The Greatest Of: Champions (Kiwi's version)

[NOBLE]

When did LB.com competitions start?

[NOBLE]

When did LB.com competitions start?

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

When did LB.com competitions start?

My mistake, the earliest records I can find date from 2011. I do think it's an issue that battlers from the 2006-2009 period are very difficult to accurately rank, although a lot of them are HOF despite not having any titles so I guess that somewhat evens things out, for instance WAR TANK/Warren Peece is =61st. I guess a rankings list based purely on talent and ability not results is the only way to give the 2000's battlers a shot at being top unfortunately.

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

When did LB.com competitions start?

My mistake, the earliest records I can find date from 2011. I do think it's an issue that battlers from the 2006-2009 period are very difficult to accurately rank, although a lot of them are HOF despite not having any titles so I guess that somewhat evens things out, for instance WAR TANK/Warren Peece is =61st. I guess a rankings list based purely on talent and ability not results is the only way to give the 2000's battlers a shot at being top unfortunately.

[RULE]

Fantastic collection here LT.

Its a very difficult job to do, as the amount of tourneys & the creation of LBA & LBT after 2012(ish) makes it very hard to form an objective display on who's accolades are the more impressive.

At the end of the day things like "best, greatest etc ect" are subjective, but putting together a list like this always helps the conversation.

Great stuff my man!

1/

[RULE]

Fantastic collection here LT.

Its a very difficult job to do, as the amount of tourneys & the creation of LBA & LBT after 2012(ish) makes it very hard to form an objective display on who's accolades are the more impressive.

At the end of the day things like "best, greatest etc ect" are subjective, but putting together a list like this always helps the conversation.

Great stuff my man!

1/

[Shodan]

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

[Shodan]

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Ud get wrecked..

Originally Posted by Shodan

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Ud get wrecked..

[Phil Banks]

I think anyone active before 2012 should be given a curve coz back then it was harder to win with the amount of dope people.... alot of later guys myself included had GC's that were bascially one or two hard battles an the rest cake walks if that. Said the same shit in Rule's thread guys like UA, Ticket even Boro had a harder road to a win than later winners did.

[Phil Banks]

I think anyone active before 2012 should be given a curve coz back then it was harder to win with the amount of dope people.... alot of later guys myself included had GC's that were bascially one or two hard battles an the rest cake walks if that. Said the same shit in Rule's thread guys like UA, Ticket even Boro had a harder road to a win than later winners did.

[The Ghost of Freak]

@Jimmy Hoffa I personally think battle rap is garbage for garbage people. The fact that I'm not still banned is a failure of the moderators. @g u t s


LBA is dookie business and deserves no creedence in a point system. Grand Champs are also dookie. Battle rap is likeblood sport for hateful manchildren.

PBS Special: Self esteem issues and insecurities are real, check yo self first you wreck yoself.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Also, did @Edgeworth and @Seul pull the trigger on the shotgun wedding yet?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Bet y'all are happy I'm back, right? 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

Permaban me plz.

[The Ghost of Freak]

@Jimmy Hoffa I personally think battle rap is garbage for garbage people. The fact that I'm not still banned is a failure of the moderators. @g u t s


LBA is dookie business and deserves no creedence in a point system. Grand Champs are also dookie. Battle rap is likeblood sport for hateful manchildren.

PBS Special: Self esteem issues and insecurities are real, check yo self first you wreck yoself.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Also, did @Edgeworth and @Seul pull the trigger on the shotgun wedding yet?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Bet y'all are happy I'm back, right? 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

Permaban me plz.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@NOBLE @Phil Banks @Jimmy Hoffa

