First Round: Lexington - Dustin Rhodes vs. King Kong Bundy

[klunderbunker]

This is a first round matchup in the Lexington Subregion. The ring and arena are universal throughout the first round and the organization is not a factor. There is a 20 minute time limit. Vote using any criteria you like. Most votes in the poll at the end of the time period wins. In the case of a tie we will go off of the number of written votes. In the case of a second tie, both are eliminated.

Location: Rupp Arena, Lexington, Kentucky.

Dustin Rhodes

Vs.

King Kong Bundy

Voting is open for 4 days.

 

[Baller]

The giant moves on. King Kong Bundy is too big for Dustin Rhodes to handle. Dustin is a very solid wrestler but the size difference will ultimately rid the end of Rhodes, and Bundy moves on.

 

[Theo Mays]

Bundy is a big boy and could move for a guy his size. But lets not forget that Dustin Rhodes is a pretty darn good wrestler and would hang in there with Bundy. I think Goldust would have had this, but being that this is Dustin makes it a bit harder. However I think Bundy would get over confident with his five count and what not and the Natural would get a nice roll up victory after a missed Avalanche in the corner.

 

[Ferbian]

Something tells me, seeing as Bundy has a definite size advantage, by far, this will come into play in my decision, while I like Dustin, and I know he can put on some good matches, I'm gonna have to go with Bundy simply because of size, I think while Dustin will hang in there, he'll eventually get squashed.

 

[GenMe]

King Kong is to much of a big man for Dustin in this match here. Dustin will give it his best, But at last I could see King Kong getting the win in this match. Dustin is a solid wrestler, But King Kong is better than him. My vote goes for King Kong Bundy.

 

[Loveless]

I see the size argument coming up here and the first thing I thought was "How is Goldust going to win this one?" Then I remembered that his PPV debut was against Bigelow, a man of similar size who was far more agile, and that Goldust owned him. Dustin moves on

 

[Blue Chipper]

Gotta give my vote to GD. Bundy was an unsuccessful SHW that didn't achieve much other than making stars look better. He's considered by most very boring. Whereas, Goldust was very vibrant and entertaining, and could also win a match.

 

[Big Sexy]

Goldust gets the win here. Bundy was basically a big waste of space. His one career highlight was losing to Hogan at Wrestlemania 2. Goldust has fought big guys like Mark Henry and Vader before and did well against them so the size argument really isn't anything big. Let's also not forget that Goldust isn't exactly small. He was taller then Bundy at 6'6" and he also weighed close to 270. I give it to the bizarre one after some mind games.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

My vote goes to Goldust, I think he would play enough mind games with Bundy to put him off his game and would take advantage of it. Bundy is to slow for Rhodes as well, Dustin might not be as big as Bundy but he is a big boy himself with much more speed. Rhodes wins via roll up.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Dustin hung around WWE during the mid 90's when there were plenty of big men to tangle with: Mark Henry, Bam Bam Bigelow, Vader, and Viscera. King Kong Bundy is an attraction piece, mainly remembered for one job to Hogan. Dustin is hard as nails, and a 2nd generation performer, and even in these late days of his career is receiving praise from his peers for his match quality and physical condition.

Rhodes for the win.

 

[mrsavagelife23]

goldust takes this just because bundy is a fat guy who had one memorable match in which he lost and goldust has had great feud after great feud

 

[pun2003hh]

Any now for the "Who gives a shit" matches. Kidding aside, don't really care for either one of these guys. I'll give it to Bundy simply because he was a main event heel for a significant amount of time and for Main Eventing a Wrestlemania.

 

[Tastycles]

No matter what your criteria, Bundy was shit. He was a shit wrestler, and never acheived anything, in the traditional sense and the kayfabe sense. Bundy would typically beat a load of career jobbers, and then lose to whomever it was he was supposed to end up feuding with. Either that, or he was losing tag matches with John Studd against Andre and a whole host of his buddies, including wrestling luminary Hillbilly Jim. Bundy didn't only lose to Hogan, but also to people like Jake Roberts and Junkyard Dog, who were in the top half of the midcard, precisely where Goldust found himself in the mid to late 90s. Goldust was once immensey over and is pretty much a better wrestler than Bundy in every respect, and he deserves to win here.

 

[TLC]

Bundy is one of the shittest super heavyweights I have ever watched. He had no talent and was only there because of his sheer size. He never did anything worth while in his career apart from losing a match to Hogan at Wrestlemania 2. Rhodes on the other hand has had a very good career. He beat a wide range of the people in the 90's had a lot of memorable moments. I'm sure Goldust would be able take care of Bundy and deserves to move on to the next round.

 

[shattered dreams]

Bundy was big-bodied when that was enough to be relevant but there have been bigger and size does not get you very far when facing a good sized modern wrestler. Goldust can actually wrestle and use in-ring psychology. He would probably come out to the ring as hogan-dust and talk about his banana hammock and then one timely distraction later make sure the big man never procreated and then on to the next round.

 

[Shocky]

I'm pissed with myself that I rushed and made my pick before I thought about. Instinctively I picked Bundy, based on his short run at the top of the WWF, but then I get to thinking, King Kong Bundy was shit. Aside from feuding with Hogan and beating up midgets, what exactly did Bundy do in his career?

