Shit arguments you will definitely see in WZWT7

[Tastycles]

1. Bret Hart is the El Santo/Hulk Hogan of Canada

No, he isn't. Everybody in the world knows who Hulk Hogan is, he's a massively famous star. El Santo had a state funeral, was a cross over star with films and movies, and is part of something that is a much bigger deal in Mexico than it is in Canada. Wayne Gretzky is the El Santo of Canada.

2.

3. Anything that remotely tries to compare anything from any other company in the 80s to Hulk Hogan and the WWE.

I know you love Ric Flair. I know that you loved his character and exploits in the NWA. I know you think his feud with Steamboat was brilliant. But guess what? Nobody cared about the NWA in the 80s.

When Ricky Steamboat beat Ric Flair in a 2 out of 3 falls match on Clash of the Champions VI for the NWA Championship, they drew a rating of 4.3, on a card that had minor title matches for Sting and Lex Luger. Three weeks earlier, a WWF Saturday Night's Main Event programme drew well over double that with this card:

1. Brutus Beefcake vs Rick Rude
2. Hulk Hogan vs. Bad News Brown
3. Ted DiBiase vs. The Blue Blazer
4. The Brainbusters vs. The Rockers
5. The Red Rooster vs. The Brooklyn Brawler.

NWA in 1989 had literally nothing on the unstoppable machine WWF, which is exactly why people like Terry Taylor were choosing to be the Red Rooster over being worth something in NWA.

It's not just the Hogan effect. He wasn't always on Saturday night's Main event, but that show was always twice as watched as anything the NWA ever did.

4. Kayfabe voters voting for Hulk Hogan/John Cena/Steve Austin to lose a match purely because of the stipulation

I don't care how you vote in the tournament. But if you decide to go down the kayfabe route, be consistent. There is no way on earth that any of these three men would lose a high profile match where all the odds are stacked against them. Could you imagine the anti-climax to Hogan not being able to slam Andre, Cena losing to Edge at TLC or Austin being thwarted by the corporation? It would literally never happen. Vote against them if your voting based on chain moves or ring attire or if they are in a match they might feasibly lose - e.g. Hogan vs. Warrior etc, but not just because they are fighting Edge in a TLC match or Undertaker in a casket match.

5. This match actually happened, and X won, therefore X wins.

This can be a good argument. If you have Rock vs Austin, say. Two men, at their peak, and Austin won. Ditto Hogan and Piper or something like that. Where it falls down is when they fought were one was obviously at a career, real world disadvantage. Michaels beating Hart in 1996 is interesting and relevant, but beating him at Survivor Series 1997 and them drawing in 1990 is not, because of the circumstances.

This argument gets even more ridiculous when people start transferring victories, like so:

Santino Marella beat Umaga.
Umaga beat Ric Flair.

Therefore Santino would beat Ric Flair. Regardless of how that actually came to pass.

 

[Gelgarin]

4. Kayfabe voters voting for Hulk Hogan/John Cena/Steve Austin to lose a match purely because of the stipulation

I don't care how you vote in the tournament. But if you decide to go down the kayfabe route, be consistent. There is no way on earth that any of these three men would lose a high profile match where all the odds are stacked against them. Could you imagine the anti-climax to Hogan not being able to slam Andre, Cena losing to Edge at TLC or Austin being thwarted by the corporation? It would literally never happen. Vote against them if your voting based on chain moves or ring attire or if they are in a match they might feasibly lose - e.g. Hogan vs. Warrior etc, but not just because they are fighting Edge in a TLC match or Undertaker in a casket match.

Surely this one is the exact opposite of kayfabe voting. Your argument is predicated on the predetermined nature of wrestling where the babyface is always ultimately going to overcome the odds, but that only becomes relevant once you bring down the forth wall.

If a not particularly athletic guy comes up against a ladder match specialist in a ladder match then that's an extremely valid reason for someone to vote for the ladder match specialist. If it isn't then the gimmick rounds become utterly pointless, which is a shame since they usually generate the most interesting discussion every year.

 

[Tastycles]

I see what you mean, and strictly speaking you're right, but the reality is when people say "kayfabe" they mean "what would happen if this was actually booked".

 

[shattered dreams]

I am not sure it doesn't qualify as kayfabe since there is a history of it happening repeatedly. Maybe you can't say someone will be booked this way now but you can say the last 50 times this happened they won 49 of them.

