Flair Region, Fourth Round, Hell in a Cell: (3) Randy Savage vs. (7) Goldberg

Discussion in 'Flair Region' started by klunderbunker, Apr 19, 2016.

?

Who Wins This Match?

  1. Randy Savage

  2. Goldberg

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,857
    Likes Received:
    3,358
    This is a fourth round match in the Flair Region and it is a Hell in a Cell match. It will be held at the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. Assume one week has passed since the previous round, meaning that all injuries might not have healed.



    [​IMG]

    Rules: The match takes place inside Hell in a Cell and anything goes. Falls must take place inside the ring.

    [​IMG]

    #3. Randy Savage


    Vs.

    [​IMG]

    #7. Goldberg





    Polls will be open for five days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.


    Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted
     
  2. Dmbfantomas

    Dmbfantomas Bald Billy was Better

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    302
    The only way Savage has a prayer is if he can make this go over 20, and unfortunately I don't think he has the arsenal to do so. Everything about this match just screams "Goldberg" to me.
     
    enviousdominous likes this.
  3. Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.

    Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D. Kamehamehaaaaa!!

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    370
    Both guys competed in matches that had almost the same duration and both received the same punishment.

    Now. Goldberg defeated Hogan in the previous round. Fun fact: Savage has never pinned Hogan in his prime.

    Also you get stucked in a HIAC match with a beast like Goldberg? Anyone remember Goldberg inside the Elimination Chamber. Anyone remember Edge's spear vs Undertaker at SSlam 2008? If Edge can do that to Taker, imagine what Goldberg's spear would like like against Savage.

    Everything about this screams Goldberg. Hell, I even see Savage doing an Elbow Drop from the top of the cell, right into the announcer's table.

    Savage brings the fight, because he's Randy freakin' Savage, but Goldberg gets the final pin.
     
  4. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    518
    I'm backing Goldberg here.

    Even at his best, Savage always played second fiddle to Hogan, even during his year-long championship reign in '88. Considering how big Hogan was, it was definitely a fantastic position to be in, and Savage definitely received a great deal of exposure and cemented his legacy as one of the very best and influential in wrestling history. But as a face, in his prime, he couldn't quite stand out enough from Hogan.

    As much as Goldberg's detractors like to note he was a flash in the pan, the fact remains he was booked over some of the biggest names in the business; and these weren't long, drawn out epics, these were pretty dominant victories. The fact that a fucking taser was just about enough to put him down in his prime shows just how much of a terrifying presence he was within the ring.

    Heel Savage would likely have a better opportunity at beating Goldberg; mostly because Goldberg's kryptonite is cheating heels, but to suggest that Savage as a heel was his prime is being very selective. I'd argue that Savage ultimately accomplished more as a babyface than as a heel in his prime, and while he has the potential to be a heel, that definitely does not suggest he would be running as a heel in this tournament; to flip-flop perspectives during rounds based on who Savage fights is a very biased outlook.

    The Cell might have a chance of changing things. Goldberg was relatively green in going over 15 minutes, and Savage had many matches that could stretch beyond this, and the Cell is capable of producing some of the longest 1 on 1 matches. But it's not like the cell itself would be disadvantageous to Goldberg; in the Elimination Chamber, he tore through the competition before being bludgeoned in the head by a sledgehammer, so an enclosed environment wouldn't prevent him from wreaking havoc. Yes, I know Orton, HBK and Jericho were already worn out, but 2 relatively big names and a mid-carder at the time being torn apart by one guy is pretty impressive.

    Goldberg takes this IMO.
     
  5. NSL

    NSL Life's A Bitch, And Then You Mosh

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,524
    Likes Received:
    893
    One of the few matches where the last round really doesn't matter at all. They both basically had straight wrestling matches.

    Bringing in the Cell is interesting. I would say I wouldn't want to be locked in with Goldberg, but Savage was a fucking crazy man. SpiderMan beat Savage in a Cell match...sorta...does that count?

    All joking aside, this is a super close match, to me. Savage has wins against guys bigger than Goldberg, and he's stronger than his size would lead you to believe, so I think he can keep up...but I'm not sure if he can steal the victory.

    This may be Goldberg's year. I'll wait to decide on who I'm voting for...
     
  6. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    All I've seen is "Goldberg", "Goldberg", "Goldberg"...which means all I've seen is "I'm stupid", "I'm stupid", "I'm stupid".

