King Titles

Originally Posted by BizzyOne

I ain't phased. I won that shit and that's it.

I'm referring to LBA "kings". Dont let RULE distract you

Originally Posted by BizzyOne

I ain't phased. I won that shit and that's it.

I'm referring to LBA "kings". Dont let RULE distract you

Originally Posted by EtH

Cool, and when everybody votes their mate then what?

we count on votes to determine who wins the title in the first place but we won't consider the same voters to vote for the king title? this silly

we've been arguing for an entire year about this. an annual vote for the lbt/lba king makes sense, is easy to do, and solves the issue of "requirements" because everybody will have such vastly different ideas of what's deserving of the title.

Originally Posted by EtH

Cool, and when everybody votes their mate then what?

we count on votes to determine who wins the title in the first place but we won't consider the same voters to vote for the king title? this silly

we've been arguing for an entire year about this. an annual vote for the lbt/lba king makes sense, is easy to do, and solves the issue of "requirements" because everybody will have such vastly different ideas of what's deserving of the title.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by EtH

These decisions require stripping everyone of their title. That's not going down well.

Im happy to lose mine for the sake of doing it right.

Pick a concrete rule and more forward with it set in place.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by EtH

These decisions require stripping everyone of their title. That's not going down well.

Im happy to lose mine for the sake of doing it right.

Pick a concrete rule and more forward with it set in place.

Originally Posted by RULE

I dont see why the number 7 so important lol

Surely the if someone has 3x 6 win streaks they are more a "King" than one person with a 7 streak.

No, they're not.. Someone winning 6 then losing means they didn't reign undisputed, someone came and took over their shit. And, the whole reason this title was started was because illo had an undisputed 7 battle run, so that should be the standard.

Originally Posted by RULE

I dont see why the number 7 so important lol

Surely the if someone has 3x 6 win streaks they are more a "King" than one person with a 7 streak.

No, they're not.. Someone winning 6 then losing means they didn't reign undisputed, someone came and took over their shit. And, the whole reason this title was started was because illo had an undisputed 7 battle run, so that should be the standard.

But still. From the looks of it, no one knows what determines a LBA King so why keep it?

But still. From the looks of it, no one knows what determines a LBA King so why keep it?

Originally Posted by RULE

Im happy to lose mine for the sake of doing it right.

Pick a concrete rule and more forward with it set in place.

your run was impressive and "in a row" shouldn't matter. nobody values the "flames" for win streaks, so why would we base a title around it.

a vote for the best lbt/lba performance is right.

Originally Posted by RULE

Im happy to lose mine for the sake of doing it right.

Pick a concrete rule and more forward with it set in place.

your run was impressive and "in a row" shouldn't matter. nobody values the "flames" for win streaks, so why would we base a title around it.

a vote for the best lbt/lba performance is right.

Originally Posted by Guts

we count on votes to determine who wins the title in the first place but we won't consider the same voters to vote for the king title? this silly

we've been arguing for an entire year about this. an annual vote for the lbt/lba king makes sense, is easy to do, and solves the issue of "requirements" because everybody will have such vastly different ideas of what's deserving of the title.

I legit don't understand how an annual vote would fix anything regarding a permanent title.

Originally Posted by Guts

we count on votes to determine who wins the title in the first place but we won't consider the same voters to vote for the king title? this silly

we've been arguing for an entire year about this. an annual vote for the lbt/lba king makes sense, is easy to do, and solves the issue of "requirements" because everybody will have such vastly different ideas of what's deserving of the title.

I legit don't understand how an annual vote would fix anything regarding a permanent title.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by EtH

Yeah cool. So whos putting that in place cause I sure as fuck am not doubling my workload with it.hard enough to fill cards as is.

I'm sure it could be done. One of the 'next in line' whos the most wins in the LB_ rankings, as that person, with wins, obviously wants their shot at the title.

Example:

Eth LBA KING (4-0) vs Rieper (3-0). title match.

Punk (2-1) vs RULE(3-1) #1 contenders match

Rieper no shows. RULE has more wins, so is 'next in line' shall we say, so he slips into the title match. Punk, being that he's in the contenders match & due to RULE having to slot into the tile match, next title defence, automatically goes to Punk.win-win situation.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by EtH

Yeah cool. So whos putting that in place cause I sure as fuck am not doubling my workload with it.hard enough to fill cards as is.

I'm sure it could be done. One of the 'next in line' whos the most wins in the LB_ rankings, as that person, with wins, obviously wants their shot at the title.

Example:

Eth LBA KING (4-0) vs Rieper (3-0). title match.

Punk (2-1) vs RULE(3-1) #1 contenders match

Rieper no shows. RULE has more wins, so is 'next in line' shall we say, so he slips into the title match. Punk, being that he's in the contenders match & due to RULE having to slot into the tile match, next title defence, automatically goes to Punk.win-win situation.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Noir

No, they're not.. Someone winning 6 then losing means they didn't reign undisputed, someone came and took over their shit. And, the whole reason this title was started was because illo had an undisputed 7 battle run, so that should be the standard.

The whole reason it was started was because Illo won 10 in a row.

Thats it. And i know thats true cuz i was the one who made it lol.

I have no idea where the 7 even came from to begin with.

[RULE]

Originally Posted by Noir

No, they're not.. Someone winning 6 then losing means they didn't reign undisputed, someone came and took over their shit. And, the whole reason this title was started was because illo had an undisputed 7 battle run, so that should be the standard.

The whole reason it was started was because Illo won 10 in a row.

Thats it. And i know thats true cuz i was the one who made it lol.

I have no idea where the 7 even came from to begin with.

[EtH]

No one likes your idea Gutz just stop haha

[EtH]

No one likes your idea Gutz just stop haha