I have never liked how people treat heels in this tournament. Yes heels lose a lot and usually don't win the biggest match but this isn't a tournament of all final matches or all house show matches. Heels actually do pretty well in matches that are simply big. Then we also have the people that act like every match in the tournament should have a clean finish. No shit the guy had to cheat to win, that is the gimmick, just like the baby face had to use his power moves.

 

[Tastycles]

I have never liked how people treat heels in this tournament. Yes heels lose a lot and usually don't win the biggest match but this isn't a tournament of all final matches or all house show matches. Heels actually do pretty well in matches that are simply big. Then we also have the people that act like every match in the tournament should have a clean finish. No shit the guy had to cheat to win, that is the gimmick, just like the baby face had to use his power moves.

A good point.

On heels, I've just remembered something else.

I'm fine with an argument like "Ric Flair would find a way to win. It'd be dirty, and he wouldn't do it clean, but he'd find a way, just like he did most of the time".

I'm not fine with "Ric Flair would win because everyone who has ever been in the horsemen, the Heenan Family and Evolution would all run in and help him". If someone spent their entire career with the same backup like DiBiase and Virgil or something, I can just about stretch to this. But when we're talking about people who have been around forever, they have almost always been in a faction or group at some point, so it would neutralise out.

Do we want to see Rock vs, say, Hogan or do we want to see Rock w/ Corporation, Foley, Team WWE, Nation of Domination etc. vs. Hogan w/ Savage, nWo and Immortal etc.? It makes it ridiculous.

 

[Coco]

A good point.

On heels, I've just remembered something else.

I'm fine with an argument like "Ric Flair would find a way to win. It'd be dirty, and he wouldn't do it clean, but he'd find a way, just like he did most of the time".

I'm not fine with "Ric Flair would win because everyone who has ever been in the horsemen, the Heenan Family and Evolution would all run in and help him". If someone spent their entire career with the same backup like DiBiase and Virgil or something, I can just about stretch to this. But when we're talking about people who have been around forever, they have almost always been in a faction or group at some point, so it would neutralise out.

Do we want to see Rock vs, say, Hogan or do we want to see Rock w/ Corporation, Foley, Team WWE, Nation of Domination etc. vs. Hogan w/ Savage, nWo and Immortal etc.? It makes it ridiculous.

I call this type of argument "throwing a Lariat."

Ric Flair would beat Batista in a Last Man Standing match? My pasty white ass he would!

 

[Con T.]

1. Bret Hart is the El Santo/Hulk Hogan of Canada

No, he isn't. Everybody in the world knows who Hulk Hogan is, he's a massively famous star. El Santo had a state funeral, was a cross over star with films and movies, and is part of something that is a much bigger deal in Mexico than it is in Canada. Wayne Gretzky is the El Santo of Canada.

This point also works for Big Daddy in the UK, no?

 

[Papa Pillman]

The level to which Flair is underrated in this tourney is criminal.

As for this...

Ric Flair would beat Batista in a Last Man Standing match? My pasty white ass he would!

Yes Coco, as sure as your ass is pasty and white, or even if it is baboon pink, Flair would find a way to win this match.

There is no promoter, in any company that ever existed that, if he had these two guys in their primes, would ever book Batista to go over Flair in a hugely built one-off. Flair is thousands of times the performer that Batista is. Flair was the better talker, and the better worker, he sweats out more charisma during one match than Batista ever had his entire career. Hell, Batista is big, but Flair even had the better and more iconic look. If you're watching mid 80s Flair face mid 2000s Batista, you can be sure the Nature Boy is going over, no matter the stip. If he can make Terry Funk(arguably the toughest man ever in the business) say "I quit", he can prevent Batista from getting to his feet, even if it has to be by less than admirable means.

That brings me to a Point that was missed in the initial post...

Flair gets taken out every year by one of these "shit arguments". The one that he would put the younger guy over for the good of the company. He put over a young Sting, he put over a young Paul Wight, etc. But the fact that the only reason why these moments of Flair doing the job are remebered so clearly is because of the amount of times that Flair climbed the mountains, beat the top faces, overcame the odds, and strapped on the "Big Gold" is what's always overlooked. Just saying "Flair would put random wrestler over" doesn't fly, because of the atleast 16 times that he walked into a match without the title and left with it, plus the literally thousands of successful title defenses to his credit against wrestlers of all ages, shapes, sizes, hype levels, etc. Many of which were 45-60 minute wars, sometimes eight of those in a week.

