LBA Confusion
 

Bit confusing combining title match records with contender records .. It's not the same

Just think of it in boxing terms. Title matches get added to/count towards your over all record.

Yeah... Title matches do get added to your record .. Your main lb record .. That's what that analogy fits... Seems untidy and inaccurate doing it this way ... Title matches should hold more weight than a contender match and not be lumped together like that

But so do none title matches too. This is a separate entity from the normal rankings. every win and loss up there has been gained through the LBA. Don't get what you mean by title matches should mean more, what you want me to do give you 2 wins for winning a title match? a win is a win is a win. same as with any sport. just as if you win any sport if you win the whole thing you get a title/championship. thats the added weight for winning a title match.

I don't see what's hard to understand ... If your gonna keep records .. Keep records of title matches ... Anything else is just a means to get on the contender list ... Grizz winning a couple battles to get on the list isn't the same as phil going 3-1 as champion

The main thing is, is to not concentrate on the battle records because they are only there as a record to you myself and anyone else viewing knows how many battles each contender had along with how many they've won/lost. Just look at the records if you're curious to know how someone has done in the LBA. Not as a must to follow the rankings and how they work, they're purely for show & future reference if you're curious.

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

Why are you so bothered about this? People SPENT TIME writing and competing for there wins. wtf are you or I to to say their wins don't mean shit so shouldn't be documented?

If your gonna go out your way to keep a record then keep a record of title matches ... That's my 2 cents ... Anything else doesn't make sense to me

Are you drunk?

Are you

Nah I'm stone cold sober. You don't think it's confusing if I only display title matches (about a good 5 out of the battlers competed in) while the rest jumping up and down the rankings with no record isn't going to be confusing? Your alternative isn't a viable solution and will only confuse people more. We either have records, or we don't, full stop. we don't just document title matches while everyone else who grafted/grinded their bollocks off to climb the rankings by writing and recording for credible opponents get pushed aside. I tell you what, I'll do the rankings with no records, then store the records in small print at the bottom?