Should a WalkOver count as defeat?

[Saarbrigga]

As you guys know anytime you give someone a WalkOver, it counts like a defeat in your record.

Example: If you have 10 matches on ITST, 5 Wins, 3 Losses and 2 WalkOver, your stat looks like this:
5-5

Honestly i don t like it...because you didn t even play.

If a boxing match is cancelled because 1 fighter can t do it, it gets judged as "No contest", not as "defeat".

45-5-1-1 means in Boxing:
45 victoriys
1 draw
1 no contest

If you give someone a WO, he continues to play the tournament, and you are out, yes that s the right way.

GOOD EXAMPLE: Check out the H2H of me and my pal RAE:

http://www.intertopspintour.net/index.p ... ts4&gc=TS4

See the problem?
We never played...but you see a 4-0.

[Rocketsfall]

The record doesn't matter. It's just a stat.

[C4iLL]

Yep you're right, in my opinion, it shouldn't be counted as a win or a loss, but as a WO stat.

Beyond the fact that this would better represent the level of the player you face, it would also present the interest to show how many WO each players got during his career.

ps : A stat about retiring before the end of the match would be interesting too

[jayl0ve]

The record DOES in fact, matter though. Might as well just not even keep score if the records don't matter.

I agree I think it's stupid that you get a defeat for a WO.

[RainingAmoeba79]

Kind of see your point, but if someone signed up for a tournament and did not show up, that should count as a defeat because it is your fault.

[safe_as_milk_]

Surely walkovers have to count as defeats or you'd get some people deliberately not playing matches if they think they don't have a chance. I don't think they should be recorded as wins though, but I guess it's probably hard to implement that...

[Saarbrigga]

Why not like this:

Wins: 10 (5 by WalkOver)
Losses: 5 (3 by WalkOver)

Your real W-L stat would be 5-2 in this case, just 10-5 if you count in the WO´s.

This would look better as it is now.

[djarvik]

Why not like this:

Wins: 10 (5 by WalkOver)
Losses: 5 (3 by WalkOver)

Your real W-L stat would be 5-2 in this case, just 10-5 if you count in the WO´s.

This would look better as it is now.

This is spot on. I will see if we can do something like that.

[RainingAmoeba79]

Why not like this:

Wins: 10 (5 by WalkOver)
Losses: 5 (3 by WalkOver)

Your real W-L stat would be 5-2 in this case, just 10-5 if you count in the WO´s.

This would look better as it is now.

This is spot on. I will see if we can do something like that.

Agreed. This looks cool.

[Rob ITST]

Why not like this:

Wins: 10 (5 by WalkOver)
Losses: 5 (3 by WalkOver)

How about:

Men's Singles Record (including walkovers): 10-5
Men's Singles Record (excluding walkovers): 5-2

[RainingAmoeba79]

Why not like this:

Wins: 10 (5 by WalkOver)
Losses: 5 (3 by WalkOver)

How about:

Men's Singles Record (including walkovers): 10-5
Men's Singles Record (excluding walkovers): 5-2

I think the first one seems more concise.

[Ugadalou]

How about:

Men's Singles Record (including walkovers): 10-5
Men's Singles Record (excluding walkovers): 5-2

This looks neater.

[Ugadalou]

Still I don't think it's a really good idea cause there could be record-freaks
who would prefer giving a WO away when facing a good player instead of getting 1 more loss.
The system of not giving players who lose by WO ITST points from the tournament is great though.

[jayl0ve]

You can't justify not having the rule just because of how a few people 'might' act.

Most people would not do what you described

[RainingAmoeba79]

You can't justify not having the rule just because of how a few people 'might' act.

Most people would not do what you described

LOL.

Just like most ppl would not use TI/MD back then, and 100 power, and 90 FHBH, and IR/CPS.....

Oh wait.