Batista, Goldberg, or any other latter-day product of the sports entertainment hype-machine would stand no chance stacked against Flair in his prime. He is on another level entirely, and there probably aren't even five other guys in the conversation when it comes to being in his league. Like it or not, Flair finds a way to win more than anyone ever, the record book proves it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Chris Benoit is a murderer and he deserves to lose.

Wait and see.

 

[Alex]

Chris Benoit is a murderer and he deserves to lose.

Wait and see.

I agree and they'll also use the 'Jeff Hardy is/was a drug addict and deserves to lose' one as well.

 

[Coco]

The level to which Flair is underrated in this tourney is criminal.

As for this...

Yes Coco, as sure as your ass is pasty and white, or even if it is baboon pink, Flair would find a way to win this match.

There is no promoter, in any company that ever existed that, if he had these two guys in their primes, would ever book Batista to go over Flair in a hugely built one-off. Flair is thousands of times the performer that Batista is. Flair was the better talker, and the better worker, he sweats out more charisma during one match than Batista ever had his entire career. Hell, Batista is big, but Flair even had the better and more iconic look. If you're watching mid 80s Flair face mid 2000s Batista, you can be sure the Nature Boy is going over, no matter the stip. If he can make Terry Funk(arguably the toughest man ever in the business) say "I quit", he can prevent Batista from getting to his feet, even if it has to be by less than admirable means.

That brings me to a Point that was missed in the initial post...

Flair gets taken out every year by one of these "shit arguments". The one that he would put the younger guy over for the good of the company. He put over a young Sting, he put over a young Paul Wight, etc. But the fact that the only reason why these moments of Flair doing the job are remebered so clearly is because of the amount of times that Flair climbed the mountains, beat the top faces, overcame the odds, and strapped on the "Big Gold" is what's always overlooked. Just saying "Flair would put random wrestler over" doesn't fly, because of the atleast 16 times that he walked into a match without the title and left with it, plus the literally thousands of successful title defenses to his credit against wrestlers of all ages, shapes, sizes, hype levels, etc. Many of which were 45-60 minute wars, sometimes eight of those in a week.

Batista, Goldberg, or any other latter-day product of the sports entertainment hype-machine would stand no chance stacked against Flair in his prime. He is on another level entirely, and there probably aren't even five other guys in the conversation when it comes to being in his league. Like it or not, Flair finds a way to win more than anyone ever, the record book proves it.

I made it half way through the first paragraph. As soon as I started wanting to VISCERALLY disagree with you, I decided I'd rather just red rep you and save myself the headache this early in the game.

 

[Papa Pillman]

I made it half way through the first paragraph. As soon as I started wanting to VISCERALLY disagree with you, I decided I'd rather just red rep you and save myself the headache this early in the game.

Red-rep me for "fanboy bullshit" and not addressing "Dave's record"?

You're already in mid-season mode I see...

I was unaware this was a first round matchup we were already discussing(which would be pretty shit seeding BTW).

I didn't address Batista's accomplishments because they aren't even in the same solar system as Flair's.

You want me to address Batista? Okay...

Flair got the rub from Buddy Rogers, but did the unthinkable and went on to be even better than Rogers himself.

Batista got the rub from teaming with Flair, and no doubt did alot with it, but gave it all up long before he ever sniffed Ric Flair-type immortal relevancy.

No disrespect to Big Dave, but he's not in Flair's class, which isn't a put down, but a fact all the same.

Sue me for running a tough campaign.

 

[Барбоса]

Sue me for running a tough campaign.

The Nature Boy should because such "tough campaigning" is more likely to make people vote against him.

 

[Papa Pillman]

The Nature Boy should because such "tough campaigning" is more likely to make people vote against him.

Because we all know how concerned Flair is about winning this contest.

 

[Барбоса]

Because we all know how concerned Flair is about winning this contest.

But would he not find a way to win?

 

[Coco]

I didn't address Batista's accomplishments because they aren't even in the same solar system as Flair's.

You want me to address Batista? Okay...

Flair got the rub from Buddy Rogers, but did the unthinkable and went on to be even better than Rogers himself.

Batista got the rub from teaming with Flair, and no doubt did alot with it, but gave it all up long before he ever sniffed Ric Flair-type immortal relevancy.

No disrespect to Big Dave, but he's not in Flair's class, which isn't a put down, but a fact all the same.

Sue me for running a tough campaign.

