Jump to content

DQ's and Countouts Don't Count Towards Title Defences??


Recommended Posts

I've just spotted this.

 

If a champion loses via DQ or countout it doesn't count it as a successful defence. I think technically this is wrong, as the champion may has lost the match but DID successfully defend the title as it didn't change hands. I'm presuming draws are treated the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It should... It does for me anyway <img alt=":o" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/redface.png.900245280682ef18c5d82399a93c5827.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p>

When I have the champ lose by DQ, and I go to titles and check defenses, the match is listed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it strikes me as something of a compromise: title matches where the champion or champions lose cheaply are recorded in the title history but those losses don't add to the number of successful defenses. Draws get recorded in the title history as well. Can't remember if they count as a successful defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Gungner" data-cite="Gungner" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41692" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It should... It does for me anyway <img alt=":o" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/redface.png.900245280682ef18c5d82399a93c5827.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> When I have the champ lose by DQ, and I go to titles and check defenses, the match is listed.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Sorry, to clarify I mean count towards the total of defences shown on the title listing.</p><p> </p><p> I've had my TNA Knockouts champ have two title defences, both have ended with her weaseling out somehow (either DQ or countout etc) and her defences are listed as 0. But yes, if you look in the list of defences then it shows she's had two title matches.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="nikebee" data-cite="nikebee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41692" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sorry, to clarify I mean count towards the total of defences shown on the title listing.<p> </p><p> I've had my TNA Knockouts champ have two title defences, both have ended with her weaseling out somehow (either DQ or countout etc) and her defences are listed as 0. But yes, if you look in the list of defences then it shows she's had two title matches.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's odd. Are you using the latest database? If so, it might be a bug. </p><p> </p><p> I just checked my tag title history and I've still got the All-Americans beating The Awesomeness by countout listed in my defences.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="codey_v2" data-cite="codey_v2" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41692" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's odd. Are you using the latest database? If so, it might be a bug. <p> </p><p> I just checked my tag title history and I've still got the All-Americans beating The Awesomeness by countout listed in my defences.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The issue isn't with them being listed in the defences, it's them showing up in the COUNT of the defences.</p><p> </p><p> To test it create a new game, have someone as champion with 0 defences so far. Then have a match where the champion loses via DQ or countout.</p><p> </p><p> You'll see that the total defences is still listed as 0, and will still say "Last Defence: Unknown". But when looking in the list of defences there will be one match.</p><p> </p><p> Hopefully the screenshot attached explains it a bit better.</p><p> </p><p> <span>http://i.imgur.com/0daq4jN.jpg?1</span></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yeah, I've noticed this both in 2016 and 2013. Only wins for the champion are counted as defences. Any win is fine, CO or DQ included, but the champ must win the match for it to be added to the defence total.</p><p> </p><p>

As this hasn't been changed between games and isn't therefore considered a bug, I can only assume it's by design and that only successful, winning title defences are counted.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suppose you could qualify it by saying that unless the champion wins by pinfall or submission (or a gimmick victory such as first blood, etc) then they've technically not 'successfully defended' their title. </p><p> </p><p>

I can understand why the game may see a distinction between the two</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="dalenichol" data-cite="dalenichol" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41692" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I suppose you could qualify it by saying that unless the champion wins by pinfall or submission (or a gimmick victory such as first blood, etc) then they've technically not 'successfully defended' their title. <p> </p><p> I can understand why the game may see a distinction between the two</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's just not true though, a successful defence is not losing the title.</p><p> </p><p> I would imagine that the counter simply runs a count based on where the title holder has won. Which I don't think is correct.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Does it really have the same merit, though?</p><p> </p><p>

Take WWE tomorrow night, for example, if we pretend that it's not an extreme rules match. </p><p> </p><p>

If Roman Reigns retains the title because AJ Styles gets disqualified, or intentionally got himself counted out, would we really say that Reigns successfully defended his title?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

I know it's probably splitting hairs, but still.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="dalenichol" data-cite="dalenichol" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="41692" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If Roman Reigns retains the title because AJ Styles gets disqualified, or intentionally got himself counted out, would we really say that Reigns successfully defended his title?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, you would 100% of the time. He didn't unsuccessfully defend his title, he did not lose his title. He retained the title, which is a successful defence.</p><p> </p><p> Using another sport as an example, a no contest in boxing (i.e. a draw for whatever reason) is a successful title defence.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm with Nikebee on this one. All throughout wrestling history for as long as anyone can possibly remember this has been the way. I'm pretty positive you can find numerous vids of a wrestler cutting a promo claiming to have successfully defended their title even though they may have escaped the PPV title match through less than honorable means. Even the commentators will acknowledge the fact that his defense was successful although escaping through DQ or count out. The question isn't whether or not its accepted or correct in wrestling. The question is whether its an issue or not?</p><p> </p><p>

For me I'd sincerely vote yes, but seeing as how the importance of the championship correlates directly to the matches had involving that title...I can see myself being fine with it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can see both sides of the argument here, but kinda see it as a wash myself. If the champion didn't win the match it is neither a successful or unsuccessful defence... In the same way you wouldn't say that the person who won the match by DQ successfully challenged for the title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...