The Greatest Of: Champions (Kiwi's version)

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Some of those guys are never coming back. That's just a reality. If the whole point is to make an accurate comparison and then rank guys based on that comparison, you can't use factors that didn't exist when some guys were around. That's like ranking NBA greats and using the Slam Dunk contest as part of the rubric. There's no telling how Jerry West, for example, would've done in the Slam Dunk contest because it wasn't around when he was active. So it's a bit unfair to rate newer guys above him or give them more points because they won such contests and he didn't. You'd have to use (as much as possible) factors that have always been around to even the playing field when comparing guys from different eras.

So what do we do? Any new ideas or features, we just cancel out because it wasn’t there in the beginning? There’s no telling how Jerry West would’ve done, yeah exactly yet the NBA is now ranking All-Stars based on if a team captain picks them.

Regardless, the site’s improved its features and competitions. That’s like saying ILLOKWENT didn’t become one of the greats because he’s only LBT King.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Shodan

Aren't you supposed to be permabanned?

Also, huge props for taking the time to do this @Lil Talent. What I'd also like to see is the "raw data" of who won what and when. The records haven't necessarily been cleanly kept as far as I know, and it looks like you've already done the footwork to collect the pieces.

Do I look permabanned? What a stupid uncalled for question. Obviously I didn’t unban myself, pedo.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Some of those guys are never coming back. That's just a reality. If the whole point is to make an accurate comparison and then rank guys based on that comparison, you can't use factors that didn't exist when some guys were around. That's like ranking NBA greats and using the Slam Dunk contest as part of the rubric. There's no telling how Jerry West, for example, would've done in the Slam Dunk contest because it wasn't around when he was active. So it's a bit unfair to rate newer guys above him or give them more points because they won such contests and he didn't. You'd have to use (as much as possible) factors that have always been around to even the playing field when comparing guys from different eras.

So what do we do? Any new ideas or features, we just cancel out because it wasn’t there in the beginning? There’s no telling how Jerry West would’ve done, yeah exactly yet the NBA is now ranking All-Stars based on if a team captain picks them.

Regardless, the site’s improved its features and competitions. That’s like saying ILLOKWENT didn’t become one of the greats because he’s only LBT King.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Shodan

Aren't you supposed to be permabanned?

Also, huge props for taking the time to do this @Lil Talent. What I'd also like to see is the "raw data" of who won what and when. The records haven't necessarily been cleanly kept as far as I know, and it looks like you've already done the footwork to collect the pieces.

Do I look permabanned? What a stupid uncalled for question. Obviously I didn’t unban myself, pedo.