    The facts are quite simple. Goldberg was a flash in the pan, who made his name during a time in WCW where fans were essentially begging for fresh blood. Randy Savage is a man who was a main-eventer for 10-15 years, who was able to put on good or great matches with a long list of names. Randy Savage also still owns the title for "Greatest Match Ever" with his classic against Ricky Steamboat at Wrestlemania 3. Goldberg was fun to watch...for like 8 months. Randy Savage made it work for well over a decade.

    And for those voting with kayfabe gimmick stipulation, Savage worked numerous cage matches in his career (has Goldberg even worked in one?), was a psychopath (both in gimmick and in real life) and even survived the bite of King Cobra snake. That's right, Randy Savage was so much a badass, he survived the bite of a King Cobra. Goldberg punched a window and took five months off. What a pussy.

    Savage wins this easily, whether it is career accomplishments, toughness or match gimick.
     
    jmt225 and enviousdominous like this.
  7. Hollywood Naitch

    Hollywood Naitch The current reigning and defending

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    Goldberg all the way for me in this one. Being locked in a steel cage with an in-prime Goldberg is exactly what you DO NOT WANT. The man was one of the most destructive forces in wrestling history.

    Savage's best hope would be to drag this out for as long as possible due to Goldberg very rarely being in matches going any serious length of time, but I dont see how anything Savage could produce would be enough to keep Da Man down for 3. Goldberg would more than likely spear Savage through the cell at some point, and while I could see Big Bill kicking out of the elbow drop, NO-ONE kicks out of The Jackhammer.

    This could be 'Bergy's year!

    Winner: Goldberg
     
  8. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    He broke a window and sat out for five months. Savage took a cobra bite to the arm and wrestled the very next show days later.

    Savage's best hope would be to just bring a mirror to the ring. Goldberg would probably crap his pants.

    :rolleyes:

    Randy Savage is a multi-time world champion and was a main-eventer for well over a decade. I'd love to see how you explain your rationale that Savage just wouldn't be good enough to take out a man who was essentially a flash in the pan.

    Not to those of us who like to inject realism into our arguments. :shrug:
     
  9. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    760
    I'm going to go with Savage on this one. I know, I know, I'm the sort of contrarian who would vote for the guy who's not the clear favorite. I promise that there's logic to my conclusion, either way I'm perfectly content with how this one plays out.

    Have you seen Goldberg's resume? It's pretty damn alarming even for those who are casually aware of his status as a guy who just doesn't get beat. With Goldberg a match can be as simple as wham-bam-thankyou-ma'am, but he does occasionally slip and take some bumps. Eventually his win streak hits the triple digits and he lets his guard down slightly to allow a guy like Kevin Nash to eek a (fluke) win.

    How does a behemoth like Goldberg -- who is known to be able to effortlessly hoist Paul Wight over his head -- lose a match? Where is this guy's blind spot!? He loses his cool, and he trips over his own ego. I remember a spot from way back when where Goldberg missed a spear and his head collided hard with the ring post, forcing him to continue the match while being nearly dead on his feet.

    Goldberg is extremely intelligent, but he has little mental flexibility when it comes to matches that don't quite go his way. Goldberg has a formula for winning, and few men have caused that system to become disrupted. When Goldberg took on William Regal in WCW, there were moments where he just couldn't figure out what to do next. William Regal's technical mastery showed that Goldberg can be outwitted by making him have to consider unorthodox moves.

    Goldberg could intimidate a charging elephant, though the intimidation factor won't play a role in a match against a cult of personality like Randy Savage. Randy Savage has never been dominated, he's never backed down to a higher power and the more you push him the harder he pushes back.

    I see this match going down like fight in Rocky IV. Goldberg comes at Randy Savage with wicked shots, while only being able to earn near falls for his effort. Randy finds his second wind after a while and demands that Goldberg keep coming at him, catching Goldberg off guard. Goldberg spears Randy through the cage, hurting himself in the process. Goldberg's clumsiness shows even more as he gets more gassed and can't push Randy into a corner. Randy hits an elbow drop onto Goldberg from the top of the cage, and only gets more and more energy from the crowd.

    TLDR; Randy doesn't make mistakes and doesn't get intimidated. Goldberg makes critical mistakes and doesn't get an intimidation factor in this match. The two have never fought before, but I see Randy proving that he's every bit of the sadistic madman he's made out to be.

    Vote Randy Savage.
     
