Question.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@Champion EtH @Student

The thing that differentiates a GC from a Secondary Tournament is no longer the number of entrants, or the difficulty of opponents. Arguably the last audio concept tourney was significantly more participated-in and had a much stronger field than the audio GC, yet nobody is arguing that it should be a GC. The thing that makes a tourney a GC is that we all agree beforehand that its a GC, so everybody that wants to win a GC enters it and (generally) takes it seriously. You can't retroactively make something a GC because that takes away the only remaining distinctive feature of GCs. Everyone knew the throwdowns were/are secondary tourneys, and thats the way they should stay.

As for the purple-title seasonal tourneys, at the time they were run they were treated like GCs, advertised like GCs and run like GCs (when I was running the Greatest of Champions lists I did a bunch of digging through forums history checking them out). This is why I think they should be valued the same as GC wins. Whether the titles should be blue or not should probably be down to the winners themselves, unless we're overhauling and streamlining the whole title system in which case it's definitely the way to go imo.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@Champion EtH @Student

The thing that differentiates a GC from a Secondary Tournament is no longer the number of entrants, or the difficulty of opponents. Arguably the last audio concept tourney was significantly more participated-in and had a much stronger field than the audio GC, yet nobody is arguing that it should be a GC. The thing that makes a tourney a GC is that we all agree beforehand that its a GC, so everybody that wants to win a GC enters it and (generally) takes it seriously. You can't retroactively make something a GC because that takes away the only remaining distinctive feature of GCs. Everyone knew the throwdowns were/are secondary tourneys, and thats the way they should stay.

As for the purple-title seasonal tourneys, at the time they were run they were treated like GCs, advertised like GCs and run like GCs (when I was running the Greatest of Champions lists I did a bunch of digging through forums history checking them out). This is why I think they should be valued the same as GC wins. Whether the titles should be blue or not should probably be down to the winners themselves, unless we're overhauling and streamlining the whole title system in which case it's definitely the way to go imo.

[Kiwi Peewee]

lmao im still a mod

[Kiwi Peewee]

lmao im still a mod

[EtH]

At this point we're doing The Rock Vs Austin for the European Title and putting the heavyweight title on the prelims.

[EtH]

At this point we're doing The Rock Vs Austin for the European Title and putting the heavyweight title on the prelims.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Student

I think you're confusing STD's with Seasonal Tournaments. I'm talking about the Summer/Winter Championships that happened already.

They've been discontinued? I say just leave them as is.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Student

I think you're confusing STD's with Seasonal Tournaments. I'm talking about the Summer/Winter Championships that happened already.

They've been discontinued? I say just leave them as is.

[Student]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

@Champion EtH @Student

The thing that differentiates a GC from a Secondary Tournament is no longer the number of entrants, or the difficulty of opponents. Arguably the last audio concept tourney was significantly more participated-in and had a much stronger field than the audio GC, yet nobody is arguing that it should be a GC. The thing that makes a tourney a GC is that we all agree beforehand that its a GC, so everybody that wants to win a GC enters it and (generally) takes it seriously. You can't retroactively make something a GC because that takes away the only remaining distinctive feature of GCs. Everyone knew the throwdowns were/are secondary tourneys, and thats the way they should stay.

As for the purple-title seasonal tourneys, at the time they were run they were treated like GCs, advertised like GCs and run like GCs (when I was running the Greatest of Champions lists I did a bunch of digging through forums history checking them out). This is why I think they should be valued the same as GC wins. Whether the titles should be blue or not should probably be down to the winners themselves, unless we're overhauling and streamlining the whole title system in which case it's definitely the way to go imo.

Agree.


Thanks for agreeing with me, thought I was the only one.

[Student]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

@Champion EtH @Student

The thing that differentiates a GC from a Secondary Tournament is no longer the number of entrants, or the difficulty of opponents. Arguably the last audio concept tourney was significantly more participated-in and had a much stronger field than the audio GC, yet nobody is arguing that it should be a GC. The thing that makes a tourney a GC is that we all agree beforehand that its a GC, so everybody that wants to win a GC enters it and (generally) takes it seriously. You can't retroactively make something a GC because that takes away the only remaining distinctive feature of GCs. Everyone knew the throwdowns were/are secondary tourneys, and thats the way they should stay.

As for the purple-title seasonal tourneys, at the time they were run they were treated like GCs, advertised like GCs and run like GCs (when I was running the Greatest of Champions lists I did a bunch of digging through forums history checking them out). This is why I think they should be valued the same as GC wins. Whether the titles should be blue or not should probably be down to the winners themselves, unless we're overhauling and streamlining the whole title system in which case it's definitely the way to go imo.

Agree.


Thanks for agreeing with me, thought I was the only one.