|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:19:07 GMT -5
OH SHIT? YOU BEAT BO YOUNG? AND DAY ONCE.. EVEN THOUGH DAY HAS BEEN FIGHTING MORE DIFFICULT OPPONENTS FOR THE PAST SIX WEEKS STRAIGHT.. AND WAIT YOU LOST AT HELLOWEEN TO TOP FIVE GUYS? OH KAY.. YOU'RE RANKED FOURTH!
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:20:53 GMT -5
Considering Day pinned Avery at Helloween.. and Avery couldn't last with Logan, Oblivion and Day (All ranked in the top five).. Avery is still ranked higher in the top four?
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:22:03 GMT -5
And Price, LOL. Just because I don't have someone backing me up, doesn't mean I'm not using Logic. LOL, jesus.. why kind of LOGIC is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:22:55 GMT -5
How do you know that Avery can't last with Logan, Oblivion or D-Day? For all you know he could be more than capable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:25:43 GMT -5
Yeah, but what we do know is what has been done.
Day lost to Avery.
Day then pins Avery at PPV AND CD. AND THEN IS ON WINNING TEAM.
Day loses in some tag match on Slam. Avery beats Bo Young.
Avery is fourth best... Day is fifth best. Uh, what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:26:45 GMT -5
Oh wait, no Avery is third best.. and Day is fourth best.
Still...
Uh, what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:27:07 GMT -5
D-Day pinned Avery at Helloween....so he should be ranked above him.
Yet by that logic Price should be ranked over D-Day since he pinned him at Helloween.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:27:48 GMT -5
Okay? I thought we were going based on that "Logic?"
Now you're changing things??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:30:05 GMT -5
That logic works, except....
I treated that match sort of like WAR. I gave everyone on the winning team 1 win....but I wasn't going to start putting people above each other just for who got pinned and who pinned them. This match and WAR are the two exceptions to that rule. As it stands, no one in the Hellimination match moved up or down that week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:31:30 GMT -5
Basically, now that you told me your logic of running this has obvious fucking flaws, I still find it hard to believe that..
TAKING OUT the eliminations, Day, Logan and Oblivion were the winning team at Helloween, those three defeated CD, Price and Avery..
Meaning, Logan, Oblivion and Day are better than CD, Price and Avery.
And oh, now your logic has exceptions, oh, okay that makes sense.
Oh wait.
No it doesn't.
Uh, what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:34:10 GMT -5
My brain hurts.
Seth likes how things are being done, as do I. However, if enough people start coming forward with their views against how things are being done then I'll gladly make the appropriate changes.
If anything, at least no one can say that I'm not fair.
Okay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:35:28 GMT -5
Oh, no, understand this..
All I'm saying is how is Avery the third best wrestler in WCF? Considering everyone below him has defeated him, or has avenged their loss against them.
So shouldn't that make him weaker?
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Nov 10, 2010 19:36:42 GMT -5
In tag matches, I believe, only the people in the pinfall would move on the ladder. However, in eliminations, its kind of a gray area, and I'd say Price did the right thing by not moving anyone based on it, since it would get too confusing and weird otherwise.
So yeah, its not PERFECT, but neither is "Well he beat so and so, so we'll put him here, but not quite here since so and so has never beaten so and so" and etc.
Like, say the rankings are thus:
1. HHH
2. HBK
3. Jericho
4. Kane
5. Cena
6. Orton
and Orton beats HHH. You say Orton should move up some, but not all the way. So lets say we put Orton at 3 now. Jericho is bumped down, and he's like "HEY WTF, ORTON NEVER BEAT ME! HE SHOULD BE ONE BELOW ME!" and then its all subjective. If you put him above HHH, then its like "Welp, he beat me, I guess thats that, if I want to regain my spot guess I'll have to beat him."
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Nov 10, 2010 19:37:49 GMT -5
Also, by the way, the ladder shouldn't be viewed as "who is the best in WCF" or anything and I don't think anyone would ever claim that thats what it was. Its a ranking system based off of wins and losses, not a ranking system based on "ability" or momentum or anything..
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:39:56 GMT -5
Yeah, but it's not subjective since almost everyone on the rankings has almost fought everyone once before.
And to say Avery is HHH, HBK, Jericho, Kane, Cena or Orton is also flawed Logic. He's more or so Kofi Kingston.. LOL.
and the guys you listed would be my top six of...
1. Logan.
2. Price.
3. Oblivion.
4. D. Day
5. J. Reb.
6. D. Henry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:41:18 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I'm not #2. In fact I wouldn't even put myself in that top 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torture on Nov 10, 2010 19:43:20 GMT -5
Rankings. A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is either 'ranked higher than', 'ranked lower than'.
Then you guys need to call it something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Nov 10, 2010 19:44:36 GMT -5
Yeah, but it's not subjective since almost everyone on the rankings has almost fought everyone once before. And to say Avery is HHH, HBK, Jericho, Kane, Cena or Orton is also flawed Logic. He's more or so Kofi Kingston.. LOL. and the guys you listed would be my top six of... 1. Logan. 2. Price. 3. Oblivion. 4. D. Day 5. J. Reb. 6. D. Henry Yes, everyone has fought everyone else before generally but A, its silly to ask someone to keep track of who has beaten who when, and B, its not quite as much of an issue right now but if we had a bigger roster everyone would probably have a different top six, so again totallyyyy subjective. If we did it your way I can guarentee there'd be drama about "I deserve to be hire, I beat so and so and I'm only ranked 5, thats crazy!" and yada yada. |
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Nov 10, 2010 19:45:34 GMT -5
Rankings. A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is either 'ranked higher than', 'ranked lower than'. Then you guys need to call it something else. ..What? Thats exactly what it is. #1 is ranked higher than #2, etc. No one ever argued against that.... EDIT: Unless youre referring to what I said, and "ranked higher than" does certainly not mean "is better than." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 19:45:35 GMT -5
Forget Malachi, when did Jason Kash come back?  |
|
