Championship Region, Fifth Round: (3) Andre the Giant vs. (4) Kurt Angle

[Bernkastel]

Everyone had TNA built around them & they still went in the toilet.

Besides Sting and Styles, I would say Kurt was actually a big reason why TNA was pretty good at one point. His jump was a big deal. You cannot knock Angle for the demise of a once great company. If you do, then Hogan should certainly be knocked down a few notches as well. Since that never happens & its a dumb argument.. try again.


Angle has the title resume, Olympic gold, speed advantage, he is light years ahead in technical ability & tough enough to withstand the onslaught Andre can bring. If he can overcome Show & Lesnar in one match, he can take Andre being big and scary.

Andre was always going to be a special attraction due to his look. The king of the carnival if you will. Kurt became a legend by winning every damn title along the way. Amatuer, Olympic, Pro. WWE, TNA, Japan. The legit blueprint for success if you aspire to be a wrestler. Kurt is a goddamn machine. Andre was a monster & clearly a big name during his time. Kurt became who he is by beating the big names of his time & in some glorious matches along the way.

It is a mountain to climb but Kurt sets his sights, drops the straps & gets the job done.

Kurt didn't beat the big names of his time more than they defeated him. He has a losing record against the top stars of his era. Like I said, he was basically Chris Jericho but with a better legit wrestling acumen.

All the hubbub you're spouting for Angle I can do for Andre. What stopping him from grabbing Angle's arm and snapping it like a twig? What's stopping him from hitting Angle so hard that he snaps his already fragile weak neck?

Andre was a top star. Angle was not. He was a glorified upper mid card wrestler during his time in WWE. When he did have a show built around him it was on the B brand, while guys a lot better than him carried the main brand. He's exactly the type of guy that would lose to Andre in a big match setting. He wasn't Hogan or Austin. He wasn't Rock or Cena. Kurt is the guy that might get 1 victory over someone like Andre, while the giant wins all the others.

Andre wins.

 

[Dragon Chief]

Kurt didn't beat the big names of his time more than they defeated him. He has a losing record against the top stars of his era. Like I said, he was basically Chris Jericho but with a better legit wrestling acumen.

All the hubbub you're spouting for Angle I can do for Andre. What stopping him from grabbing Angle's arm and snapping it like a twig? What's stopping him from hitting Angle so hard that he snaps his already fragile weak neck?

Andre was a top star. Angle was not. He was a glorified upper mid card wrestler during his time in WWE. When he did have a show built around him it was on the B brand, while guys a lot better than him carried the main brand. He's exactly the type of guy that would lose to Andre in a big match setting. He wasn't Hogan or Austin. He wasn't Rock or Cena. Kurt is the guy that might get 1 victory over someone like Andre, while the giant wins all the others.

Andre wins.

You don't seem familiar with Kurt Angle's era at all. SmackDown in 2003 was easily the better show than RAW and has even beaten RAW in ratings. Kurt Angle is a greater star than Andre, plain and simple, I don't think Andre is on Angle's level in terms of accomplishments and in ring skills or even mic skills.

Hell an argument can be made for Big Show being greater than Andre.

Vote: Kurt Angle

 

[Spidey Revivey]

*hen Kurt Angle becomes a pop culture icon, I'll vote for him over Andre.

Sadly, this may never be the case. Even as a gold medalist, his name isn't exactly household like Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, Michelle Kwan or even Gabby Douglas is. Hell, I'm willing to bet more people know who this Olympian is compared to Angle-

I love Angle. I supported him last year. But he isn't in Andre's league. Kurt traded wins with big names in a time where the big names would lose often for dramatic flair. Andre didn't lose often, and that's why Hogan's bodyslam is still iconic 30 years later. How will Angle be remembered?

Vote Andre.

 

[Loveless]

So Kurt is going to tap Andre out? He's going to keep him out of range of the ropes, is he? Yeah good luck with that

Kurt's got nothing here. He can't manhandle Andre and he'll exhaust himself if he tries. He can't submit him without being shrugged off or Andre very easily grabbing the ropes.

 

[Dragon Chief]

So Kurt is going to tap Andre out? He's going to keep him out of range of the ropes, is he? Yeah good luck with that

Kurt's got nothing here. He can't manhandle Andre and he'll exhaust himself if he tries. He can't submit him without being shrugged off or Andre very easily grabbing the ropes.

Kurt Angle can keep working on Andre's legs until they give out and then once the game goes to the ground Angle dominates.

Kurt Angle is an Olympic gold medalist who could have fought for the UFC, Kurt Angle is a better fighter than Andre in every aspect of the game and much much faster.

Quit living in a fantasy world even if this is pro wrestling, Andre is not going to beat an Olympic gold medalist purely based on size .

 

[Bernkastel]

I disagree I feel like Brock Lesnar is a better attraction than Andre.

He's not. Not even close. Andre was a far bigger drawing card than Lesnar ever has been. Had way more longevity. And was a bigger crossover star in ways Lesnar never has been.

