since not a single move listed is a leg submission, and none of them would prevent walking, your argument is pretty shit, and I'm not the one who needs Common Sense classes, rather you are. Not to mention the fact that Thesz wouldn't even be able to apply a lot of his holds on the 450 pounder.
STF - Not what John Cena does, but a hold which in the words of the same site that you are using as a credible source "The wrestler then pulls back stretching the opponent's back, neck, and knee." Knee is a part of the leg. After common sense 101, you might want to try biology.
You can say whatever you want. Logic dictates that a hammerlock, or a headlock is not as dangerous in a Ladder Match as a Splash off an elevated surface (ropes, ladder, whatever), yet alone a splash by a 40 pounder.
How many superheavyweights have won ladder matches? Zero.
How many submission specialists have won ladder matches? Also zero.
Oh wait
Vader will ultimately powerbomb Thesz the same way he powerbombs everyone else (a force Thesz has NEVER felt before in his entire career), then puts Thesz on the ladder, and Vader Bombs him off the 2nd rope onto the ladder, then nonchalantly sets up the ladder, climbs, and wins the match. Thesz then gets stretchered out of the arena, although I wouldn't be surprised if Vader gave him 1 more Powerbomb/Vaderbomb post-match because he can.
Now, when you say everyone do you actually mean everyone except Ric Flair? Or do you mean everyone except Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan? Or do you mean everyone except Marvellous Marc Mero? Or are you just completely wrong?
Never said it was. I said a diving splash, not a slingshot splash, which is what the Vaderbomb is.
Here is a diving splash elegantly performed by Slam Master J.
[YOUTUBE]7_mIs5TEVag[/YOUTUBE]
Well then, it's a good thing I said that he would be performing a diving splash and not a Vaderbomb. Now if you're saying Vader couldn't perform a diving splash, I'd have to ask you to really question that validity of that statement. Vader could perform a moonsault, I don't think he'd have any troubles performing a diving splash.
1) I addressed diving splash when I said he wouldn't have the necessary leaping ability. If he falls, as with all his other aerial moves (notice how he never hits moves very far away from the turnbuckle), then he's going to twat his shins on the ladder. Don't mention the moonsault, he doesn't have a great leap on that either, and springs off the ropes, like just about everyone who uses that move does.
2) Vader never hit a diving splash in his lif. If you are adding that move to his repertoire, I am adding the Lou Thesz patented existential ladder toss to his. Basically, Thesz is capable of throwing a ladder at such a force that it opens on impact, knocking his opponent down and then pinning them in such a manner that they cannot retaliate before strolling up the ladder for the win.
Of course, he's never done it, but why should that matter?
If we give Thesz all of his attributes, can we give Vader a few of his? Let's take, for instance, his ability to totally annihilate an opponent. The way you talk about this match you make it sound like Vader would never be able to get the upper hand on Thesz, but we all know that's not how wrestling matches work. Vader will eventually get his hands on Thesz, and when that happens, Thesz is going to be put down for a while... a long while. I foresee Vader powerbombing him in the corner, hitting the Vaderbomb, and then climbing the ladder and hitting a splash. Thesz isn't going to be so quick to get up to his feet after a combination of powerful moves from Vader. Stronger men have suffered from Vader's wrath, and while there's no denying Thesz would be one of Vader's toughest opponents, I don't see him being able to withstand the might of The Mastadon.
Fictitious diving splash aside, this is ridiculous. The Vader argument is getting increasingly reliant on the idea that he decimated everyone he fought. History dictates otherwise, hence why Sting is the only high profile American wrestler he has clear cut victories over. It's not that he didn't face the likes of Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair, it's just that he didn't beat them.
Flair is probably the most old school guy Vader ever thought, and he repeatedly and decisively beat Vader. If that's not reason enough to see Vader cannot always do what is required to beat major stars, I don't know what is.
Who's dismissing him? Just because I think Vader would beat him doesn't mean I don't respect the man's abilities.
