Of course there isn't, it just works against the narrative you are trying to present with your argument and makes you look like you are jumping to a conclusion solely because other people's opinions don't match yours.
That only makes sense if you believe the childish form of writing. I can note my observations first and give reasons for my conclusions later. It's a fairly common writing technique. I cannot believe I had to explain that to you.
Yes, but it's not exactly indicative of Savage's prime because by this time, he had been outside of his prime for a good few years.
But I said "main-event".
Seriously, please pay attention to words, they are important.
No, I asked you a rhetorical question, because clearly, Savage's prime was not in 1999 when he won the WCW title for a day in a tag match. I used the smiley to indicate that I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
You asked a question against something I never said. THAT is a strawman. I clearly said "main-event", which he was, and now you're arguing against a position I never claimed.
For someone who was so damn excited to throw out accusations erroneously, you sure don't seem to mind committing the very sin of which you accuse others.
Quality is difficult to base on primarily facts
No, it's not. There are very definite objective qualities in pro wrestling. This is not opinion, it's fact.
In a lot of areas, yes. But in terms of being able to put on a technical in-ring product, absolutely not.
But who cares about that? If I want to see someone put me to sleep with a bunch of moves and holds, I'll get my hands on a wrestling training tape. But we're talking about pro wrestling and Dean Malenko was a snoozefest. Comparing Malenko and Savage is an absolute joke.
Yeah, I can remember the Doomsday Cage Match
That's because Savage actually had a career and wasn't a flash in the pan like Goldberg.
I'm far from an expert on them either, but I'm able to identify when someone is using them
Obviously you're not, as you've twice made false accusations.
I'm calling you out on the fact that you deliberately did not include my point that the king cobra does not commonly poison a human enough with its bite to kill them.
Which was refuted by the obvious fact the cobra latched onto Savage's arm for an extended period of time.
Are you saying I have to point out the obvious for you to understand the absurdity of your comment?
You cut my argument short
Because it wasn't applicable. And now you're trying to talk about anti-venom, as if that makes Savage somehow less of a badass for surviving a king cobra attack and wrestling days later.
That is a strawman; you misrepresented my argument to suit your own agenda, which is pro-Savage.
I didn't misrepresent your argument and that's not even what a strawman is. A strawman is where I ascribe to you a position you didn't take and then argue against the point you never made. I didn't do that at all, although you have been doing it.
What I did was make the initial claim that Savage survived a cobra bite. You pointed out that a king cobra bite can be fatal (though isn't always) and I used that to inform you that your own post confirm what I already knew about Savage being a badass. For me to have built a strawman, I would have had to claim that YOU were saying Savage was a badass because he survived a snakebite, which I never did. I merely used your documentation to point out the toughness of Savage.
Ironically enough, YOU agreed Savage was a badass, so even if I had said the former, it wouldn't be a true strawman since you agree with the premise.
Like I said, you're bad at this debating thing.
Thanks for proving my point about your insecurity concerning your own argument.
How does me pointing out your terrible ability to play psychologist prove anything other than the fact you're terrible at playing a psychologist? You're making yourself sound silly right now.
Indeed. But a venomous snake bite can be treated far before the very worst effects of the bite come into play, as opposed to a taser, in which the crippling effect takes place immediately.
Why do you keep mentioning a taser, when I never said anything about a taser?
I said Goldberg punched a window and sat out for 5 months. Savage took the bite of a deadly snake and wrestled the next chance he had. You keep talking about a taser like it had anything at all to do with what I said. And if you're trying to make a point about the taser, just remember Goldberg lost the fight to a taser, so that's hardly a point in favor of his toughness.
It can, but what's to say the snake did inject the maximum amount of toxin?
Let's say for your argument's sake, that the maximum dose of toxin was administered. There is still a delay between the toxin taking its full effect, but once it does so, it's safe to assume that no matter who you are, whether it be me, you, Randy Savage or Goldberg, you are dead.
Why the fuck would Savage be able to wrestle a few days later if he was injected with more than enough poison to kill a man if left untreated?
What are you talking about? I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
Savage = bit by deadly snake = wrestled days later = badass
Goldberg = punch glass = 5 months away from wrestling = wimp
It's really that simple.
