The Greatest Of: Champions (Kiwi's version)

[RULE]

Fantastic collection here LT.

Its a very difficult job to do, as the amount of tourneys & the creation of LBA & LBT after 2012(ish) makes it very hard to form an objective display on who's accolades are the more impressive.

At the end of the day things like "best, greatest etc ect" are subjective, but putting together a list like this always helps the conversation.

Great stuff my man!

1/

[RULE]

Fantastic collection here LT.

Its a very difficult job to do, as the amount of tourneys & the creation of LBA & LBT after 2012(ish) makes it very hard to form an objective display on who's accolades are the more impressive.

At the end of the day things like "best, greatest etc ect" are subjective, but putting together a list like this always helps the conversation.

Great stuff my man!

1/

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by g u t s

blu deleted, so he lost all his accolades. row deleted and cheated, so he lsot all his accolades. just confirming that if you delete you are no longer entitled to previous accolades earned.

awesome list. i disagree with all of it, but i love this project, and loved seeing this.

great work LT

Thanks guts, although my decision is basically that only when titles are actually switched over to people that lost finals to Row will I switch the points over. Or, for instance, if Bleu's HOF induction pages are deleted (which hopefully never happens), then I'll take away his points.

Thanks to everyone showing love for this, it took a lot of time and effort and struggling with Microsoft Office so its great to know people enjoyed it

[Kiwi Peewee]

Originally Posted by g u t s

blu deleted, so he lost all his accolades. row deleted and cheated, so he lsot all his accolades. just confirming that if you delete you are no longer entitled to previous accolades earned.

awesome list. i disagree with all of it, but i love this project, and loved seeing this.

great work LT

Thanks guts, although my decision is basically that only when titles are actually switched over to people that lost finals to Row will I switch the points over. Or, for instance, if Bleu's HOF induction pages are deleted (which hopefully never happens), then I'll take away his points.

Thanks to everyone showing love for this, it took a lot of time and effort and struggling with Microsoft Office so its great to know people enjoyed it

[Shodan]

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

[Shodan]

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Ud get wrecked..

Originally Posted by Shodan

Now I want to battle Mayneak.

Ud get wrecked..

[Phil Banks]

I think anyone active before 2012 should be given a curve coz back then it was harder to win with the amount of dope people.... alot of later guys myself included had GC's that were bascially one or two hard battles an the rest cake walks if that. Said the same shit in Rule's thread guys like UA, Ticket even Boro had a harder road to a win than later winners did.

[Phil Banks]

I think anyone active before 2012 should be given a curve coz back then it was harder to win with the amount of dope people.... alot of later guys myself included had GC's that were bascially one or two hard battles an the rest cake walks if that. Said the same shit in Rule's thread guys like UA, Ticket even Boro had a harder road to a win than later winners did.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Some of those guys are never coming back. That's just a reality. If the whole point is to make an accurate comparison and then rank guys based on that comparison, you can't use factors that didn't exist when some guys were around. That's like ranking NBA greats and using the Slam Dunk contest as part of the rubric. There's no telling how Jerry West, for example, would've done in the Slam Dunk contest because it wasn't around when he was active. So it's a bit unfair to rate newer guys above him or give them more points because they won such contests and he didn't. You'd have to use (as much as possible) factors that have always been around to even the playing field when comparing guys from different eras.

Comparing battle rappers to NBA Legends isn't an accurate analogy. People obviously can't compete at a high level in the NBA for more than 10-15 years, so yeah it's fair to say you can't compare between different eras because the game changes (which is why the MJ/LeBron debate will never hold any weight because the game is drastically different now in comparison to what it was then).

However, battle rappers don't have that problem. Battle rappers and rappers in general have the ability to evolve with the culture changes. Whether they choose to or not is completely up to them. Look at ALL-BORO, for instance. He started on LB well before LBA/LBT ever existed and he's the current LBA Champion. That's an accomplishment taken away from him that he earned all because of the rest of the people from his era aren't active anymore when they choose not to be. Is that fair to BORO? Absolutely not. What makes the old heads anymore special to where LBA/LBT can't be counted against them when one of their own from that era won it and is dominating with it as we speak?

Idk, I'm just not in to the whole handicapping thing with LBA/LBT, as it's been an important aspect of the site since it was first revived by RULE (s/o to @RULE for that, btw).

What's everyone else's thoughts on it?

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Some of those guys are never coming back. That's just a reality. If the whole point is to make an accurate comparison and then rank guys based on that comparison, you can't use factors that didn't exist when some guys were around. That's like ranking NBA greats and using the Slam Dunk contest as part of the rubric. There's no telling how Jerry West, for example, would've done in the Slam Dunk contest because it wasn't around when he was active. So it's a bit unfair to rate newer guys above him or give them more points because they won such contests and he didn't. You'd have to use (as much as possible) factors that have always been around to even the playing field when comparing guys from different eras.