A pro wrestler who won the UFC Heavyweight title, seems much greater than a plain ol' giant.

The UFC as a brand is not more well known than the WWE's.

Kurt Angle has a better legacy than Andre no doubt, multiple world titles around the globe, 5-star matches and oh yeah the only Olympic gold medalist in WWE history.

He was mostly a transitional champion in WWE except where he was downgraded to carrying the B brand because he wasn't a good ebough moneymaker to carry the A brand.

Truth be told, Andre wouldn't be as big of an attraction today or when Angle was wrestling as he was back in the day.

Based on what exactly? WWE had a champion back in the day that had a strong amateur background. His name was Bob Backlund. And he was 10x the drawing card Angle has been.

You're joking right? Kurt Angle was always a main-event talent when has he ever feuded for the IC Title or US Title the same way Chris Jericho has? Chris Jericho was more of a mid-carder than a main-eventer, Angle was more like Undertaker, Shawn Michaels and Triple H. Sure he wasn't always feuding for the World Title but every year he's been with the WWE he has won/held the World Title aside from 2004, due to injury. When Angle was not holding or feuding for the World Title he was stealing the show with the best in-ring wrestlers at the time. Kurt Angle has a high profile win over just about any superstar from his era, most by submission too, I don't know what you're writing.

Kurt Angle never carried the WWE as its top star. Ever. He was always playing second fiddle to someone else. If you think Angle was Hogan/Rock/Austin/Cena level, you are delusional. Andre was on the same level as Bruno and Hogan. The thing was he just wasn't world champion. As an attraction he was seen as being just as important. Angle never was. He was a glorified upper mid card performer.

Andre the Giant was wrestling in an era where it was normal to be booked to be undefeated for that long, I highly doubt he would be undefeated in era where athletes such as Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle were roaming.

Uh, no. Wrestlers that enjoyed long undefeated streaks during that era were top moneymakers. Even today that hasn't changed. Lesnar enjoyed an lengthy unbeaten streak because he brought in the money. Kurt didn't because he had no top dollar value.

He might as well have been Dick Hutton.

Fans from the ruthless aggression era would get bored with Andre. Wrestling has evolved a lot since Andre's limited era. I doubt Andre would out draw Angle in Angle's era.

Subjective argument is subjective. Yawn.

Also, Kurt Angle was the highest paid WWE superstar in 2006 before he left and always was a main-event level star.

In 1996 Mark Henry's contract was worth more than anyone else's. Including Hart, Taker, And Michaels. So I guess Henry > Those guys.

You don't seem familiar with Kurt Angle's era at all. SmackDown in 2003 was easily the better show than RAW and has even beaten RAW in ratings. Kurt Angle is a greater star than Andre, plain and simple, I don't think Andre is on Angle's level in terms of accomplishments and in ring skills or even mic skills.

And YOU know absolutely nothing about Andre, and it shows. I would have respected your argument more it you just admitted to voting for Angle out of favoritism. Now you've gone and made a complete buffoon of yourself.

Ratings huh? Andre vs Hogan drew something like a 15 in the Nielson Ratings on WWE's Main Event.

 

[sikkbones]

*hen Kurt Angle becomes a pop culture icon, I'll vote for him over Andre.

Sadly, this may never be the case. Even as a gold medalist, his name isn't exactly household like Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, Michelle Kwan or even Gabby Douglas is. Hell, I'm willing to bet more people know who this Olympian is compared to Angle-

I love Angle. I supported him last year. But he isn't in Andre's league. Kurt traded wins with big names in a time where the big names would lose often for dramatic flair. Andre didn't lose often, and that's why Hogan's bodyslam is still iconic 30 years later. How will Angle be remembered?

Vote Andre.

Whose the only name people remember from the 96 Olympics?

Richard jewell.

 

[Dragon Chief]

He's not. Not even close. Andre was a far bigger drawing card than Lesnar ever has been. Had way more longevity. And was a bigger crossover star in ways Lesnar never has been.



The UFC as a brand is not more well known than the WWE's.



He was mostly a transitional champion in WWE except where he was downgraded to carrying the B brand because he wasn't a good ebough moneymaker to carry the A brand.





Based on what exactly? WWE had a champion back in the day that had a strong amateur background. His name was Bob Backlund. And he was 10x the drawing card Angle has been.



Kurt Angle never carried the WWE as its top star. Ever. He was always playing second fiddle to someone else. If you think Angle was Hogan/Rock/Austin/Cena level, you are delusional. Andre was on the same level as Bruno and Hogan. The thing was he just wasn't world champion. As an attraction he was seen as being just as important. Angle never was. He was a glorified upper mid card performer.



Uh, no. Wrestlers that enjoyed long undefeated streaks during that era were top moneymakers. Even today that hasn't changed. Lesnar enjoyed an lengthy unbeaten streak because he brought in the money. Kurt didn't because he had no top dollar value.

He might as well have been Dick Hutton.



Subjective argument is subjective. Yawn.