Regarding adjusting scores based on time period: If it's available, the raw data on this would be so helpful. The problem is idk if it can be found, but if it can, here's what I would do: Take the top 10,000 most highly ranked accounts on the site in text and maybe the top 5,000 in audio. Sort them by years active, so you'd exclude people like ALL-BORO whose runs transcend across multiple eras to make it easier. Maybe just split them into people who were primarily active in 2006-2009, 2010-2015, 2016-2020. Then, you work out how many points under this system everyone in the rankings would have, and use that to format a half-bell-curve (90% or more would have 0 points obviously so it wouldn't be a full bell-curve). You could then work out how the score distributions differed by era, so for instance "the top 0.5% of battlers in the 2000s got >20 points, the top 5% got >5 points, the top 10% got >0 points; whereas from 2010-2015 the top 0.5% got >30 points, the top 5% got >15 points and the top 10% got >3 points" and then use some form of mathematical modelling or something to adjust each battler's scores based on their time period.

However, I think that this kind of system is more like a "pound for pound greatest boxer of all time" discussion. The thing about "pound for pound" type discussions is that its always going to be more effective to make a subjective call based on talent rather than trying to use statistics.

Also, no-ones mentioned it, but I think that whether achievements were in audio or text needs to be taken into account as well, relative to the time period in which they were earned. In 2006, the audio GC I think carried much more weight than the text, because the text side of the site was really underdeveloped. THA DUKE's accomplishment should probably be worth more than SpleNDiD. However, in 2019, I think a text win is probably more noteworthy than an audio win. For instance, in the latest audio GC, there were 15 people signed up, almost half of whom no-showed in the first round or something like that, and it reached the point where I actually signed up for it purely because I felt bad that such a prestigious tournament couldn't find 16 participants. Not to take anything away from Boro's phenomenal achievement, because the quality of the battlers that remained was impressive, but the competition for text titles is currently much more heated than audio imo. Just my thoughts though, I'd be interested to see what people have to say.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@NOBLE @Phil Banks @Jimmy Hoffa

Regarding adjusting scores based on time period: If it's available, the raw data on this would be so helpful. The problem is idk if it can be found, but if it can, here's what I would do: Take the top 10,000 most highly ranked accounts on the site in text and maybe the top 5,000 in audio. Sort them by years active, so you'd exclude people like ALL-BORO whose runs transcend across multiple eras to make it easier. Maybe just split them into people who were primarily active in 2006-2009, 2010-2015, 2016-2020. Then, you work out how many points under this system everyone in the rankings would have, and use that to format a half-bell-curve (90% or more would have 0 points obviously so it wouldn't be a full bell-curve). You could then work out how the score distributions differed by era, so for instance "the top 0.5% of battlers in the 2000s got >20 points, the top 5% got >5 points, the top 10% got >0 points; whereas from 2010-2015 the top 0.5% got >30 points, the top 5% got >15 points and the top 10% got >3 points" and then use some form of mathematical modelling or something to adjust each battler's scores based on their time period.

However, I think that this kind of system is more like a "pound for pound greatest boxer of all time" discussion. The thing about "pound for pound" type discussions is that its always going to be more effective to make a subjective call based on talent rather than trying to use statistics.

Also, no-ones mentioned it, but I think that whether achievements were in audio or text needs to be taken into account as well, relative to the time period in which they were earned. In 2006, the audio GC I think carried much more weight than the text, because the text side of the site was really underdeveloped. THA DUKE's accomplishment should probably be worth more than SpleNDiD. However, in 2019, I think a text win is probably more noteworthy than an audio win. For instance, in the latest audio GC, there were 15 people signed up, almost half of whom no-showed in the first round or something like that, and it reached the point where I actually signed up for it purely because I felt bad that such a prestigious tournament couldn't find 16 participants. Not to take anything away from Boro's phenomenal achievement, because the quality of the battlers that remained was impressive, but the competition for text titles is currently much more heated than audio imo. Just my thoughts though, I'd be interested to see what people have to say.

[Phracture]

26 not bad lol

[Phracture]

26 not bad lol

[Obey]

Wow, awesome system here. Also great to see I made the list; glad I stopped by today.

[Obey]

Wow, awesome system here. Also great to see I made the list; glad I stopped by today.