Thinking that a man who lost half of the matches he ever wrestled would beat Lou Thesz is not only dismissive of Thesz, but of basic wrestling history.
Making assumptions now, are we? I'd say Stan Hansen is pretty fucking stiff, and the fact that he was working stiff while not trying to win when he wasn't supposed to almost says more about Vader.
How does that show more about Vader? In the modern game, stiffness is popular in Japan, it's why Vader wrestled there. However limited Hansen was at restraint and protecting his opponent, somebody who is legitimately trying
to break bones is going to be hitting you harder. Surely that's obvious to anyone with eyes, whether or not they are hanging out the socket.
And why are we talking about stiffness in a contest about fake wrestling? I suppose if you put a lot of stock in stiffness that's cool, but I don't.
It's a pretty standard Vader argument, and I'm neutralising it before it happens. But more to the point here, I am demonstrating the persistent toughness that Thesz would have had to and did have.
What's the point?
I assume you mean what's the point in Thesz coming back? It's because he was one of the most popular wrestlers of all time and because the people wanted to see him, something that doesn't happen to Big Van Footnote.
I was making a point through exaggeration. You brought up matches past Vader's prime, so I brought up a match past Thesz's prime. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
When is Vader's prime then? The defeats mentioned mostly happened in the first year of his WWF career. If he was never in his prime there, we can look to WCW were he was getting caned by Ric Flair regularly and losing to Davey Boy Smith. If we're looking at Japan, we can look at his defeats to Riki Choshu, a 6 foot tall legitimate wrestler turned professional wrestler. Face it, Vader has lost wherever he's been as much as he has won. I mentioned those people because I assumed Vader wasn't finished at 40 years old, but apparently, he was.
Or he can and will. And as for swinging the ladder...
I wouldn't give Thesz the same strength rating that Vader has. Vader isn't ridiculous levels of strong, but he's still a 450 pound beast that could throw down with the biggest and best. Like IC said earlier, real wrestling is divided up into weight classes for a reason, every pound makes a considerable amount of difference.
Is professional wrestling divided into weight classes? No. Did I say that Thesz was as as strong as Vader? No. I said that he was stronger than their weight differential suggests.
Still, a ladder shot is a ladder shot, and it's going to do a number on whoever gets hit first, but a monster like Vader will recover from a (relatively lighter) ladder shot than Vader would from Thesz.
Right. The faster wrestler (Thesz) is more likely to hit with the ladder first. Why is a fat man more resilient than a honed athlete? This is where their typical match length is noteworthy. If Vader gets to 15 minutes without winning, he almost always loses, because he cannot recuperate very well. If Thesz goes past 15 minutes, as he almost always did, his conditioning helped him to win. That conditioning will help him recover better than Vader could ever hope to.
Also, ladder shots are rarely what wins a person a ladder match. In fact, I can't recall one ladder match where a ladder shot kept a competitor down long enough for the other guy to ascend the ladder and get the win.
IC brought it up, not me. It's what happens when you're clutching at straws, as anyone supporting Vader has to be.
Now I wouldn't say that. Intangibles man, intangibles. Vader is meaner, has a bigger legacy of brutality, is more durable, and has experience in gimmick matches.
Remember when I showed brutality doesn't help in a ladder match? It wasn't very long ago. Experience in gimmick matches is meaningless. If it was a match where previous experience helps, maybe, but it's not. Very few gimmicks give any real benefit to people that have done them before. The cell and chamber are perhaps the only ones.
Or maybe go back and read what I said and tell me it doesn't make you feel like an ass. I never said wrestlers who are brutal don't win ladder matches, I never said anything close to that. I said I didn't think there was ever a wrestler AS brutal as Vader in a wrestling match ever, mostly because Vader is one of the most brutal guys to ever step foot in the ring. There are plenty of brutal wrestlers who have won ladder matches, including Edge, Triple H, The Undertaker, Benoit, and Abyss are all wrestlers I consider to be brutal that have also won ladder matches. While some of them are more talented than Vader, few of them are as ruthless as Vader.