In 1996 Mark Henry's contract was worth more than anyone else's. Including Hart, Taker, And Michaels. So I guess Henry > Those guys.



And YOU know absolutely nothing about Andre, and it shows. I would have respected your argument more it you just admitted to voting for Angle out of favoritism. Now you've gone and made a complete buffoon of yourself.

Ratings huh? Andre vs Hogan drew something like a 15 in the Nielson Ratings on WWE's Main Event.

You have too much of an old school mentality when it comes to wrestling, guys like Undertaker, Bret Hart were never known for their drawing abilities but are still considered the greatest, the same can be said for Kurt Angle.

Kurt Angle has delivered far more greater matches than Andre has, if you think one bodyslam is going to make Andre a greater star than Angle who has countless 5 star matches, than you're truly the delusional buffoon.

Also UFC is more relevant today than WWE is and holding a title in a major sporting organization is more prestigious than holding the WWE title.

Vote: Angle

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Whose the only name people remember from the 96 Olympics?

Richard jewell.

Since Kurt's whole stint in pro wrestling was how he was a hero in Atlanta, this makes Angle's claim even sadder than I could have put into words.

 

[Bernkastel]

You have too much of an old school mentality when it comes to wrestling, guys like Undertaker, Bret Hart were never known for their drawing abilities but are still considered the greatest, the same can be said for Kurt Angle.

Wrong. Undertaker was a great draw as an attraction, but not as a world champion. Bret was a strong drawing card over seas. Angle never was domestically or internationally. Nor was he all that marketable either. He couldn't pack houses like a Rock or Hogan and he couldn't move merch like an Austin or Cena.

Kurt Angle has delivered far more greater matches than Andre has, if you think one bodyslam is going to make Andre a greater star than Angle who has countless 5 star matches, than you're truly the delusional buffoon.

In ring ability is subjective. Match quality is subjective. What's important is making money. And Andre's matches brought in infinitely more money than Angle's. From an objective standpoint, Andre's matches were better.

Also UFC is more relevant today than WWE is and holding a title in a major sporting organization is more prestigious than holding the WWE title.

WWE is as synonymous to pro wrestling as the NBA is to basketball. MMA as a whole enjoys no where near the popularity as other organized sports.

Vote: Angle

Only stupid people that don't understand who Andre was will vote Kurt Angle.

 

[nightmare]

Kurt didn't beat the big names of his time more than they defeated him. He has a losing record against the top stars of his era. Like I said, he was basically Chris Jericho but with a better legit wrestling acumen.

All the hubbub you're spouting for Angle I can do for Andre. What stopping him from grabbing Angle's arm and snapping it like a twig? What's stopping him from hitting Angle so hard that he snaps his already fragile weak neck?

Andre was a top star. Angle was not. He was a glorified upper mid card wrestler during his time in WWE. When he did have a show built around him it was on the B brand, while guys a lot better than him carried the main brand. He's exactly the type of guy that would lose to Andre in a big match setting. He wasn't Hogan or Austin. He wasn't Rock or Cena. Kurt is the guy that might get 1 victory over someone like Andre, while the giant wins all the others.

Andre wins.

Angle got it done when it counts, much like the matches mentioned you gloss over as if they were not big wins. That cell, Vengeance, etc. You are downplaying the importance and career of the biggest legit wrestling champion ever signed to WWE/F by comparing him to Jericho.

Also, its funny you are one of the first people to cry about Lesnar winning via "Brock Smash" yet here you are. Andre smash? Just going rogue and twisting bones is fucking not happening, so quit.

Both men were at the top. One did it by being a giant, the other did it by winning titles. Belts are the ultimate holy grail one wishes to obtain & Angle flat out had more. So now you attack him for being on the Blue brand? Before that time he worked his way to the main event & won title matches against Rock and Austin. Then Smackdown gets pretty good after the split thanks to Heyman being awesome. Brock, Angle, Eddie, Edge, Benoit, Show, Taker, etc. You cant deny there was some great things/matchs going on then. Angle was legit and beat legit guys to add titles to his HOF resume.

There is no reason why he couldn't do the same here. Besides, all he needs is one. You already agreed Angle could do that.

Now lets all take a trip down memory lane...

 

[Dragon Chief]

Wrong. Undertaker was a great draw as an attraction, but not as a world champion. Bret was a strong drawing card over seas. Angle never was domestically or internationally. Nor was he all that marketable either. He couldn't pack houses like a Rock or Hogan and he couldn't move merch like an Austin or Cena.





In ring ability is subjective. Match quality is subjective. What's important is making money. And Andre's matches brought in infinitely more money than Angle's. From an objective standpoint, Andre's matches were better.



WWE is as synonymous to pro wrestling as the NBA is to basketball. MMA as a whole enjoys no where near the popularity as other organized sports.



Only stupid people that don't understand who Andre was will vote Kurt Angle.

I understand Andre the Giant, he's an icon, a draw, a giant advertisement, who helped put wrestling on the map but other than his size and giving us some memorable moments what does he bring to the table? He's only a star because of his size, timing and good booking.

