Your arguement makes no sense. First off, i'm not here to defend thsoe who simply claim themselves as "pros". This game hasn't been out long enough for anyone to look at themselves in that light.
The idea that the game isn't balanced for some does have foundation. There have been plenty of thoughtful threads to that very idea, you just dismiss it because the smaller community you've taken up with has rationalized the contrary, and it doesn't serve your purposes, so the work isn't something you feel like needs to be done. I don't believe it's simply who's the better player, not yet, just looking at the vague stats in games I've played shows me something to the contrary, that's colloquial evidence, but we don't have particularly good data to look at anyway.
This means nothing without context. Yes I looked at a dictionary yesterday, it has lots of data. It agreed with me. See how easy that is?
And so, if you indeed have proof that the game is balanced, for all players at any level...I want to see it. Provide it and put the issue to bed if you've got that proof.
I never said this game was balanced, or that changes don't need to be made. I'm just argueing with the silly abstraction you passionatly believe that theres somehow two forms of balance that needs to be implemented. If 5 professional gamers play to the best of their ability and the game is somehow magically even at this moment, than the game is balanced for 5 new players. If those new players did the same actions, they would have the same result. The idea that somehow if your worse at the game makes the game unbalanced in way is just misguided imagination.
It may not FEEL balanced when player x does that, REALLY LAME MOVE~, but if it has perfectly viable counters that people can do consistently, its nothing more than mere whining. What youre argueing is that we should balance the game depending on how people feel at certain levels, rather than actual best layed out scenarios.