Don't give me the "Savage was a badass" argument here; badassery is not an antidote to snake venom.
Badassery is evidenced by the fact he went to fight the very next chance he got. I've been very clear on this.
Maybe you're so bad at debating because you have a hard time understanding what you read?
Yes, because elephants have the same ingenuity as humans to be able to create and access anti-venom. This is an absolutely ludicrous argument, and you are FAR above this.
You are literally not making any sense. Do both of us a favor. Before you respond with your next post, please take time to read. I feel like if you actually read a post, it might make your posts less nonsensical.
Another beautiful example of quote mining to suit your own agenda. Here is what I originally said:
Please address the entire point and not the final sentence, and then I will give you the courtesy of addressing your point.
I did address your entire point, at least the parts that were relevant. You're trying to claim that Goldberg was not at peak performance when he sat out after punching a window. The stuff about Hogan/Cena is irrelevant, since they are not a part of this discussion.
So if Goldberg wasn't at his peak, then his peak lasted less than 18 months, which is absolutely ridiculous to say in pro wrestling terms. You are literally trying to claim Goldberg's peak ended in less than 18 months, which is ridiculous.
The reason Goldberg's matches were so short, from a kayfabe perspective, was because his dominance was unparalleled
Then how can you say his endurance was equal to Savage's? That doesn't make any sense.
You can't say he was so dominant he worked short matches and then said his endurance has proven to be as great as Savage's. That argument is completely devoid of logic or intelligence.
Of course you wouldn't want to discuss the fact that Goldberg was tasered, after all, it would work against your false argument that Goldberg was a weakling.
Of course I'm not talking about it, for two reasons:
1) I never said anything about a taser, I talked about sitting out for five months after punching a window
2) He lost the fight to a taser. I can lose a fight to a taser, how does that make Goldberg special?
Well, they are subjective in different ways
No, they really aren't. There is, undoubtedly, objective criteria by which we can analyze pro wrestlers.
But it doesn't change the fact that the rest of the factors you listed there are very much open for debate.
No, they really aren't. If they were open for debate, you would have tried to debate them.
By your logic, Alexander The Great must have been a flash in the pan compared to Napoleon; despite the former having a much more dominant battle record
.
We're talking about pro wrestling, not military commanders who lived thousands of years apart.
Seriously, you are TERRIBLE at this debating thing.
Goldberg accomplished all of this
All of what? He accomplished less than Savage in less time because he had less staying power. Great...how in the hell do you think that proves anything other than Savage was greater?
No, it doesn't change the fact that Savage was a badass.
And Savage absolutely was a badass. I'm glad you agree.
What it does determine though is whether Savage has the capability to beat Goldberg in a match.
Savage was greater in every facet of pro wrestling, except in the ability to let a window put him out of action.
Savage > Goldberg
Yes you are! You are actively saying that Goldberg would have lost matches had he be in the business longer, which is a hypothesis, not a fact.
It's pro wrestling, of course he would have lost matches if he were in the business longer. Even the Undertaker has now lost a match at Wrestlemania. Of course Goldberg would have lost, do you not understand anything about the pro wrestling business?
In areas, yes, Savage was a better pro-wrestler. But in a theoretical, decisive match between the pair of them, which is what is being discussed, not a question of "Who is the better pro-wrestler?", Goldberg has the advantage.
What is being discussed is who deserves to win. Your entire argument rests on a single flimsy twig, while my argument rests on both the kayfabe and real life aspects of pro wrestling.
Seriously, your entire point is the idea that Goldberg was a badass who could defeat jobbers in two minutes. But Goldberg sat out five months because of a window. That's not so badass. Even your taser argument has no merit, since he lost the fight to the taser. It sounds like Savage could just show up with a taser and a mirror and defeat Goldberg by forfeit. Savage, on the other hand, took the bite of a king cobra and fought the very next show, because that's how badass he is.
Savage is a legit badass. Goldberg is just good at running through jobbers. And Savage is far and away better than Goldberg at any objective measure of a pro wrestler.
You seem to be great at taking my quotes out of context and using them to suit the agenda you want to push.
I'm great at debating. You're not. I just also so happen to be right, which only makes it easier for me.