I choose to vote for the better athlete, wrestler and in my opinion greater star, Kurt Angle.

No need to be disrespectful.

 

[klunderbunker]

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet but I'm leading towards one of them. However a few points need to be made:

1. If you honestly believe that Kurt Angle isn't one of the best all around performers in wrestling history, you're not as smart as you think you are. There are very few top level performers I haven't seen and I don't remember many who are better all around than Angle. He could be technical, brawl, do a good looking moonsault, wrestle as a comedy guy, as the wrestling machine and hit all points in between. Couple that with some of the best all around promo work of this generation (hilarious or serious at the drop of a hat) and there's really no argument to be made against Angle's greatness.

2. As for Angle's drawing ability, it's the same as any issue from this era: outside of John Cena and part timers, there isn't someone who can really be considered a draw. The company is the draw and it has been for many, many years now. This idea that one wrestler draws the house is WAY outdated at this point and to complain about someone not being a draw in this day and age is nonsense. People go to a WWE show today because it's WWE. Do they go because a certain wrestler is on the card? Yeah sure they do, but the appeal is the overall package. One wrestler or story can make a difference but blaming Angle for not drawing in the 2000s is completely unfair. He didn't draw because the system doesn't allow him to, which is the case for almost everyone.

3. Andre was indeed a bigger draw from a very broad perspective, but he was also in a very, very different era. If you want the best comparison, look at Big Show. That man is an athletic freak and the kind of performer that you can only appreciate when you see him in person. However, look what happens when he's been around for over 20 years. Instead of being in awe of him, we roll our eyes and say "it's Big Show AGAIN". Know why that is? It's because there are three hours of Monday Night Raw every single week.

Do you honestly believe that people would be flocking to their TVs every week to watch Andre the Giant? Maybe for a bit, if they hadn't seen him before. But every week for over 20 years? Not a chance, which is the case for almost any wrestler you can ever name. Andre drew huge crowds when he wasn't wrestling that often.

A lot of people will throw out the Main Event from February 1988 as proof of Andre's drawing power. Here's the part that people forget. Do you know how many times Andre wrestled on national TV/pay per view in 1988? Seven. Do you know how many times Hogan wrestled on national TV/pay per view in 1988? Eight. Do you know how many times Big Show has wrestled on national TV/pay per view so far in 2017? Eight. It's the end of April and he's only a part timer at this point.

It's virtually impossible, not to mention completely unfair, to compare drawing ability from the territory days/the days before Raw debuted to today. I know it sounds good but it's like comparing apples to mailboxes.

These are two VERY different wrestlers from VERY different eras. Trying to compare the two on a side by side basis is both unfair to either of them as well as really quite ridiculous. They can indeed be compared, but try to think these things through before you act like they're gospel.

 

[ShinChan]

Comparing Big Show to Andre The Giant is like comparing apples & oranges. Yes, they were giants and yes, apples and oranges are both fruits as well. But can apples be compared to oranges just because they are fruits? Nopes. Same for Andre The Giant and Big Show. Andre is a pioneer of professional wrestling, Big Show? You know better. So, stop comparing Big Show to Andre. If your argument is that Kurt defeated Big Show so he can defeat Andre then Andre can defeat Angle because he has defeated Hulk Hogan.

Kurt Angle is very good and I love him as well. He's almost great. But Andre is one of the greatest. He wasn't given the title many times due to a particular reason. He drew good even without a title.

Vote Andre The Giant.

 

[Bernkastel]

Angle got it done when it counts, much like the matches mentioned you gloss over as if they were not big wins.

And Andre didn't? Kurt is the type of guy that might get one win over a guy like Andre. Andre is the type of guy that would win all the others.

That cell, Vengeance, etc. You are downplaying the importance and career of the biggest legit wrestling champion ever signed to WWE/F by comparing him to Jericho.

I'm not downplaying anything. You on the other hand are OVERRATING those wins to try and justify why Angle would go over someone like Andre who had a history of winning most of his matches, both high and low profile. Angle LOST just as many high profile matches that he won. And then he lost a great number of his low profile matches too.

Also, its funny you are one of the first people to cry about Lesnar winning via "Brock Smash" yet here you are. Andre smash? Just going rogue and twisting bones is fucking not happening, so quit.

Yeah like fucking Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar are anywhere close to being in the same league. Please

Brock at least has had the monetary success as a noteworthy draw in the industry. I don't agree with him being as successful as some performers that others on here insist that Brock steamroll with no effort, but there's no justification for Kurt Angle.

Both men were at the top. One did it by being a giant, the other did it by winning titles.

Winning titles and not drawing any noteworthy money. Andre didn't need a world title to put butts in seats. Or to move merch. Angle couldn't do that either.

Belts are the ultimate holy grail one wishes to obtain & Angle flat out had more.

Jerry Lawler had something like 170 title belts to his name. By your logic he was better than everyone, right?

So now you attack him for being on the Blue brand?

