No, actually, that's not the case at all. When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level.
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for everyone. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. Wrong.
The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do.
This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level.
#12 is dead on.
Source has 18% bigger models than 1.6, with 36% more hittable surface area and 76% larger heads. Source has up to 40% less recoil (depending on the gun) than 1.6, making the guns easier to control. Source has more powerful flashbangs than 1.6, increasing the number of player deaths while blind. Source has the exact same movement speed as 1.6, which means that proportionally, models move more slowly. Additionally, as proven time and time again, top 1.6 players are able to transition to Source and continue to compete on the highest level of competition, while the opposite is not possible.
So, "Source is easier than 1.6" is definitely an entirely invalid, fabricated, unjustified point. Seriously, you fools, stop tarnishing the forums by spreading speculation and lies.
#39 & #50:
No, I'm not using stats "that were created when the game first came out." I'm actually using stats that were re-researched just two days ago. It's simple math, and it's based on two very obvious methods of research: decompiling maps and models for 1.6 & Source. By decompiling maps and analyzing the different heights of "default" boxes (defined as the boxes that are just tall enough for a player to hide behind while standing - one unit greater than the player model). Using this simple method of research alone, you find that (surprise!) the ratio of Source model height to 1.6 model height is 1.18:1 (an 18% increase). This research is then confirmed by decompiling the models themselves, which furthermore gives you information about head dimensions and surface area.
Also, #50:
You may indeed have "seen videos" where the recoil "looks" almost identical. But I assure you my facts are correct. I've been spending the last two months, in particular, spending about 100+ hours shooting at walls in 1.6 and Source, doing all kind of measurements, and taking all kinds of screenshots (yeah, I know, I need to get out more). So, the recoil to you may indeed "look almost identical," but I've done enough research at this point where what i've learned is beyond disputable.
To back up my point, I'll share one AK47 comparison screenshot with you, which is one of hundreds, but I think sums up the recoil difference pretty accurately:
Exact same map dimensions. Exact same beginning fire-point. Exact same gun. 1.6 on the left, Source on the right.
...you tell me.
quoting #34 for fun. I hope nightfall sees this
this was posted by Ph33r:
I then played 1.6 in CAL-I with Super and as a backup for United5 for a short period of time.
I got somewhat bored with the repetitiveness of the top 1.6 scene, so I moved on to other games that I played for fun until CS:Source came out.
bored of sitting on that u5 bench, at what point exactly were you in the top 1.6 team nightfall?
(16:33:42) (@coL|fRoD[A]) he wasnt a u5 backup (16:33:56) (@coL|fRoD[A]) his cod team was in u5 when i was in u5 cs (16:34:10) (@coL|fRoD[A]) and i never played w/ him (16:34:15) (@coL|fRoD[A]) and we had no 6th lol
Dan "danpay" Piotrowski 
