[2022] Where does "high elo" begin and more importantly, WHY?

We have all seen the e-peen rubbing of "high elo is D+", "no, its actually D1+ and some argue its M+".

For anyone who does not know exactly what percentage of players are in what division, check this out:

https://www.esportstales.com/league-of-legends/rank-distribution-percentage-of-players-by-tier

Now, a G+ player is mathematically in the top 35% of players. So nooot quite but almooost the top 1/3 of players. And a P+ is in the top 11.8% of players so a bit below the top 10% of players. That is quite a bit above average (the average meaning being in the top 50th percentile by definition, or rank S2).

Now, D4+, D1+, M+, GM+ are the top 1.8%, 0.48%, 0.2% and 0.042% respectively. Or 1 in ~55, 1 in ~200, 1 in ~500 and 1 in ~2400 respectively.

I have kept seeing people just proclaiming that "such or such [INSERT VERY HIGH RANK HERE USUALLY D+] is the start of high elo".

And I have kept seeing people call out this snobbery with rational arguments like "saying G+ is trash because D+ exists is like saying people in the top 1% of net worth are poverty line because Jeff Bezos exists". Which is an objectively good argument. The hyper-achievement of a few does not diminish the very good achievement of the more-than-few-yet-still-a-minority-by-definition.

And I think we all know what the answers to actual inquiries into the snobbery around the concept of "high elo" are. A variant of one of the following:

- "You have clearly never compared/played a G+ game and a D+ game." Referring to the fact that upon closer inspection the difference would be clear. However... well effing duh? If you complare a high rank with an ultra high rank game, guess which of the 2 will feature more skilled players and thus more strategy and skill involved? This proves nothing other than the existence of an "ultra high elo" above the "high elo".

- "G+/P+ players think they are good, D+ players think they are trash." This refers to the Dunning Kruger effect/syndrome where people good at something usually see how large that subject is and know how little they truly know about that subject, and people who are bad at that subject, and who do not know how large it is will consider themselves unreasonably good because they are not aware of how much they do not know. However, this is easily countered by just looking at people. There is arrogance and humility at all skill brackets. Sure, humility gives you a better chance of learning and maybe climbing, 100% agree, but claiming this to be the definitive difference between "low" and "high" elo sounds like all I need to go pro is crippling self esteem issues.

- "Thats the consensus" I have nothing to say other than... according to who? because its clearly not according to the majority seeing as discussions about where high elo starts are often clashes of opinions so clearly there is no real "consensus"

So I have a few questions:

1. Where do you define "high elo" to start?
2. More importantly, WHY? Please answer without using any of the above non-arguments.
3. I have seen the idea that a S1 is only a little behind a G4 but a D1 is WAY WORSE than an M. This makes little sense to me because if you are at your correct rank (the rank you should be in assuming perfect matchmaking and teammates of completely similar skill) then you should be a bit better than the division just below you and a bit worse than the division above. And aside from Challenger which has a limited number of spots this rule seems to have no reason not to apply to everyone up to and including GM. So what do you think of the idea that "a S1 is only a little behind a G4 but a D1 is WAY WORSE than an M" ?

Please keep this a civil discussion as this is not a troll or rage post and I do not want to invite any troll or """"funny"""" (notice the multitude of quotes) responses. I would like some real insight into what high elo actually is and why is it like that without the non-arguments mentioned above.

Have a great day!

External link →