The Greatest Of: Champions

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Seul

Yeah, light work.... that's Akon in Africa!

BARZ

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Seul

Yeah, light work.... that's Akon in Africa!

BARZ

[Manhattan]

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

[Manhattan]

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

Pretty much this.

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

Pretty much this.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

It was to try and compensate the imbalance of the THC / LBT titles.

And you have to of won SOMETHING to get on this list.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Honestly...not digging this at all. Why would you get points for being a runner up? This is greatest of CHAMPIONS!

It was to try and compensate the imbalance of the THC / LBT titles.

And you have to of won SOMETHING to get on this list.

Originally Posted by RULE

Agreed and changed



If anyone thinks there calculation is wrong just post your accolades here. We should be able to clear it up easy enough.

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

Originally Posted by RULE

Agreed and changed



If anyone thinks there calculation is wrong just post your accolades here. We should be able to clear it up easy enough.

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Celsius

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

Yeah i decided just to give higher ranked to thought who had a harder path to there points. There isnt too many ties anyways.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Celsius

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

Yeah i decided just to give higher ranked to thought who had a harder path to there points. There isnt too many ties anyways.

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by Celsius

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

The reason the numbers afterward were omitted is that if there are 8 people who got more points than you, you must be the ninth Greatest Champion, right? Even if two of those 8 people have the same number of points, that doesn’t actually affect the fact that there are 8 people better than you and you are the ninth best.

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by Celsius

Phill Banks and Stricc should both be 8 and M-Rock should be 9 and so on.


You had it like this:


8.Stricc
8. Phill Banks
10. M-Rock

That's what I mean by not skipping the number after a tie. (9)

The reason the numbers afterward were omitted is that if there are 8 people who got more points than you, you must be the ninth Greatest Champion, right? Even if two of those 8 people have the same number of points, that doesn’t actually affect the fact that there are 8 people better than you and you are the ninth best.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

The reason the numbers afterward were omitted is that if there are 8 people who got more points than you, you must be the ninth Greatest Champion, right? Even if two of those 8 people have the same number of points, that doesn’t actually affect the fact that there are 8 people better than you and you are the ninth best.

Good Expo, thx.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

The reason the numbers afterward were omitted is that if there are 8 people who got more points than you, you must be the ninth Greatest Champion, right? Even if two of those 8 people have the same number of points, that doesn’t actually affect the fact that there are 8 people better than you and you are the ninth best.

Good Expo, thx.

[Manhattan]

Originally Posted by RULE

It was to try and compensate the imbalance of the THC / LBT titles.

And you have to of won SOMETHING to get on this list.

I like the idea of the new points structure. I just can't understand why people would get points for losing battles. It's supposed to be the greatest of champions.

It would be like if you tallied up the greatest nfl champions. The Minnesota Vikings wouldn't get put on the list for losing in 4 superbowls. Only teams with a championship would and the teams with a finals appearances would be irrelevant.


What have Rican and Wigsplit won?

[Manhattan]

Originally Posted by RULE

It was to try and compensate the imbalance of the THC / LBT titles.

And you have to of won SOMETHING to get on this list.

I like the idea of the new points structure. I just can't understand why people would get points for losing battles. It's supposed to be the greatest of champions.

It would be like if you tallied up the greatest nfl champions. The Minnesota Vikings wouldn't get put on the list for losing in 4 superbowls. Only teams with a championship would and the teams with a finals appearances would be irrelevant.


What have Rican and Wigsplit won?

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by Manhattan

I like the idea of the new points structure. I just can't understand why people would get points for losing battles. It's supposed to be the greatest of champions.

It would be like if you tallied up the greatest nfl champions. The Minnesota Vikings wouldn't get put on the list for losing in 4 superbowls. Only teams with a championship would and the teams with a finals appearances would be irrelevant.


What have Rican and Wigsplit won?

Neither Rican nor Wigsplit have won anything, the only criterion for making the list as it currently is is achieving at least 2 of the things mentioned, but I think it might be worth changing it so that you have to have won at least 1 thing.

With 2nd place people, as I understand it they aren't getting their points for losing the final but for making it to the final, which is arguably just as hard as winning it. There've been quite a few instances where someone has gone through a murderer's row to make it to the final and been the favourite and then either due to irl circumstances or choking or something else they've lost it at the final hurdle; although they obviously don't deserve the same points as a winner I think this is worth recognising because just making it to any final is still a very difficult achievement. That's just my view though.

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by Manhattan

I like the idea of the new points structure. I just can't understand why people would get points for losing battles. It's supposed to be the greatest of champions.

It would be like if you tallied up the greatest nfl champions. The Minnesota Vikings wouldn't get put on the list for losing in 4 superbowls. Only teams with a championship would and the teams with a finals appearances would be irrelevant.


What have Rican and Wigsplit won?

Neither Rican nor Wigsplit have won anything, the only criterion for making the list as it currently is is achieving at least 2 of the things mentioned, but I think it might be worth changing it so that you have to have won at least 1 thing.

With 2nd place people, as I understand it they aren't getting their points for losing the final but for making it to the final, which is arguably just as hard as winning it. There've been quite a few instances where someone has gone through a murderer's row to make it to the final and been the favourite and then either due to irl circumstances or choking or something else they've lost it at the final hurdle; although they obviously don't deserve the same points as a winner I think this is worth recognising because just making it to any final is still a very difficult achievement. That's just my view though.