Edge and Benoit are not particularly brutal in their style, far more methodical, you rarely see either being ruthless. I've addressed Taker and Triple H, Abyss has lost more ladder matches than he has won.
I'm ignoring the part where you "make it simple for me," because instead of sounding smart it just makes you look like an asshole.
Or is it because it is irrefutable evidence that the basis of your argument is flawed?
As noted in the above list of wrestlers to have won a ladder match, clearly it doesn't prohibit one from being able to win.
Didn't say it did. I didn't bring brutality into this, that was a Team Vader argument, and it I showed why it is a shit one. Not to mention that most of the brutal wrestlers you list to have won a match are either not brutal or did so with mitigating circumstances.
But Vader is still stronger and more experienced in this type of match.
Is zero more than zero? There's one for the mathematical philosophers to ponder. For now, lets say neither has experience in this kind of match.
No, I'm saying Jeff Hardy was always billed as a hardcore expert, and that's where his advantage lays. You have a wonderful gift of putting words in other people's mouths, even if they are less than palatable.
No it isn't. Firstly, Jeff Hardy was not billed predominately as a hardcore expert, always as an agile quick wrestler. Secondly, the fact that Mick Foley lost a ladder match to the Big Bossman should probably indicate that hardcore experience doesn't help.
But we have seen that they can win. And let's not pretend Thesz fits the archetype of ladder match performers either. He's admittedly closer to what the WWE commonly puts in ladder matches these days, but he ain't exactly Kofi Kingston, John Morrison, or Shelton Benjamin.
Only one of which has won a ladder match. He is however, quite similar in size and arguably style to CM Punk, who has won three of his four ladder matches.
What if they're both on the ladder, then who gets the advantage? Vader.
Well, no, actually do they not teach Physics in America or something?
Newton's Third Law said:For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
That means if either man pushes the other one, they are likely to lose their own footing. Now, could Vader throw Thesz off the ladder if they were both on it? Yes. Would Vader be able to reach the top of a ladder Thesz was already on before Thesz uncoupled the object? No. Would Thesz climb a ladder Vader was already on when he could easily push it over as we have seen? No, so that ability is useless.
Also, let's not pretend the ladder will be as wobbly as an upside down pyramid. Ladders are built to be sturdy, it's not like Thesz is going to be able to take a yawn and a stretch while pushing over the ladder with one hand. It's a ladder with a 450 pound man on the top, driving the ladder into the ground. It's still going to be one hell of a bitch to tip that bad boy over.
[YOUTUBE]EMBngZOr6VY[/YOUTUBE]
Sting + Christian Cage = Vader, in terms of weight roughly speaking. If a battered, bruised and tired Earl Hebner can push over a ladder with that weight at the top over without any difficulty, I think we can consider this point officially wrong.
Depends on what Taker was being billed at when he beat Jeff Hardy.
He's been just under 300 for most of his career, even if he was over, it would be by an insignificant amount, not as much as Vader.
Also, how many guy close to Vader's size and shape have been in ladder matches? The only one I can think of is Bam Bam Bigelow, and he fought to a no-contest. Abyss would the second closest, and he's won a few times.
Not including MITB, Big Show and Malice were both pretty sizeable, as was Tor Kamata. They all lost. The main reason men like this don't have ladder matches is because nobody would buy something where they have to move quickly up a ladder to win. On the rare occasions that they do have matches like this, they lose.
And you're assuming that there is a correlation between weight and winning ability, the correlation being the heavier you are, the less likely you are of winning. How do you know it's not a bell curve? How do you know that eventually it gets to a point where the heavier man has an advantage of being harder to knock down off the ladder?
Because the laws of physics are constant. Also, The Big Show is bigger than Vader and has lost ladder matches.
No, because Vader has never man handled an opponent in such a way
Not very many in the top bracket of wrestlers.
In that case, Thesz vs. Hogan every year please with John Cena and Stone Cold as runners up.