No, I attack him for not being able to draw enough money to carry the Red brand. Which by 05/06 was the top brand.

Before that time he worked his way to the main event & won title matches against Rock and Austin.

As a way to put them back over because they were the top stars. Not him.

Then Smackdown gets pretty good after the split thanks to Heyman being awesome. Brock, Angle, Eddie, Edge, Benoit, Show, Taker, etc. You cant deny there was some great things/matchs going on then. Angle was legit and beat legit guys to add titles to his HOF resume.

I don't deny it. But you're talking in subjective terms. RAW had the better TV ratings in 2003.

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2003-ratings/

There is no reason why he couldn't do the same here. Besides, all he needs is one. You already agreed Angle could do that.

LOL and Andre couldn't? Andre would win 9/10 times. That's better than Angle's 1/10.

Now lets all take a trip down memory lane...

Yes, because beating Big Show totally means that you can defeat a prime Andre the Giant.

I understand Andre the Giant, he's an icon, a draw, a giant advertisement, who helped put wrestling on the map but other than his size and giving us some memorable moments what does he bring to the table? He's only a star because of his size, timing and good booking.

Money. And despite being a Olympic gold medal with charisma and charm, Angle couldn't muster the same amount of success. Even as a multiple time world champion with a promotion built around him. Clearly there was something that Andre had as a performer that Angle did not. Clearly there was something that Andre did better than Kurt as a pro wrestler to have had the career that he did.

 

[Dragon Chief]

Money. And despite being a Olympic gold medal with charisma and charm, Angle couldn't muster the same amount of success. Even as a multiple time world champion with a promotion built around him. Clearly there was something that Andre had as a performer that Angle did not. Clearly there was something that Andre did better than Kurt as a pro wrestler to have had the career that he did.

Yeah Andre was a giant that's literally all he has over Angle and is the only reason he was an attraction and drew in an era where wrestlers weren't over exposed. How would Andre fair against the giants of the modern era? What would make people want to cheer him over the likes of Braun Strowman & Big Show? His basic black singlet and afro? Who knows.

Kurt Angle transitioned into WWE faster than anyone other Brock Lesnar, and won a WWE Title in his rookie year, he defines greatness. You define greatness by drawing ability but whether you realize it or not, Kurt Angle was a draw in his era, and worked much more dates than Andre which is why he was one of the highest paid stars at the time. People still chant "You Suck" based off a segment 15 years ago, which proves the Angle character has stayed relevant.

Kurt Angle was a draw, a great athlete and superior alpha wrestler. Andre was simply a draw used to bring in fans who were probably disappointed in the poor match quality of Andre and may or may not have asked for a refund I for one would rather see an Angle match, segment or appearance than anything by Andre.

Vote: Angle

 

[Bernkastel]

Yeah Andre was a giant that's literally all he has over Angle and is the only reason he was an attraction and drew in an era where wrestlers weren't over exposed. How would Andre fair against the giants of the modern era? What would make people want to cheer him over the likes of Braun Strowman & Big Show? His basic black singlet and afro? Who knows.

Andre worked the modern era. What made him better than the likes of Ernie Ladd, Big John Studd, and Bam Bam Bigelow? Even past his prime and practically immobile, Andre was still more popular than them.

Kurt Angle transitioned into WWE faster than anyone other Brock Lesnar, and won a WWE Title in his rookie year, he defines greatness.

Jack Swagger was also an amateur wrestler won a title in his rookie year. Did he define greatness? Andre was booked as unstoppable by the WWE right from the get go. 15 years later and he was still billed as unbeatable.

You define greatness by drawing ability but whether you realize it or not, Kurt Angle was a draw in his era, and worked much more dates than Andre which is why he was one of the highest paid stars at the time. People still chant "You Suck" based off a segment 15 years ago, which proves the Angle character has stayed relevant.

Andre worked a similar schedule as the NWA champion. He traveled to every different territory on loan from the WWE. I don't have an exact number, but I doubt wrestling 6-8 matches a week would have been far off the mark if it was comparable to the NWA champ. That was more than Angle would have done. Modern wrestlers [especially by the late 90's/early 00's] worked about 3-4 matches a week.

Kurt Angle was a draw, a great athlete and superior alpha wrestler. Andre was simply a draw used to bring in fans who were probably disappointed in the poor match quality of Andre and may or may not have asked for a refund I for one would rather see an Angle match, segment or appearance than anything by Andre.

This argument doesn't make any sense. Andre was a draw but yet turned fans away? If Andre were boring and fans didn't want to pay to see him then they wouldn't have.

 

[Lowdown]

Yeah Andre was a giant that's literally all he has over Angle and is the only reason he was an attraction and drew in an era where wrestlers weren't over exposed. How would Andre fair against the giants of the modern era? What would make people want to cheer him over the likes of Braun Strowman & Big Show? His basic black singlet and afro? Who knows.

