User blog:Grnmachine1/Losing to someone means you scale to them?

This may seem like a very rediculous claim, but ive thought about it, and i want to share what ive come to in my mind.

Intensity of failure
This is everything concerning this post. Clearly, not all losses are equal. You can win in an epic match that was extremely close. Or, someone can sneeze and the other gets obliterated. Intensity of failure matters.

Example
Lets say we have a brand new character that fights Link (For the sake of streamlining, lets just assume Link's Continent level for now.) in the new Zelda game. There are a few outcomes possible- Link gets stomped, Link loses in a close match, Link wins in a close match, or Link stomps. Assuming there are no weak-points for either party to take advantage of, we can "Guesstimate" the new character's strength based on the outcome. If Link gets stomped, we can reasonable guess that the new person is probably Multi-Continent or higher. In either scenario where its a close match, then is OK to assume that the new character is around the same as Link. If Link stomps, then we could reasonably assume that the new guy's Island level or below.

Exceptions
Exceptions would be things that could vary- video game fights could be a stomp or a close match in Link's favor. This idea would probably be used only for things that are "set", such as cutscenes or movies. Skill or talent having a part in the fight would also render this theory invalid. Say we have Island vs Continent, but Island takes advantage of a specific weakness in order to win. Baically, you have to make sure there's no "foul play" in the fight- which is hard to come by.

And if i may digress for a moment, this last part may also apply to normal scaling as well. What if person A (Unknown strength) is losing to person B (Continent level), but manages to pull out a victory by taking advantage of a weak point? Would he still scale? Before then, person A was losing badly. Taking advantage of the weakness means he's smart, not strong.

Conclusion
What this was meant to be when i first thought about that was to question an unquestioned rule: If you lose, you dont scale. But at the end, i ended up questioning the origonal rule of powerscaling. I hope to have opened some of your minds after youve read this. Also, feel free to criticise. Did i make a faulty assumption? Was i just plain wrong? Tell me, im open to civil criticism.