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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

No one likes your idea Gutz just stop haha