Kurt Angle transitioned into WWE faster than anyone other Brock Lesnar, and won a WWE Title in his rookie year, he defines greatness. You define greatness by drawing ability but whether you realize it or not, Kurt Angle was a draw in his era, and worked much more dates than Andre which is why he was one of the highest paid stars at the time. People still chant "You Suck" based off a segment 15 years ago, which proves the Angle character has stayed relevant.

Kurt Angle was a draw, a great athlete and superior alpha wrestler. Andre was simply a draw used to bring in fans who were probably disappointed in the poor match quality of Andre and may or may not have asked for a refund I for one would rather see an Angle match, segment or appearance than anything by Andre.

Vote: Angle

I'm not trying to change your view on this, but you make it sound as if Andre couldn't beat anyone. Forget the back and forth arguments you've been having. Two men, straight up, you really don't think Andre could take Kurt out? Keep in mind that Andre, in his prime was an agile big man. And considering his strength, if Angle were to get him on the ground, he wouldn't be able to keep him on the mat. I said before that Kurt would give a five star effort, but I don't see him coming out on top.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I'll admit. When I saw this match coming up, I wanted to vote for Angle. I started thinking of different arguments I could make for Angle. Then I promptly forgot about the tournament for almost a week. Came back here to browse, remembered it was still going on, and read some of the arguments here against Andre.

They've changed my mind and I've voted for Andre to win because of them.

Here's some of the arguments I've found less than compelling:

Dragon Chief - literally everything this guy has said pushed me away from my initial plans for this match.

Chief, you might have the worst case of recency bias I've ever seen on here, and believe me. That's saying something!

You claim you know Andre the Giant. I believe you know the NAME Andre the Giant. You know that he wrestled in the times that dinosaurs walked the earth and was good for those old, antiquated days (Andre vs a T-Rex - if only they had PPV back then. It would have been epic). But that's really all you seem to have on the guy.

You can make an argument that Big Show was better? Yeah kid... you've got nothing here.

Big Show comparisons - Can they please stop? Because other than the fact that they shared the same birth defect (acromegaly) and both wore black singlets for a while... there really isn't much comparison.

There were lots of other giants in Andre's day. Haystacks Calhoun. Don Leo Jonathan. Giant Baba. Gorilla Monsoon. Ernie Ladd. Killer Kowalski. Big John Studd. Being big wasn't a golden ticket to fame, fortune and decade + undefeated streaks.

Andre would not be the Big Show if he wrestled today, just like Big Show wouldn't have been Andre if he wrestled in the 70's. Show would have probably been a slightly larger Don Leo Jonathan. Only old timers and die hards would remember him today, but in his day, he would have been one of the bigger attractions where he worked...

and someone that would have gotten fed to Andre on a regular basis.

Andres title resume - People who mention that Andre didn't have an impressive resume of championships, so couldn't have been as good as people claim? They need to go sit down with "It's still real to me" guy and have some group therapy.

Andre didn't win titles because Andre didn't want to win titles. Andre made a lot more money, and had a lot more fun traveling the country, being the big attraction, and getting all the attention. Settling down with a fake title belt? That was fine for the guys below him who needed that belt to earn a living. That was also like settling down with just one woman. Sure for some guys that works, but it's not for everyone. And as someone who knew he was going to live a short life... why bother when he never needed to?

If Andre wanted to be NWA champion, the board would have tripped over themselves to put the title on him before he changed his mind.

If Andre wanted to be WWWF champion... we might have seen Wrestlemania 3 in the 70's, because they would have built up Andre and Bruno to be the match to end all matches (and Andre would have went over at Shea Stadium).

Andre would have gotten stale today - Are we assuming that his booking would be THAT bad? Because there's a very easy way to book an Andre like attraction in this era.

You've all been watching it happen for the last several years with Brock Lesnar.

You book a special attraction as exactly that. You don't see the special attraction every week. He's not shoved down your throat at every turn. That's not special.

You present him for limited engagements. You concoct a good back story to explain why you only see this guy for limited engagements. You make people want to see more, so they're excited when they get to see him next.

It's not rocket science.

Why does no one ever put the modern guy in the old timers era? - Is it because we don't understand the old timers eras and don't want to expose that lack of knowledge? Because these things always end up coming down to how would the old guy compete in modern times.

How would the modern guy have been booked in old times?

Angle is great. One of my favorites. He always entertained me. And if you put Angle back in the 70's, I think he would have been one of the best. A big deal. A main eventer to semi-main eventer everywhere he went.

I would probably say the best comparison for him spot wise in the industry in the 70's would have been Jack Brisco.

Brisco rarely ever lost. He was always on top of whatever territory he worked. He was NWA champion for 2 years. He was a highly respected amateur and feared for his legit skills. He adapted to the professional game easily and effortlessly. Simply put, he was one of the best of the decade where he was at his peak. Just like Angle in the 2000's.

Jack Brisco is barely remembered by modern fans today. He occasionally makes it into this tournament, and promptly gets jobbed out.

Andre is still known to millions 24 years after he passed away. He won this thing last year.