Dustin Rhodes never won the big one, hell, really never smelled the main event scene, but not every wrestler is cut out to be that guy. He had a good run with the US title in WCW, and risked career suicide in the WWF. Dustin could have road the coattails of his father his entire career, but instead becomes Goldust. The character of Goldust pushed the limits like few could in the mid 90's, and he succeeded. He had a decent run with the IC title in that company as well.

My vote says Bundy, but in case of a tie, this written vote will win it for Goldustin.

 

[The Doctor]

What's a King Kong Bundy?

Kidding, but he was less than impressive. He was apparently a great guy backstage, but that isn't going to help him here. He did nothing interesting except lose to Hogan and be fat and bald. Compare this to Goldust, who was massively over (and still is!), has held championships, is an entertaining character, and a good wrestler who still can go to this day.

Goldust will win here.

 

[Mr. TM]

Never saw the greatness in Goldust, but always hated Bundy. The only time I liked Goldust was when his first run happened in the WWE, while for Bundy, he was never that good, and was just someone Hogan stepped on in the early days of Mania, before the big Wrestlemania even occured. So I choose Goldust.

 

[jmt225]

Dustin Rhodes is a great professional wrestler and one of the most underrated throughout the history of the sport. King Kong Bundy, on the other hand, was a fat, worthless piece of shit, who contributed nothing to the business other than jobbing to Hulk Hogan at one of the worst Wrestlemanias of all time. That's his career in a nutshell.

Rhodes' career though, ranges from putting on great matches in WCW, to making his way to the WWF and creating one of the most memorable characters in history. And not only were his promos and vignettes absolutely fantastic and 100% believable as Goldust, but so were his matches. The guy is just an awesome talent, and he undoubtedly deserves to go over Bundy here. Kayfabe wise you could make a fair argument for Bundy, but in my opinion, that's still not enough for anyone to ever vote for him over a talent like Dustin Rhodes.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Dustin Rhodes was a tremendously talented wrestler who got stuck with a shit dead end gimmick, made it work for a decade, went to TNA, got the goth version of that same gimmick, made it work, came back to WWE with the old gimmick as an attraction, got himself over again, and stole TV time from up and comers because he was just flat more entertaining.

King Kong Bundy was a fat ass who sucked. If he wasn't getting his ass kicked by Hillbilly Jim, he was dragging John Studd down.

Golddust is better at every aspect of wrestling and would simply outclass Bundy.

No one wants to remember his midcard title reigns in both WWE and WCW, the time when he was thought of us an up and comer and how his Daddy's burnt bridges always kept him from taking the next step.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

No matter what your criteria, Bundy was shit. He was a shit wrestler, and never acheived anything, in the traditional sense and the kayfabe sense. Bundy would typically beat a load of career jobbers, and then lose to whomever it was he was supposed to end up feuding with. Either that, or he was losing tag matches with John Studd against Andre and a whole host of his buddies, including wrestling luminary Hillbilly Jim. Bundy didn't only lose to Hogan, but also to people like Jake Roberts and Junkyard Dog, who were in the top half of the midcard, precisely where Goldust found himself in the mid to late 90s. Goldust was once immensey over and is pretty much a better wrestler than Bundy in every respect, and he deserves to win here.

This exactly.

Rhodes has experience facing some of the most famous big men in wrestling. He's faced Kane, Vader, Mark Henry and has even beat the Undertaker in a casket match.

Rhodes would easily hold his own and go over Bundy.

 

[Mr. TM]

Yes, but I doubt very highly that Mankind would come to Goldust's aid like he did for him against Undertaker in the Casketmatch .

Nonetheless, that match itself had Goldust slam Undertaker with ease, and beat up on him for most of the match. I rate Undertaker nearly 10 fold better than Bundy, so I still have to give it to Runnels.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

Only because this is a non-gimmick round. LOL

I was just showing that Goldust has wrestled and beat (with some help) a wrestler than many consider the best big man in wrestling so he would be more than able to hold his own against someone with much less talent than Undertaker.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Goldust was just far far more entertaining, and thats what I'll judge this particular match up on. Also, I don't think size comes into play, as Dustin Rhodes is a good enough wrestler and intelligent enough to combat it. Also, a kick to the balls hurts no matter how much you weigh.

 

[D-Man]

Bundy was, is, and always will be absolute SHIT in the ring. The guy's never had a real accomplishment. He's always known as "that big guy that loses to all of the good superstars". Just because he's big and fat, people think he's tough. But who has he beaten? It's ok... I'll wait...

Dustin, on the other hand, has been a success even though he was stuck in midcard limbo throughout his career. But his stint in the late 90's as Goldust should be enough to convince all of you that he's a force to be reckoned with, and no one to take lightly. He's much quicker, smarter, and more quick-witted than Bundy. And he's a big guy, as well. At 6'6" and 260lbs, he has MORE THAN enough size and strength to stand toe-to-toe with the 6'5" and 445lb fat man in Bundy.

Sorry Bundy, but Dustin's gonna shatter your dreams in this tournament.