Comparing battle rappers to NBA Legends isn't an accurate analogy. People obviously can't compete at a high level in the NBA for more than 10-15 years, so yeah it's fair to say you can't compare between different eras because the game changes (which is why the MJ/LeBron debate will never hold any weight because the game is drastically different now in comparison to what it was then).

However, battle rappers don't have that problem. Battle rappers and rappers in general have the ability to evolve with the culture changes. Whether they choose to or not is completely up to them. Look at ALL-BORO, for instance. He started on LB well before LBA/LBT ever existed and he's the current LBA Champion. That's an accomplishment taken away from him that he earned all because of the rest of the people from his era aren't active anymore when they choose not to be. Is that fair to BORO? Absolutely not. What makes the old heads anymore special to where LBA/LBT can't be counted against them when one of their own from that era won it and is dominating with it as we speak?

Idk, I'm just not in to the whole handicapping thing with LBA/LBT, as it's been an important aspect of the site since it was first revived by RULE (s/o to @RULE for that, btw).

What's everyone else's thoughts on it?

[The Ghost of Freak]

@Jimmy Hoffa I personally think battle rap is garbage for garbage people. The fact that I'm not still banned is a failure of the moderators. @g u t s


LBA is dookie business and deserves no creedence in a point system. Grand Champs are also dookie. Battle rap is likeblood sport for hateful manchildren.

PBS Special: Self esteem issues and insecurities are real, check yo self first you wreck yoself.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Also, did @Edgeworth and @Seul pull the trigger on the shotgun wedding yet?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Bet y'all are happy I'm back, right? 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

Permaban me plz.

[The Ghost of Freak]

@Jimmy Hoffa I personally think battle rap is garbage for garbage people. The fact that I'm not still banned is a failure of the moderators. @g u t s


LBA is dookie business and deserves no creedence in a point system. Grand Champs are also dookie. Battle rap is likeblood sport for hateful manchildren.

PBS Special: Self esteem issues and insecurities are real, check yo self first you wreck yoself.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Also, did @Edgeworth and @Seul pull the trigger on the shotgun wedding yet?

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Bet y'all are happy I'm back, right? 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

Permaban me plz.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa

Comparing battle rappers to NBA Legends isn't an accurate analogy. People obviously can't compete at a high level in the NBA for more than 10-15 years, so yeah it's fair to say you can't compare between different eras because the game changes (which is why the MJ/LeBron debate will never hold any weight because the game is drastically different now in comparison to what it was then).

However, battle rappers don't have that problem. Battle rappers and rappers in general have the ability to evolve with the culture changes. Whether they choose to or not is completely up to them. Look at ALL-BORO, for instance. He started on LB well before LBA/LBT ever existed and he's the current LBA Champion. That's an accomplishment taken away from him that he earned all because of the rest of the people from his era aren't active anymore when they choose not to be. Is that fair to BORO? Absolutely not. What makes the old heads anymore special to where LBA/LBT can't be counted against them when one of their own from that era won it and is dominating with it as we speak?

Idk, I'm just not in to the whole handicapping thing with LBA/LBT, as it's been an important aspect of the site since it was first revived by RULE (s/o to @RULE for that, btw).

What's everyone else's thoughts on it?

For me, its not so much about the LBA/LBT as it is about total number of tournaments/ways of earning points available to the battlers and how much of that they win. I get what you're saying in that there's nothing stopping the old heads from coming back and that if they did, the LBT/LBA and all the new tournaments would be just as available to them as it is to those currently active. What I'm saying is if someone only had 4 tournaments available to them during the calendar year and they win two of them, that's 50 percent, whereas someone who has 10 tournaments available and wins two is at 20 percent. Both racked two tournament wins each, but I would consider the one who won 50 percent to be more successful whereas with this list, they're counted equally and its not weighted.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa

Comparing battle rappers to NBA Legends isn't an accurate analogy. People obviously can't compete at a high level in the NBA for more than 10-15 years, so yeah it's fair to say you can't compare between different eras because the game changes (which is why the MJ/LeBron debate will never hold any weight because the game is drastically different now in comparison to what it was then).

However, battle rappers don't have that problem. Battle rappers and rappers in general have the ability to evolve with the culture changes. Whether they choose to or not is completely up to them. Look at ALL-BORO, for instance. He started on LB well before LBA/LBT ever existed and he's the current LBA Champion. That's an accomplishment taken away from him that he earned all because of the rest of the people from his era aren't active anymore when they choose not to be. Is that fair to BORO? Absolutely not. What makes the old heads anymore special to where LBA/LBT can't be counted against them when one of their own from that era won it and is dominating with it as we speak?

Idk, I'm just not in to the whole handicapping thing with LBA/LBT, as it's been an important aspect of the site since it was first revived by RULE (s/o to @RULE for that, btw).

