights ago, in the last 6 or 7 years I've probably played like once or twice. I wasn't doing terrible for being out of practise and no settings, but guys were complaining that I wasn't like "going to my position" or I was mucking about too much. But like jeez, it's a random CA for a pretty inactive game, stop treating it like it's a tournament or something.