  10. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    760
    That reminds me, one of Goldberg's flubs was a cage match he worked in WCW that was an eight man tag. If I remember correctly; Goldberg speared Vince Russo through the wall of the cage. Vince Russo's team won the match, because Goldberg had a massive "oops" moment and cost his team.
     
  11. nightmare

    nightmare ...7, 8, Better stay up late...

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Seems oddd these two never fought in WCW. Would have been pretty good.


    Goldberg was a force & pretty intimidating. Problem here is that Savage would not be scared of him. Macho Madness takes a vital part of Goldbergs arsenal out of the picture there. Savage was not only crazy, he was smart. He will make Goldberg eat his mistakes in this match. He may have run through a list of people on the way to the top, but big names gave Goldberg a run for his money once he got there. Savage has the tools to get the job done. He isnt scared & will take the fight right to Goldberg.

    This may just be another example of legacy trumps short burst career. Savage is a legend who has done great things. Goldberg was a shot in the arm a dying company needed to stay its execution temporarily. You can be a runaway train & mow through people, but at some point the train gets stopped. Savage is going to use his brain to throw Goldberg off his game. A missed spear here, rake of the eyes, holding the ropes, cheap shot, etc. The guy is tough enough to take him head on & withstand whatever comes his way.

    Crazy brains over stupid brawn. Savage moves on.
     
  12. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    518
    Already delving into ad hominem before even proposing your argument? Poor form.

    There were most definitely times during that 10-15 year period where Savage was at best, within the upper-midcard. The only time he was consistently wrestling at a main event level was within the late 80's to early 90's.

    Also, the ability to wrestle great matches holds little weight in a tournament such as this unless you're playing favourites. Dean Malenko would be a formidable force in these tournaments if this were indeed the case.

    I don't remember Goldberg fighting specifically in a cage, but he most definitely has fought in an enclosed environment, such as War Games and the Elimination Chamber. I'd also like to point out that a steel cage /=/ HIAC, so both men are at no distinct advantage in this stipulation.

    Concerning the King Cobra bite:
    "The King Cobras venom is a neurotoxin, capable of killing humans. The mortality rate can be as high as 75%, however, most bites involve nonfatal amounts."

    I'm not taking away that Savage being able to fight a few days later is a testament to Savage's own toughness, but Goldberg, in his prime, required a taser and a jackknife powerbomb to put him down for the three count. So I would say that Savage and Goldberg are relatively equal when it comes to endurance.

    Career accomplishments is the only thing Savage really has going for him in this match, and Goldberg was renowned for being able to tear through accomplished wrestlers, provided there was no foul play which I think a prime babyface Savage would be above.
     
  13. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    If you're asking me who was the better wrestler, it's obviously Savage. However, Goldberg, even though his time was short, was insanely dominant. There are very few guys who were as dominant as Goldberg, Savage not being one of them. Again, their careers can't be compared, Savage was just better. Kayfabe in a cell match? Goldberg wins.
     
  14. Hulkamaniac

    Hulkamaniac Vote Hogan, Savage, Rocky and Thesz

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    99
    The length of time here works in Savage's favor (no matter the stip, Goldberg just came out of a match with prime Hulk Hogan while Savage just came out of a match with Daniel Bryan), the willingness to push themselves to the brink works in Savage's favor, the legacy works in Savage's favor...so pretty much everything work's in Savage's favor except for "kayfabe dominance", because Goldberg was too incompetent at his job to effectively put somebody over. Yay.

    Vote Savage.
     
  15. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    BUZZ! Improper accusation of logical fallacies. The concept behind a fallacy is that it is used in place of a logical argument. I did no such thing. My comment about being dumb is more of a conclusion having been drawn from the reasons I presented.

    Now that I've educated you on fallacies, let's address the rest of your post.

    Was it in '88 when he won the championship? Was it in '92 when he won the championship? Was it in '95 when he won the championship? Was it in '99 when he won the championship?

    When exactly was he anything less than a main-eventer? And don't give me the nonsense of when he worked undercard feuds, every main-eventer does that.

    No it doesn't. This is the WZ Tournament, the quality of the worker is very much a valid criteria for picking a winner. As someone who has been participating in these tournaments much longer than you, I would suggest you take my word on that.

    Dean Malenko was a mediocre professional wrestler. Randy Savage was one of the all-time greats. Big difference.

    Probably because he was just a flash in the pan.

