People can use whatever criteria they want, but ultimately we're voting on who we all think is the better wrestler objectively.
Vader beat Austin in a dog-collar match. Does that mean Vader is bigger than Austin? Like I said, one poll is enough to find out who the greatest wrestler ever is.
People complain about that every year, not even realizing those types of debates are what this tournament was made for. It's not a popularity contest.
I know it's not a popularity contest, and I'm not voting Kane because I prefer him. I'm voting Kane because he is far more likely to win a match against Dory Funk Jr when both men are in their primes due to the factors listed above.
Because gimmicks are the one time we can be subjective. And it produces matches that are often so silly they'd never be booked for real. I personally vote against the bigger star if it isn't 100% realistic that he can win: for example Stone Cold vs Jushin Liger in an embarrassment match = GG Stone Cold.
The bold warrants the
. In fact, that statement is pretty subjective.
It's not entirely realistic that Dory Funk can win because he's never fought anyone like Kane before. Kane has the massive advantage in that regard.
Yes. It's not realistic for Andre to be able to compete in such a match. It would never be booked for real but here it allows the one bit of subjective booked to surface.
I don't get what you're trying to get across here.
The objective is to get your pick forward. I use drawing power/influence/legacy because it's the easiest way to be objective. Others use kayfabe. Those arguments usually devolve into pissing contests. Others use the locations and brackets. I personally treat them as unrelated entities.
And what's to stop me compiling a bunch of statistics in support of Hulk Hogan and monopolizing the tournament? From a match analysis, we actually derive the guy who has the best chance to win, and it really doesn't hurt the chances of the biggest stars like Bruno, Hogan, Austin and Thesz in normal matches.
I'm not saying you're wrong for getting statistics together because they're the best way to vote when nobody has the distinct advantage in the match, but from a realistic standpoint, Dory Funk is at a distinct disadvantage.
I voted Henry because I thought Henry was the bigger star and I defended my arguments accordingly.
Fair enough, I was using it to justify my thought process, not to call you out on hypocrisy or anything like that.
That's subjective. Kayfabe treatment always favors the bigger star anyway. So if Kane was booked to lose to Dory, then Dory would hand him his ass.
Remember how I said wrestling evolved from technical masterpieces to telling a story? The story in this match is this: Dory has never faced a man like Kane before, he has nearly nothing to put him down and although he may hit a piledriver, he doesn't have the style to keep Kane down. Kane ravages Dory and despite an impressive fight, he is slain.
And if you use the underdog argument, you're going against everything you've said.
Prime refers to how big of a draw/relevant a wrestler was at his peak. Are you really going to argue Kane's peak of relevance was higher than Dory's? If so then Great Khali would be a top 5 seed in this thing.
No I'm not. What I'm trying to say is when Dory was in his prime, he never fought anyone like Kane. Meanwhile, Kane only lost in his prime to:
A) Advance a storyline where he won the rubber match. He was pinned once by Undertaker after three tombstone piledrivers, which I've discussed in detail.
B) Against the second seed of this tournament in his prime, Stone Cold Steve Austin, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
And Dory Funk did not wrestle in the same style as Austin or had the benefit of hindsight. That suggests Kane has the distinctive advantage in a one v one match.