The identification of pointer years is central in tree-ring studies, for example, for crossdating or describing growth responses of trees to extreme events. Various methods exist to define pointer years. To these methods, a presumably new method was recently added, i.e. the standardized growth change (SGC) method (Buras et al., 2020; 2022), which was claimed by the authors to outperform existing methods. In this Communication, we perform a concise method review and compare the SGC method with existing pointer year detection methods using simulated tree-ring data that contain diverse signal patterns. We not only provide evidence that the SGC method has already been proposed in 1994, but furthermore show that each method for pointer year detection, including SGC, has its own strengths and weaknesses. Given that each method highlights different aspects of extraordinary growth, we repeat our conclusion from Jetschke et al. (2019), namely that no method can be substituted by others completely, and thus be claimed as being ‘best’. As applies to all methods for pointer year detection, SGC is a complementary but certainly powerful method. We request the dendro-community to provide clear explanations in future studies on how the term pointer year was used to prevent unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.