This is such a shit argument it is untrue. The fact you think it helps you actually makes me feel sorry for you a little bit, seriously. If this was a real tournament, that would be the outcome every year, because that is what the paying audience would want to see. Guys like Vader would probably go deep into the tournament, squashing insignificant faces until they met a huge star like Thesz or Cena or Hogan or even Flair, at which point they would lose.
You know, the more I'm thinking about this argument, the more I'm thinking it's bull. Just by intuition, I have a feeling I'd have a lot more trouble if I sat a 400 pound guy at the top of the ladder and tried to push it over than I would if I sat a 200 pound guy up there. Until you show me the equation that proves that it would be easier to knock down Vader on a ladder, I'm going to go on believing you're talking out your ass. I've never been much of a math or science guy, but I do know a thing or two about moving heavy shit, and stuff is a lot heavier when you have a 400 pounds pushing down on it when compared to 200.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_gravity
Jesus Christ. Firstly, you aren't lifting, you are pushing. Secondly, this should be pretty intuitive to everyone. An object falls over when its centre of mass is no longer over its base. A heavier man up a ladder is going to have a higher centre of mass, which means that you only have to push it a little bit so that it is no longer over the centre of its mass. I direct you again to the Earl Hebner video. A weedy gimp who had just taken a shot easily pushes a ladder with a lot of mass on it over.
I haven't got my mechanics notes with me, but hopefully this will suffice and you will stop denying physics. The centre of mass is determined by integrating the total mass over the entire area of the structure and finding the midpoint. For something like a straight line, this is easy, but I am not good enough at maths to work the full equation out in my bedroom at 4 o'clock in the morning for a complicated system. The point at which it is no longer over the point of contact is a simple case of determining the angle of tilt. This is determined using the co-sine rule - you know the distance to the mid point and up to the centre of mass, so you can determine the angle.
Look, this is true, face the fact it is true, and take your head out of the sand. To prove it to yourself, balance something that can reasonably easily be stood on its side. Now attach some blu tack to the top and try and balance it again. It will be harder, because of exactly the same principals. I'm not going to discuss something that has been commonly known for hundreds of years any further.
How many ladder matches have we seen won by a submission maneuver being used to incapacitate the opponent? Not too many.
None where it's completely incapacitated them, but plenty where it is a part of a gradual weardown. Jericho on Benoit at Royal Rumble 2001 was a good example of how a big submission move can help.
You mean a Stepover Toehold FACELOCK? Yeah, I'd say it's just as much a head/face submission then a leg submission. When you see anyone get put in an STF, what do they hold in pain as soon as they get out of it? Not the leg, the HEAD/FACE.
John Cena's move is called STF because STFU is a funny name. The move is not an STF.
You mean logical, and not talking out my ass because Lou Thesz is ancient (and thus from an entirely mat-based era where no one was really ever incapacitated).
This is so wrong and so stupid it's attrocious.
No, I would vote against Hogan if all he ever did was non-impactful offense in a match where the object is to be IMPACTFUL enough to incapacitate an opponent long enough to climb a ladder and retrieve an object.
Non-impactful? Are you ******ed? How is stiff hits and suplexes non-impactful, whatever impactful means. If Thesz's repetoire is non impactful, then so is Bret Hart's, Chris Benoit's and Chris Jericho's. All of whom have won ladder matches.
Force. With the Greco-Roman Backdrop you drop to the ground, and the guy is not lifted far off the gound. With a powerbomb, you lift the guy pretty much over your head, then SLAM him to the ground with excessive force, with the guy landing on his back and then causing an extreme whiplash effect on the neck/head. I mean that's pretty obvious, I guess you don't know shit about science. Here's some homework; a little experiment if you will. Take a hardcover book (a textbook if you have any) and drop it on the ground (landing it flat on the back of the book). Then take said book and throw it to the same ground with as much force as possible (again, making it land flat on the ground). the 2nd time it will make a MUCH louder sound, and will be MUCH more impactful.
The fact you are trying to use the word impactful in a scientific discussion is putting you onto a loser. The fact you think a backdrop implies no force implies you know nothing about wrestling or physics.