Your lack of consideration to Dave's sterling record against guys like Flair is appalling.

Batista only lost clean to two guys during his main event run. Cena and Undertaker. Demi-God main event power guys get over on Dave, and only occasionally (Dave's one of the only guys to hand those two clean losses as well). Guys like Flair might pick up a cheap win over Dave. But a decisive win, the kind a LMS match necessitates? Batista doesn't take those losses. Sorry.

That's the record you're overlooking when you ride Naitch's jock.

As for "immortal relevancy," go back to the top of the page. All of Flair's alleged workrate-filled classics are dwarfed in relevancy by a demi-God main event power guy from the WWF.

Bottom line: Flair being active for so long has allowed him to become one of the most overrated wrestlers around. As the years go by and our memories fade, he'll take his rightful place in history.

 

[Tastycles]

This point also works for Big Daddy in the UK, no?

Not really. Big Daddy isn't as timeless as Santo or Hogan may prove to be, but he was televised to a quarter of the population on a weekly basis for about 15 years, and literally everyone knew who he was. He never lost either, like Santo and Hogan, and unlike Bret Hart who's most famous matches are almost all losses.

 

[Coco]

As a Canadian, I can assure you that the only people who know and revere Bret up here are wrestling fans. And even then, we prefer the likes of Austin, Rock, Hogan, etc.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Some shit arguments are fine with me, but some (such as your fifth point used incorrectly) send me the wrong way. More than anything, if anybody posts a response to a thread and they say 'Oh I nevr saw Terry Funk restle but I saw Edge restle and he was ded good so I'm votn Edge'. Those people are going to be lined up and shot. If you don't know both guys, don't vote. If you want to vote go back and look at some footage. 99% of guys have footage you can go look at. All you have to do is contextualise it for it's time and then make an assessment.

If you're going to vote for someone the last thing you should do is admit that you've never even heard of 'the other guy'. Keep that sort of thing quiet if you have any shame.

 

[Coco]

Honestly, if people haven't seen any old school Terry Funk, they should skip the tournament and look some up. What little I've seen has been a treat.

 

[shattered dreams]

Not really. Big Daddy isn't as timeless as Santo or Hogan may prove to be, but he was televised to a quarter of the population on a weekly basis for about 15 years, and literally everyone knew who he was. He never lost either, like Santo and Hogan, and unlike Bret Hart who's most famous matches are almost all losses.

And how many titles did he win during this never lost period? Isn't it a tad bit convenient to punish Hart for what happened in some of his famous matches when Big Daddy has so few truly famous ones?

 

[Papa Pillman]

This...

Batista only lost clean to two guys during his main event run. Cena and Undertaker. Demi-God main event power guys get over on Dave, and only occasionally (Dave's one of the only guys to hand those two clean losses as well). Guys like Flair might pick up a cheap win over Dave. But a decisive win, the kind a LMS match necessitates? Batista doesn't take those losses. Sorry.

And This...

Flair being active for so long has allowed him to become one of the most overrated wrestlers around. As the years go by and our memories fade, he'll take his rightful place in history.

Work both ways. You say Flair was over-elevated by being around so long.

I say Batista is knocked for having such a short prime. If he would've been around longer, he would've done the job to more guys as he aged to give them the kind of rub Flair became capable of giving.


Also... If Flair would've retired immediately after his early 90s WWF run, feeling he had no more to achieve, I would argue that his longterm legacy wouldn't be greatly raised or diminished, but we as fans would've been robbed of hundreds more great matches, and lots of younger wrestlers(Batista included) would not have gotten the ultimate rub of working along side him.

That's what makes comparing two guys with such vastly different career experience levels difficult, but I prefer to side with the guy who created the ultimate legacy, over the flash-in-the-pan, albeit a relatively impressive flash.

As for "immortal relevancy," go back to the top of the page. All of Flair's alleged workrate-filled classics are dwarfed in relevancy by a demi-God main event power guy from the WWF.

Just because Vince is the ultimate pro wrestling promoter, and larger ratings were obtained by WWE shows, shouldn't deligitimize Flair's prestige. Let's not forget that Flair went to the WWF on the back-end of his physical prime and held two world titles and headlined Wrestlemania, in spite of the relative short legnth of his run. While the likes of WWF "demi-god power guys" like the Undertaker, Sid, and Hogan were active in the company.

