LBA & LBT King Titles, lets discuss!

[RULE]

Since the topic is hot lets discuss and make a determination on it once and for all.

so lets preface a little.

I created the LBT & LBA.

I ran them both for two years i think?

So when i created them, i didnt want ANY addition titles other than the one you hold as long as your champ. I was adamant on that point.

However... lol

ILLoKWENT went on a fuckin disgusting run of 10 wins in a row. And basically everyone felt he HAD to get something for such a great achievement.

So i decided he would get an addition title for the 10 win round.

He had 8 wins and 2 no shows. 32 lines against absolute killers. even though there was the 2 no shows he THROUGHLY deserves it.

And then i left the site (2014 ish?) until summer 2019.

When i returned i realised both Esso and Rai had recieved the title, as well as an audio one for Seul.

I was told the limit was changed to 7 victories, instead of 10, and that no shows had been high. Esso won the LBT on a no show but won 7 on the bounce and got the king title. Rai notched up 10 wins, 6 losses with 2 of the wins via no show.

And then theres Seul from the audio LBA who won 10 battles, 5 via no show and 1 loss. He got the LBA title and then finally me, with 9 wins, 2 losses and one win via no show.

So at first i though the rule was it had to be 7 wins in a row, then i asked if my reign was strong enough for the title and was told yes and recieved it.

so...


The simple question is, what should consitute a King title?

10 wins in a row? 10 wins period? 7? 5?

No shows count? they dont? How important is winning an actual battle?


as one of the 5 "kings" im happy to abide by any ruling on this.


As EtH now runs the LBT, i'd have no problem with him having the power of that section.

And with the LBA defunct (for now) perhaps the people should decide.


Discuss!

1/

[RULE]

Since the topic is hot lets discuss and make a determination on it once and for all.

so lets preface a little.

I created the LBT & LBA.

I ran them both for two years i think?

So when i created them, i didnt want ANY addition titles other than the one you hold as long as your champ. I was adamant on that point.

However... lol

ILLoKWENT went on a fuckin disgusting run of 10 wins in a row. And basically everyone felt he HAD to get something for such a great achievement.

So i decided he would get an addition title for the 10 win round.

He had 8 wins and 2 no shows. 32 lines against absolute killers. even though there was the 2 no shows he THROUGHLY deserves it.

And then i left the site (2014 ish?) until summer 2019.

When i returned i realised both Esso and Rai had recieved the title, as well as an audio one for Seul.

I was told the limit was changed to 7 victories, instead of 10, and that no shows had been high. Esso won the LBT on a no show but won 7 on the bounce and got the king title. Rai notched up 10 wins, 6 losses with 2 of the wins via no show.

And then theres Seul from the audio LBA who won 10 battles, 5 via no show and 1 loss. He got the LBA title and then finally me, with 9 wins, 2 losses and one win via no show.

So at first i though the rule was it had to be 7 wins in a row, then i asked if my reign was strong enough for the title and was told yes and recieved it.

so...


The simple question is, what should consitute a King title?

10 wins in a row? 10 wins period? 7? 5?

No shows count? they dont? How important is winning an actual battle?


as one of the 5 "kings" im happy to abide by any ruling on this.


As EtH now runs the LBT, i'd have no problem with him having the power of that section.

And with the LBA defunct (for now) perhaps the people should decide.


Discuss!

1/

[Row]

no-shows shouldn't count imo

[Row]

no-shows shouldn't count imo

[Aggo]

Yeah. If I win 7 times with 6 no shows I get a title? Seems weird as hell

In the brackets if I win via no show each round for a GC maybe then you have to give up a title but even that seems like bullshit. Right? What if I win I round one and the rest are no shows. If that is even a debate weather it should count then no way should it in the lbt/a

[Aggo]

Yeah. If I win 7 times with 6 no shows I get a title? Seems weird as hell

In the brackets if I win via no show each round for a GC maybe then you have to give up a title but even that seems like bullshit. Right? What if I win I round one and the rest are no shows. If that is even a debate weather it should count then no way should it in the lbt/a

[REZN]

I've always hated the idea of "LBT king" and "LBA king." 1.) The name is stupid. 2.) It totally defeats the purpose of an interchangeable title.

[REZN]

I've always hated the idea of "LBT king" and "LBA king." 1.) The name is stupid. 2.) It totally defeats the purpose of an interchangeable title.

