Joaz Banbeck wrote:Strong players are the one element that can be used to boot-strap the whole process. Tradition, sponsors, and fan base will follow eventually. Look at the other sport/games that benefited from the presence of strength: US chess boomed in the late 60s and 70s when Bobby Fisher came along; College basketball grew with the Magic/Bird rivalry in the late 70s; Pro basketball grew with Micheal Jordan in the 90s; and in the last decade Lance armstrong became a household name. Strength came first, then fans, then sponsors, and lastly - if ever - tradition.
Of course I am focussing on strength. That is where it must start.
Joaz, thanks for the response. While we disagree on what it means to be a pro, you do have a point saying that, absent a tradition, strength can be our only guide. I certainly think being a pro means more than that, but what other criteria can we have?
Still since you acknowledge that we cannot actually fully support these pros at this time, I would still claim that we are trying to have the cart pull the horse.
Here I think we disagree again, you seem to belong to the "create heroes and the fans will come" school of thought. This is a very common belief - and here I disagree too, but with far less confidence. I believe we should focus on building players, and the heroes will emerge, but this is only a belief.
Nevertheless I would argue that these heroes - Jie Li, Andy, Eric, Michael have emerged and they do have fans, without our designating what at this point are small as well as limited resources on funding and designing a pro system that cannot do what you want it do - help these guys be as strong as they can be, and certainly cannot be what I would want it to be - guys who support our community as we support them.