Even Vince himself considered Flair the all-time best. He likely would have pushed Flair in 1982 the same way he did in 1992. To call into question's Flair's importance because he spent the 80s working for Crockett is to ignore the influence and success he continued to have once he was performing for the WWF or a WWF-sized audience during the WCW's rise, not to mention even more success achieved far after his physical prime working in the same rings as Batista.

 

[Tastycles]

And how many titles did he win during this never lost period? Isn't it a tad bit convenient to punish Hart for what happened in some of his famous matches when Big Daddy has so few truly famous ones?

Titles aren't really important in British wrestling, neither are they in Mexico. Santo won about as many titles as Essa Rios has, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who's a bigger deal there.The point I'm making though is that Big Daddy was the focal point of a cultural phenomenon in Britain, and was a household name. If I went and asked a random British person to name a wrestler, they'd say The Rock or Big Daddy, depending on whether or not they were under 30.

That contrasts with this:

As a Canadian, I can assure you that the only people who know and revere Bret up here are wrestling fans. And even then, we prefer the likes of Austin, Rock, Hogan, etc.

As for big matches, more people watched any given Big Daddy match than the entire WrestleMania audience of Bret Hart put together.

 

[Coco]

This...

And This...

Work both ways. You say Flair was over-elevated by being around so long.

I say Batista is knocked for having such a short prime. If he would've been around longer, he would've done the job to more guys as he aged to give them the kind of rub Flair became capable of giving.

Perhaps. But he never would have been booked like Flair, who even in his prime was made to flop around like a chump to make his opponents look good.

Flair is great. But guys like him were designed to make guys like Batista look good. Batista doesn't lose to those guys in LMS matches.

Also... If Flair would've retired immediately after his early 90s WWF run, feeling he had no more to achieve, I would argue that his longterm legacy wouldn't be greatly raised or diminished, but we as fans would've been robbed of hundreds more great matches, and lots of younger wrestlers(Batista included) would not have gotten the ultimate rub of working along side him.

Yeah, I like watching Flair too. So what?

That's what makes comparing two guys with such vastly different career experience levels difficult, but I prefer to side with the guy who created the ultimate legacy, over the flash-in-the-pan, albeit a relatively impressive flash.

This "ultimate legacy" stuff is smark bollocks. Just sayin'. He's like Punk, but ancient and with a worse body. He appeals most strongly to a certain kind of workrate crazy fan and built his legacy on that foundation.

Just because Vince is the ultimate pro wrestling promoter, and larger ratings were obtained by WWE shows, shouldn't deligitimize Flair's prestige. Let's not forget that Flair went to the WWF on the back-end of his physical prime and held two world titles and headlined Wrestlemania, in spite of the relative short legnth of his run. While the likes of WWF "demi-god power guys" like the Undertaker, Sid, and Hogan were active in the company.

The demi-God power guys headlined that Mania. The ultimate promoter knew where his bread was buttered.

Even Vince himself considered Flair the all-time best.

He's said the same thing about Austin. And Hart. And HBK.

He says it about anyone whose DVD he's appearing on. It's not a huge deal.

I'm sure he thinks highly of Flair, but let's not overstate it. We're not trying to sell DVDs here.

He likely would have pushed Flair in 1982 the same way he did in 1992.

Likely? This is as compelling as the arguments about what wrestlers who died young could have been.

To call into question's Flair's importance because he spent the 80s working for Crockett is to ignore the influence and success he continued to have once he was performing for the WWF or a WWF-sized audience during the WCW's rise, not to mention even more success achieved far after his physical prime working in the same rings as Batista.

Flair wasn't a success after his prime. He coasted with the occasional flash of greatness. For years.

 

[shattered dreams]

Titles aren't really important in British wrestling, neither are they in Mexico. Santo won about as many titles as Essa Rios has, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who's a bigger deal there.The point I'm making though is that Big Daddy was the focal point of a cultural phenomenon in Britain, and was a household name. If I went and asked a random British person to name a wrestler, they'd say The Rock or Big Daddy, depending on whether or not they were under 30.

That contrasts with this:

As for big matches, more people watched any given Big Daddy match than the entire WrestleMania audience of Bret Hart put together.

I am not disputing that Big Daddy was popular beyond just wrestling fans in his country, I am disputing that he ever really did anything exceptionally noteworthy in wrestling while he was watching people bounce of his belly after he got tagged in. The Hogan etc. stuff can be wrong for either reason, Hart because he didn't have lasting mainstream popularity and Big Daddy for the reason I listed.