Seems downright logical to me.
Why should somebody advance simply for the fact that he's better for the next round? Next match is against HHH anyway. Foley has never beat HHH in plenty of gimmick matches so I don't think it really matters anyway.
I see. The point of the gimmicks are to try to find a way to actually prevent the greatest from winning the tournament to determine the greatest. That's somehow more honorable than me voting Foley over Benoit.
No it's to put wrestlers in different and interesting positions/matches that may not favor both sides equally. In this match for example if it were in a hardcore match then Mick would have a clear advantage and in the ECW section where Brock is fighting HBK many are giving it to brock based on extreme rules.
Foley was the first real threat to Taker and has beaten him a few times. He's also defeated Triple H and Steve Austin.
You're right about Taker and Austin, I missed some mankind wins there. Triple H did lose to foley several times under his original gimmick but he was far from relavant or his prime at that point. Foley has never won 1v1 against a prime triple h.
It's not like Benoit has a stellar record either. Outside his five month title reign he's lost quite a bit too.
no he's not perfect either but he had a long title reign and regularly beat top guys.
Really? Because your first post in this thread made it seem like you thought this match would be really close. Almost like you were trying to find a way to justify a Benoit victory. Now that Benoit is losing you're becoming angry. Are you sure favoritism isn't playing a part in your posts here?
You're right I did defend foley in my first post because frankly i'm a fan of foleys. Looking at his records and what he's done with his career in the ring is far below what Benoit did. I'm a fan of Benoit too but if i'm buying a t-shirt I pick mankind every time but in this match Chris Benoit wins.
EDIT: All I said in my first post is that Foley is way more popular, I've never denied that. I made it clear though that I thought Benoit was superior. I've seen arguments made here about a wrestler's popularity being reason enough for him to win in this tournament but that argument doesn't work if that wrestler was still booked to lose over and over. You would think that the 3rd most popular wrestler in the WWF at the time would be trusted with the title more often no?
I'm not so sure that Benoit is a superior in ring worker to Foley. What? Benoit is considered to be one of the greatest technical wrestlers ever. What does that mean? He's better at executing a suplex? Why is a technical mat wrestler automatically considered a better performer than a brawler? People here look their nose down at brawlers for some reason. Foley is considered to be one of the greatest brawlers. So tell me why the technical wrestler automatically gets the win over the brawler.
Because brawlers are rarely successful if that's they're only skill. Steve Austin was a brawler but he was also athletic and a good mat wrestler. Undertaker can be a brawler but he has strength to perform a lot of power moves. Triple H, Ric Flair, Harley Race, Brock Lesnar all have something else on top of just being a dirty wrestler.
Benoit is arguable the best technical wrestler ever (as foley is the best brawler) but he's also incredibly strong, can perform power moves, is quicker, and even has some high risk ability. Benoit's skills as a wrestler overcome his weakness in that he's short. Foley's ability as a brawler don't make up for his unathleticism. At least not in a standard wrestling match.