    So Randy Savage is a badass. Thank you for confirming what I already knew. Goldberg punched a window and sat out 5 months.

    And a window put him out 5 months. :shrug:
    :lmao:

    No.

    Accomplishments, longevity, endurance, speed, experience, aerial attack, wrestling technique, charisma, quality matches, etc.

    The only thing Goldberg can really hang his hat onto is that he was a flash in the pan. Had he had a career longer than a blink of an eye, he would have had to lose matches just like everyone else. And he was no where near as skilled at anything as Savage.
    So what you're saying is you're going to pick the inferior wrestler because his career was not long enough for him to give back to the wrestling profession what he took from it?

    That's mighty interesting logic you have there.
     
  16. Bernkastel

    Bernkastel Reaper of Miracles

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    4,316
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Yeah, I'm with Savage here. There are a myriad of guys that frequent this tournament that Savage shouldn't beat, however Goldberg isn't one of them. Goldberg is probably the biggest flash in the pan in wrestling history. His run at the top lasted less than a year and after losing his streak he was never able to rebound at all. I find it odd that Goldberg was only a 1 time WCW champion even when the promotion would hand out reigns like candy. Goldberg did have a nice run in WWE, but it too only lasted a year. If Goldberg had worked any longer then he would have started losing a lot more often. Goldberg was not the type of star that could carry a company or a wold title long term. Savage was. And did. And usually the consistency argument hurts Savage but not against Goldberg.

    Vote Savage. Bigger draw, better champion, more longevity at the top, and better consistency as a main event level talent.
     
  17. Mighty NorCal

    Mighty NorCal SHALL WE BEGIN?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Goldberg had one of the most prolific and hilarious performances in the elimination chamber ever, at SummerSlam 2003. Everyone go watch that shit right noe. Thank me later, great match.

    I'm still weighing arguments, I just had to pass this along.

    BTW Goldberg ultimately lost the match....
     
  18. Good Golly It's Ollie

    Good Golly It's Ollie Magical Girl

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    329
    Agreeing with Sly if only on one point (the one I feel actually matters), Savage was fuggin crazy. Goldberg is a mean mamma jamma, but the Hell in a Cell has traditionally painted the "crazy bastard" as being prepared to go places and do things that no one else would. This doesn't always work in the crazy one's favour (see Mankind/Edge/Shane vs Taker) but in this instance I don't think Old Bill has the mental fortitude to endure Savage's tenacity in the danger zone like someone more traditionally "hardcore" would. Hell if this was Funk or Foley in place of Goldberg, I'd actually be more conflicted.

    Once again I end up voting based on what narrative I prefer, and the narrative of "Goldberg wins lol" is much less interesting than "Savage is fucking mental, don't push him".
     
  19. OYDK

    OYDK King Of The Ring

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    757
    Some seem to be suggesting that this Cell match favors Goldberg and I have to vehemently disagree with that idea. Goldberg's offense works best in a straight one-on-one environment, one where his opponent has four options:

    1. Get DQ'd
    2. Get Counted Out
    3. Get fucking destroyed
    4. Tase him

    Even in a cage the stip would favor Goldberg but in a Cell, where his opponent can leave the ring, use weapons, and basically do anything it takes to win, Goldberg's chances of winning actually drop dramatically. Throw in the fact that he's going up against Randy Savage of all people, one of the greatest workers in all aspects and somebody with more wrestling acumen in his pinky finger than Goldberg will ever have in his body, and Goldberg is in tough.

    I see Savage easily dragging this match out, using the Cell to effectively counter Goldberg's offense, and weapons to systematically damage him. Once this match makes it past the 15 minute mark, Goldberg's basically done.

    Vote Savage.
     
  20. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    518
    It was more a comment on the poor structure of your argument; you did give your reasons on why you thought Goldberg voters were stupid later on; but to begin your argument with a accusation based on a particular group's stupidity is ad hominem; which was later rectified.

    :lmao:

    Do you really think that in 1999, Savage's 1 day title reign was at all an indication of his prime, a title he won in a tag match?

    The quality of the worker only adds significant weight if you're supporting your favourites, as quality is a very subjective measurement. You should know this.

    In terms of charisma and connection to the audience, absolutely. But in terms in technical ability, Malenko was an extraordinary talent, capable of putting on great matches. You'd be nuts to assume otherwise.