What's everyone else's thoughts on it?

For me, its not so much about the LBA/LBT as it is about total number of tournaments/ways of earning points available to the battlers and how much of that they win. I get what you're saying in that there's nothing stopping the old heads from coming back and that if they did, the LBT/LBA and all the new tournaments would be just as available to them as it is to those currently active. What I'm saying is if someone only had 4 tournaments available to them during the calendar year and they win two of them, that's 50 percent, whereas someone who has 10 tournaments available and wins two is at 20 percent. Both racked two tournament wins each, but I would consider the one who won 50 percent to be more successful whereas with this list, they're counted equally and its not weighted.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@NOBLE @Phil Banks @Jimmy Hoffa

Regarding adjusting scores based on time period: If it's available, the raw data on this would be so helpful. The problem is idk if it can be found, but if it can, here's what I would do: Take the top 10,000 most highly ranked accounts on the site in text and maybe the top 5,000 in audio. Sort them by years active, so you'd exclude people like ALL-BORO whose runs transcend across multiple eras to make it easier. Maybe just split them into people who were primarily active in 2006-2009, 2010-2015, 2016-2020. Then, you work out how many points under this system everyone in the rankings would have, and use that to format a half-bell-curve (90% or more would have 0 points obviously so it wouldn't be a full bell-curve). You could then work out how the score distributions differed by era, so for instance "the top 0.5% of battlers in the 2000s got >20 points, the top 5% got >5 points, the top 10% got >0 points; whereas from 2010-2015 the top 0.5% got >30 points, the top 5% got >15 points and the top 10% got >3 points" and then use some form of mathematical modelling or something to adjust each battler's scores based on their time period.

However, I think that this kind of system is more like a "pound for pound greatest boxer of all time" discussion. The thing about "pound for pound" type discussions is that its always going to be more effective to make a subjective call based on talent rather than trying to use statistics.

Also, no-ones mentioned it, but I think that whether achievements were in audio or text needs to be taken into account as well, relative to the time period in which they were earned. In 2006, the audio GC I think carried much more weight than the text, because the text side of the site was really underdeveloped. THA DUKE's accomplishment should probably be worth more than SpleNDiD. However, in 2019, I think a text win is probably more noteworthy than an audio win. For instance, in the latest audio GC, there were 15 people signed up, almost half of whom no-showed in the first round or something like that, and it reached the point where I actually signed up for it purely because I felt bad that such a prestigious tournament couldn't find 16 participants. Not to take anything away from Boro's phenomenal achievement, because the quality of the battlers that remained was impressive, but the competition for text titles is currently much more heated than audio imo. Just my thoughts though, I'd be interested to see what people have to say.

[Kiwi Peewee]

@NOBLE @Phil Banks @Jimmy Hoffa

Regarding adjusting scores based on time period: If it's available, the raw data on this would be so helpful. The problem is idk if it can be found, but if it can, here's what I would do: Take the top 10,000 most highly ranked accounts on the site in text and maybe the top 5,000 in audio. Sort them by years active, so you'd exclude people like ALL-BORO whose runs transcend across multiple eras to make it easier. Maybe just split them into people who were primarily active in 2006-2009, 2010-2015, 2016-2020. Then, you work out how many points under this system everyone in the rankings would have, and use that to format a half-bell-curve (90% or more would have 0 points obviously so it wouldn't be a full bell-curve). You could then work out how the score distributions differed by era, so for instance "the top 0.5% of battlers in the 2000s got >20 points, the top 5% got >5 points, the top 10% got >0 points; whereas from 2010-2015 the top 0.5% got >30 points, the top 5% got >15 points and the top 10% got >3 points" and then use some form of mathematical modelling or something to adjust each battler's scores based on their time period.

However, I think that this kind of system is more like a "pound for pound greatest boxer of all time" discussion. The thing about "pound for pound" type discussions is that its always going to be more effective to make a subjective call based on talent rather than trying to use statistics.

Also, no-ones mentioned it, but I think that whether achievements were in audio or text needs to be taken into account as well, relative to the time period in which they were earned. In 2006, the audio GC I think carried much more weight than the text, because the text side of the site was really underdeveloped. THA DUKE's accomplishment should probably be worth more than SpleNDiD. However, in 2019, I think a text win is probably more noteworthy than an audio win. For instance, in the latest audio GC, there were 15 people signed up, almost half of whom no-showed in the first round or something like that, and it reached the point where I actually signed up for it purely because I felt bad that such a prestigious tournament couldn't find 16 participants. Not to take anything away from Boro's phenomenal achievement, because the quality of the battlers that remained was impressive, but the competition for text titles is currently much more heated than audio imo. Just my thoughts though, I'd be interested to see what people have to say.

[Phracture]

26 not bad lol

[Phracture]

26 not bad lol