Put Angle in Andre's era, and he's likely a guy that once again, only the old timers and die hards remember. Andre's legacy still lives large even into and past Angle's era.

I'm sorry. This one is all Andre.

 

[Dragon Chief]

Andre worked the modern era. What made him better than the likes of Ernie Ladd, Big John Studd, and Bam Bam Bigelow? Even past his prime and practically immobile, Andre was still more popular than them.



Jack Swagger was also an amateur wrestler won a title in his rookie year. Did he define greatness? Andre was booked as unstoppable by the WWE right from the get go. 15 years later and he was still billed as unbeatable.



Andre worked a similar schedule as the NWA champion. He traveled to every different territory on loan from the WWE. I don't have an exact number, but I doubt wrestling 6-8 matches a week would have been far off the mark if it was comparable to the NWA champ. That was more than Angle would have done. Modern wrestlers [especially by the late 90's/early 00's] worked about 3-4 matches a week.



This argument doesn't make any sense. Andre was a draw but yet turned fans away? If Andre were boring and fans didn't want to pay to see him then they wouldn't have.

Andre was booked better than all other giants in his era plain and simple, any guy Andre's size with a similar marketable look could have taken his place as a top attraction. Nothing in ring wise makes him more special than other giants.

Jack Swagger never won the World Title in his rookie year he had the potential to be great but never reached Angle's level of greatness, despite having all the tools and a size advantage over Angle.

You're just going to continue making counter arguments and at this point I don't care. I feel Kurt Angle is greater than Andre.

I'm not trying to change your view on this, but you make it sound as if Andre couldn't beat anyone. Forget the back and forth arguments you've been having. Two men, straight up, you really don't think Andre could take Kurt out? Keep in mind that Andre, in his prime was an agile big man. And considering his strength, if Angle were to get him on the ground, he wouldn't be able to keep him on the mat. I said before that Kurt would give a five star effort, but I don't see him coming out on top.

You're joking right? Sure if Andre were to catch Angle off guard he may be able to knock him out based on the size advantage, if he is lucky. However realistically that won't happen, Kurt Angle is an Olympic gold medalist, people seem to underestimate how much athletic ability it takes to win that medal, especially in wrestling. Andre isn't anywhere close to being on Angle's level when it comes to legit fighting, Angle could wrestle circles around Andre and would have no issue taking him down, despite Andre's size. Andre doesn't have the skill to be in the ring with someone on the caliber of Angle and Angle could embarrass Andre at any given point.

Andre was agile for his size but he doesn't have enough agility to win an Olympic gold medal and was most likely slow as hell for Angle.

Dragon Chief - literally everything this guy has said pushed me away from my initial plans for this match.

Chief, you might have the worst case of recency bias I've ever seen on here, and believe me. That's saying something!

You claim you know Andre the Giant. I believe you know the NAME Andre the Giant. You know that he wrestled in the times that dinosaurs walked the earth and was good for those old, antiquated days (Andre vs a T-Rex - if only they had PPV back then. It would have been epic). But that's really all you seem to have on the guy.

You can make an argument that Big Show was better? Yeah kid... you've got nothing here.
.

Not really, I made valid points about Kurt Angle which are true...damn true. Do I like Kurt Angle better? Sure but if there was a scenario where I felt his opponent was greater or on the same level as him I would consider voting against him based off different aspects. Like if he were going up against Brock Lesnar or The Rock. I don't feel Andre is greater than Kurt Angle in any aspect of wrestling other than possibly drawing ability. I grew up watching Angle so don't tell me I have recency bias, I would have said the same thing about Angle last year.

I don't know a lot about Andre sure but if he was this icon that lasted the test of time like many claim he is, why is his most memorable moment getting slammed by Hogan? That's what he is most known for. No one remembers Andre's early career aside from those who grew up watching him, most people know the Andre who was past his prime wrestling in a black singlet and not trunks. That's the depiction of Andre portrayed in video games and media.

Yeah an argument can be made for Big Show being greater, he is more athletic than Andre and has beaten a lot of top names, he is also the only man to hold the WWE Title, World Heavyweight Title, WCW Title and ECW Title. I ain't no kid but I ain't no grandpa either .

Vote: Kurt Angle

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I don't know a lot about Andre

That is painfully obvious, and you just needed to stop there. You probably would have helped Angle a lot more here if you did.

 

[Dragon Chief]

That is painfully obvious, and you just needed to stop there. You probably would have helped Angle a lot more here if you did.

No I didn't need to stop there because reading a lot of these posts, a lot of these users don't know a lot about Kurt Angle but it is okay for them to spew whatever they want about Angle? But not Andre right? I can make an argument against Andre based on what I do know about Andre, which is much more than most casual fans and unless you grew up watching Andre I doubt you know much more than me about him.

Kurt Angle is a better athlete and in ring wrestler than Andre and that is primary reason but not the only reason I am for voting for him.