    You know, I don't recall Randy Savage working any HIAC matches, which is the stipulation of this very match; not a normal steel cage match.

    :icon_neutral:

    I think that might be the worst representation of an argument I've seen in a long time. The fact you need to strawman so obviously is clearly demonstrating your insecurity about your own opinion; despite the confidence in your assertions being clear as crystal. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    I never denied that Savage was a badass. But the venom of the King Cobra, in what you refused to include in your quote due to your obvious contextomy, is usually applied to a human in a non-fatal capacity. The first thing you do when you are bitten by a venomous snake, other than to treat the wound, is to immediately consume anti-venom to prevent any permanent damage from the toxin; and I imagine Savage would be no exception to that rule. The most crippling effect from a taser takes place immediately; whereas a snake's venom usually takes a period to set in, which gives you the liberty of consuming anti-venom.

    Jay Leno held his own against Hogan. Kevin Federline has a victory over Cena. Yet Hogan and Cena are two of the greatest wrestlers of all-time. We need to acknowledge both Savage and Goldberg at their peak performance in order to make this a fair contest for both men. Goldberg breaking a window was not Goldberg at his peak performance.

    You know what, you're right. Savage and Goldberg are not relatively equal in terms of endurance. After all, Goldberg required a taser and a jackknife powerbomb to put him down, whereas Savage was probably immediately treated with anti-venom to prevent any permanent damage from the snake's toxin. It's the only logical explanation for why he would wrestle days later at his normal capacity.

    Longevity and experience, I'll give you as these are factually grounded. The rest are subjective qualities.

    That's the thing, he didn't have an extended career; yet he accomplished as much as he did, which is a testament to Goldberg's legacy on the business. You can't add a hypothesis to a hypothesis accurately; you're doing exactly what Coco is doing in the Cena/Funk match.
     
  21. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    ...did you end your schooling with 8th grade English class? Are you of the opinion there is only one proper way in which to write an essay, with a proper beginning, middle and end? When you advance to high school composition, let me know, I'll be very interested in seeing your progression as a writer.

    It's indicative of the fact he was in the main-event, which is exactly what I said. :shrug:

    Look, if you're going to use the rolling smiley, at least use it correctly. I mean, you literally quoted what I said, how could you so badly screw up in your response to it?

    Quality is most definitely NOT a subjective measure. The fact you even said something so ridiculous tells me no one should trust your opinion.

    Quality is not subjective. That's just asinine.

    Dean Malenko was a snoozefest, that's why he never found the main-event.

    No wonder you think quality is subjective, you have no understanding of what it means to be a quality professional wrestler.

    But you can most definitely recall Savage working in a cage. Do you see the difference?

    Nevermind, you probably don't.

    Once more, I catch you inappropriately using logical fallacies. I'm far from an expert on them, but I do love them and are much better with them than you are.

    Stating Randy Savage is a badass because he survived the bite of a King Cobra, which can inject enough neurotoxin in a single bite to kill 20 people, is not a strawman. Neither is stating the fact that Goldberg punched a window and sat out five months.

    You play amateur psychologist even worse than you analyze pro wrestling.

    Who said you did? We both know he's a badass. He took the bite of a king cobra and wrestled the very next show.

    The cobra latched onto Savage's arm. It can inject enough toxin to kill 20 people.

    You really are bad at this debating thing.
    :lmao:

    Who gives a damn if he took anti-venom? He was bitten by a king cobra, an animal which has been known to kill elephants, and still wrestled the very next show. Savage is a badass, that's the point. Goldberg sat out for five months because of a window.

    It happened less than 18 months after he won his first title!

    Good God, if Goldberg's prime is only from July to December of 1998, then how in the hell can you possibly claim he is anywhere close to Savage in terms of, well, anything?

    Your argument is so ridiculously convoluted that you are trying to claim Goldberg's prime didn't even last 18 months and you think THAT is a winning argument.

    Of course I am.

    Of course they aren't. Goldberg worked 2 minute matches. Savage worked 15-20 minute matches regularly.

    This doesn't even make sense, you are trying to compare something I've never even discussed with the fact Savage took the bite of one of the most dangerous snakes in the world and still wrestled days later, while Goldberg sat out for five months because of a window.

    No they are not. The fact you think otherwise shows ignorance of pro wrestling.

    He was a flash in the pan, like I said.
    What did he accomplish which was so great? Everything Goldberg did, Savage did more and better. WCW championship? He had 1 and Savage had 4. WWE championship? He had 1 title when there were two titles, Savage had 2 runs when there was only 1 main title.

