LogFAQs > #915475416

...I think we would have to ignore Losers' Bracket and just treat this as an 8-round bracket. I know a lot of people are treating Losers as the "true" values for X-Stat purposes since those are the ones that actually knocked characters out of the contest. I feel that this is a view largely perpetuated by those who feel that the two rematches that had significant shifts in percentage produced more "legitimate" results than the originals, which is a belief that meshes with their preconceived notions. One of the matches I'm referring to is Mario-Samus, where Samus nearly pulled the upset the second time, and the other is a match with only one Noble Niner in it where said Noble Niner outright lost the first time, and only the first time. Really, the presence of a Loser's Bracket just muddies the waters, especially when it's set up like this with it being single elimination for four rounds and then double elimination. When listing the Most Surprising Results of All Time, Zelda's upset of Mario is listed as a Round 7 match. Because that's what it is. That's the percentage of people who thought that Zelda would win 7 matches. Contrast, say, the very next match, which is also on that list. That's the number of people who thought that Crono would either lose his first match and win the next three or win his first match, lose his second, and win his next two. And it gets murkier the further you go along. How many people who correctly picked Mario > Samus II did so because they actually had Mario losing in the Legends Semis (most likely to Snake), and how many did so because they mistakenly thought Sephiroth would continue his previous dominance of Mario and would still be alive in the Legends' Finals?

So I think you have to just treat the Legends matches as the only ones that matter for how deep a tournament run you've made. By that metric, making Round 3 in this tournament is essentially equivalent to making the field at all pre-2007. It's not exactly the same since there are only 40 characters alive at the end of Round 2, not 64 like there were then, but it's still six wins away from a title. It's either that or you just ignore the 8 legends and pretend that these first four rounds were just the first four rounds of a seven-round tournament, and then...what? Honestly, that whole "128 down to 8, then those 8 are part of the Sweet Sixteen" bit is throwing me. I guess 2005 and 2006 were no better, what with the fact that technically Mario and Samus won titles in those years, but Link is still the ultimate champion (no, Jay Solano doesn't count) and Samus in particular was eliminated from three days before the runner-up from the main bracket, who was also included because CJayC loved getting cutesy and the favorites on the Male and Female sides were Crono and Samus, and even though that would make the Battle Royale 3 parts Nintendo and 3 parts Square, it wouldn't be tough to imagine Link's presence allowing Crono to steal another win over Mario. We've never quite seen if that would be the case. We've seen Crono steal a win over Samus and Mario in a fourway with Link, and we've seen Crono miserably in last place with Cloud, Link, and Snake, but we never saw Link and another Nintendo character and Cloud and Crono.

All of this is irrelevant, though, because Bayonetta's Round 2 appearance in 2013 came at the expense of N and Wander. So clearly this is her best run. Also, you are just now realizing that Bayonetta has never lost in Round 1 (though she has failed to advance out of a vote-in poll. She's not the only character whose record is positively affected by losing in those polls; I mentioned Wario's .500 record but he's also among those who lost out in the vote-ins in 2010.

Pac-Man is also among those who failed to advance out of vote-ins in 2010.)
---

Also known as Cyberchao X.