[EtH]

I think the rule should be decided and enforced. I'm not in favour of taking titles away from guys who won under established rulesets. I think if Rai for example was given the LBT King title that could effect his motivation next time out and cost a loss, so retroactively removing that title has an effect. That's why I tried to arrange Rai Vs ILLoKWENT for Rai's title but I couldn't work out the optics.

[EtH]

I think the rule should be decided and enforced. I'm not in favour of taking titles away from guys who won under established rulesets. I think if Rai for example was given the LBT King title that could effect his motivation next time out and cost a loss, so retroactively removing that title has an effect. That's why I tried to arrange Rai Vs ILLoKWENT for Rai's title but I couldn't work out the optics.

Originally Posted by Aggo

Yeah. If I win 7 times with 6 no shows I get a title? Seems weird as hell

In the brackets if I win via no show each round for a GC maybe then you have to give up a title but even that seems like bullshit. Right? What if I win I round one and the rest are no shows. If that is even a debate weather it should count then no way should it in the lbt/a

Askari almost had that same scenario a few years ago, I believe.

Originally Posted by Aggo

Yeah. If I win 7 times with 6 no shows I get a title? Seems weird as hell

In the brackets if I win via no show each round for a GC maybe then you have to give up a title but even that seems like bullshit. Right? What if I win I round one and the rest are no shows. If that is even a debate weather it should count then no way should it in the lbt/a

Askari almost had that same scenario a few years ago, I believe.

[TradeMarked]

Originally Posted by BROTHAPLEASE

no-shows shouldn't count imo

I agree with this guy @RULE - No Shows shouldn't count as a win in any tourney. there should be a contender waiting in case of a no show. Like, hold a "#1Contender tourney" Winner takes the place IF there is a no show.

Just an idea

[TradeMarked]

Originally Posted by BROTHAPLEASE

no-shows shouldn't count imo

I agree with this guy @RULE - No Shows shouldn't count as a win in any tourney. there should be a contender waiting in case of a no show. Like, hold a "#1Contender tourney" Winner takes the place IF there is a no show.

Just an idea

[Manhattan]

Definitely can't take away peoples titles who fairly earned them when the rules were already established.

Going forward though...

10 wins in a row should give you an LBA or LBT King title.

Also, you can't really discredit anyone for getting no-show wins. I get why one might argue that they shouldn't count. Seems lame to get wins for not battling. However, it's not their fault that they got no-showed. If someone wins a GC and gets a no-show or two...you don't take that into account when giving them their title.

[Manhattan]

Definitely can't take away peoples titles who fairly earned them when the rules were already established.

Going forward though...

10 wins in a row should give you an LBA or LBT King title.

Also, you can't really discredit anyone for getting no-show wins. I get why one might argue that they shouldn't count. Seems lame to get wins for not battling. However, it's not their fault that they got no-showed. If someone wins a GC and gets a no-show or two...you don't take that into account when giving them their title.

i don't think there CAN be a king since there's so much to debate. what if illok had the best streak, but rai had tripple his wins. what if seuls battles were considered the hardest to win. so many factors. i'd reckon it's best as a title that changes hands, and maybe there should be an annual vote for whoever holds the lba/lbt king title.

i don't think there CAN be a king since there's so much to debate. what if illok had the best streak, but rai had tripple his wins. what if seuls battles were considered the hardest to win. so many factors. i'd reckon it's best as a title that changes hands, and maybe there should be an annual vote for whoever holds the lba/lbt king title.

[Esso]

Got mine after 7 not including no shows. It was announced as a thing during my reign and tbh wasn’t really pumped about getting the interchangeable title stripped and replaced with a permanent one...but I don’t think I had much of a say at the time so whatever. If y’all wanna do away with it, cool....I’ve got no problem with it. If you keep it, make it consistent to its original definition. 7 wins, no no-shows counted.

[Esso]

Got mine after 7 not including no shows. It was announced as a thing during my reign and tbh wasn’t really pumped about getting the interchangeable title stripped and replaced with a permanent one...but I don’t think I had much of a say at the time so whatever. If y’all wanna do away with it, cool....I’ve got no problem with it. If you keep it, make it consistent to its original definition. 7 wins, no no-shows counted.