    You literally have no argument in favor of Goldberg and you're resorting to erroneous accusations of fallacies and talking about anti-venom, as if that somehow changes the fact Savage was a badass, a fact to which you've already acquiesced.

    I'm not hypothesizing anything, I'm flat out telling you Savage was better at pro wrestling in every way and wrestled after getting bit by a dangerous snake, while Goldberg sat out five months because of a window.
     
  22. justtxyank

    justtxyank Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    96
    I like Randy Savage better than Goldberg, but this is a match that Savage would lose and he probably would volunteer to lose it. Savage was a GREAT wrestler, but in the end, Savage lost the big matches. He'd go into this as a heel and he would take the loss to Goldberg.
     
  23. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    518
    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.

    This isn't Pulp Fiction, this is an argument on a wrestling forum.

    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. At the very best, you can claim it to be a career renaissance, which is not indicative of Savage's prime.

    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.

    Quality is difficult to base on primarily facts because it is heavily slanted towards opinion-based conclusions. Opinions, by the very nature of them, are subjective.

    In a lot of areas, yes. But in terms of being able to put on a technical in-ring product, absolutely not.

    Not every aspect of quality is subjective; but a lot of it is based on opinions, which are subjective.

    Yeah, I can remember the Doomsday Cage Match for one which is one of the most infamously terrible wrestling matches of all-time.

    I'm far from an expert on them either, but I'm able to identify when someone is using them, and then attempts to act as if nothing out of the ordinary actually occurred.

    No no no, that's not at all where I'm calling you out for your obvious strawman. 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. You cut my argument short, and then used my quote out of context in an effort to try and discredit my argument. That is a strawman; you misrepresented my argument to suit your own agenda, which is pro-Savage.

    Thanks for proving my point about your insecurity concerning your own argument.

    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.

    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? Don't give me the "Savage was a badass" argument here; badassery is not an antidote to snake venom. He obviously needed treatment and anti-venom to be able to survive in your idealised scenario. You are not giving enough credit to the miracle that is medicine.

    :lmao:

    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.


    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.

    :icon_neutral:

    The reason Goldberg's matches were so short, from a kayfabe perspective, was because his dominance was unparalleled; and this was applicable to some of the very best in professional wrestling history. Say what you will about Savage, but the reason he regularly worked longer matches was because he could not win matches against similar calibre names on the same level of dominance as Goldberg.

    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.

    Well, they are subjective in different ways, that much I'll give you. But it doesn't change the fact that the rest of the factors you listed there are very much open for debate.

    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 :rolleyes:.

    Goldberg accomplished all of this in a much shorter space of time than Savage. If we were to do the math, Savage needed 13 years to accomplish all he did, not factoring his year long "retirement" in 1991. Goldberg needed 5, not factoring his hiatus from 2001 to 2003.

    No, it doesn't change the fact that Savage was a badass. What it does determine though is whether Savage has the capability to beat Goldberg in a match.

    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.

    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.

    You seem to be great at taking my quotes out of context and using them to suit the agenda you want to push.
     
  24. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    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.

    But I said "main-event".

    Seriously, please pay attention to words, they are important.

    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.

    No, it's not. There are very definite objective qualities in pro wrestling. This is not opinion, it's fact.

    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.

    That's because Savage actually had a career and wasn't a flash in the pan like Goldberg.

    Obviously you're not, as you've twice made false accusations.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. :shrug:

    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.
    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?

    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.

    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.

    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 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?

    No, they really aren't. There is, undoubtedly, objective criteria by which we can analyze pro wrestlers.

    No, they really aren't. If they were open for debate, you would have tried to debate them.

    We're talking about pro wrestling, not military commanders who lived thousands of years apart.

    Seriously, you are TERRIBLE at this debating thing.

    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?

    And Savage absolutely was a badass. I'm glad you agree.

    Savage was greater in every facet of pro wrestling, except in the ability to let a window put him out of action.

    Savage > Goldberg

    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?

    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.

    I'm great at debating. You're not. I just also so happen to be right, which only makes it easier for me.
     
  25. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,914
    Likes Received:
    1,516
    I'm going to go with Savage, based largely on longevity. The gaps between Savage's 2 WWF titles is longer than Goldberg's entire career, and he carried on winning in WCW after that. Savage wins.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"