Vote: Kurt Angle.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

No I didn't need to stop there because reading a lot of these posts, a lot of these users don't know a lot about Kurt Angle but it is okay for them to spew whatever they want about Angle? But not Andre right? I can make an argument against Andre based on what I do know about Andre, which is much more than most casual fans and unless you grew up watching Andre I doubt you know much more than me about him.

Kurt Angle is a better athlete and in ring wrestler than Andre and that is primary reason but not the only reason I am for voting for him.

Vote: Kurt Angle.

You doubt that anyone who didn't grow up with him knows Andre better than you?

Fine. Prove it.

Let's see a whole post showing off your vast Andre the Giant knowledge.

Sell us. Please.

 

[ShinChan]

I don't know a lot about Andre sure

That's the problem here. I myself didn't know much about Andre The Giant. But how can you judge a match if you don't take both sides into consideration? How can you judge if you don't know much about one side but like and know more about the other? With all due respect, that's somewhat biased. I mean that I myself am biased like against Brock Lesnar but I admit it. Either admit that you're biased. Or try to know more about Andre and then judge. Also, I can understand that you haven't been familiar with Andre in childhood. Even I ain't. I wasn't even born when Andre died. So that ain't a good excuse.

but if he was this icon that lasted the test of time like many claim he is, why is his most memorable moment getting slammed by Hogan?

Just like Hogan's biggest moment is slamming Andre The Giant.

 

[nightmare]

And Andre didn't? Kurt is the type of guy that might get one win over a guy like Andre. Andre is the type of guy that would win all the others.

What does this matter in a tournament? Andre had his run as a special attraction, made his cash, but gets beat near the end by a wrestling gold medalist in a tournament to crown a wrestling champion. It writes itself & there isnt going to be other matches between them.

I'm not downplaying anything. You on the other hand are OVERRATING those wins to try and justify why Angle would go over someone like Andre who had a history of winning most of his matches, both high and low profile. Angle LOST just as many high profile matches that he won. And then he lost a great number of his low profile matches too.

I dont know how you can say im overrating something that is clearly a big deal by wrestling standards. Championship wins over guys like Rock, Austin & Lesnar are pretty damn good accomplishments. Using that as a negative to why Angle loses is just dumb. Cena loses tons, but that doesnt stop him from being considered as one of the best. Its a different era & quit acting like you dont know that.

Winning titles and not drawing any noteworthy money. Andre didn't need a world title to put butts in seats. Or to move merch. Angle couldn't do that either.

What merch did Andre move back then? Lol. Oh and Scott Hall didnt need a world title to put butts in seats either or move merch, whats your point? Is he better than Kurt too if we use your own formula?

Andre drew because he was an attraction. Today, the attraction is the show. As if somehow that negates the importance of the WWE title.

Jerry Lawler had something like 170 title belts to his name. By your logic he was better than everyone, right?

In his region he was. You are smart enough to know the title structure and hierarchy, so dont be dismissive. Andre didnt need belts to be a big deal. I get why on a few levels. That does not mean Angle winning them is a negative. Besides, by your logic, if Andre doesnt need to win titles and such then he wouldnt win this tournament then huh. I mean he has made his mark as a special attraction & since he already drew huge cash for the gate, he doesnt need to win it all right?

No, I attack him for not being able to draw enough money to carry the Red brand. Which by 05/06 was the top brand.

RAW is always the top brand/show. Smackdown can only ever hope to jump the needle once in a while over, but Raw is always the flagship. Does not mean SD is a black eye assignment, nor does it diminish what Angle accomplished.

Yes, because beating Big Show totally means that you can defeat a prime Andre the Giant.

Andre was a lovable giant who was agile for his size & strong as fuck. Everyone should quit acting like they were so vastly different. They both had more in common that not. If Andre started 20 years later, he would be doing exactly what Show does now. Andre being an alcoholic doesnt make him less likely to be slammed or beaten by a legit champion. 7 ft 450 falls the same no matter the decade or last name.

Money. And despite being a Olympic gold medal with charisma and charm, Angle couldn't muster the same amount of success. Even as a multiple time world champion with a promotion built around him. Clearly there was something that Andre had as a performer that Angle did not. Clearly there was something that Andre did better than Kurt as a pro wrestler to have had the career that he did.

How was Angle unsuccessful? Compared to what, a special attraction from 40 years ago? And I dont remember Andre having a promotion built around him, so that really isnt an argument. Angle was champion for a machine that sits atop a mountain of cash. The weight of the two are damn near impossible to compare and many factors go in to it. KB pretty much nailed the point of draw earlier.

I still want to know how you say Andre had a better career? Was it because he went from place to place headlining matches to make a company money? Because he did it without titles? Andre was an attraction because of his look/size and the time he was wrestling. Thats why he made money. That doesnt mean he had a better wrestling career than a man who made money by winning titles every step of his way to the top.

Again, there is the weakness in your case. You say he is great despite not needing to win wrestling's designated crowns. His job is to make money while the others fight for the titles and make theirs. So Andre has done his job, now he goes out to a man who collects championships as his job.