General Tournament Banter

[Big Sexy]

When voting, what are people suppose to take into consideration? It is Wrestler A in his prime vs Wrestler B in his prime or more of a what has Wrestler A accomplished in his whole career vs what has wrestler B accomplished in his?

There's no set criteria on how to vote but the majority of posters vote based upon kayfabe of wrestler's primes.

 

[The Champ]

Well if we're voting on kayfabe, I think Cena's nine world title reigns, two of which have lasted nine or more months, should push him far enough.

But we shall see.

 

[X]

The kayfabe argument is horseshit, vote for who you believe is the superior wrestler in each round, that's the real reason we hold this tournament. We don't need a tournament to tell us Hulk Hogan was booked to win more often than not, this is supposed to be to pick who we believe are the most skilled and talented wrestlers. Which is why people like Ultimate Warrior get knocked out early, and rightfully so. Because they aren't even close to being one of the most talented professional wrestlers of all time.

 

[Coco]

The kayfabe argument is horseshit, vote for who you believe is the superior wrestler in each round, that's the real reason we hold this tournament.

If you think kayfabe won't sway some people's votes, you'd be fooling yourself. You made it perfectly clear last year that you despise people basing their decision on it, but you do the tournament a disservice by ignoring something that's shown itself to be a key component of the discussion. Feel free to vote how you feel you should, but don't be surprised when some people see fit to travel a different path.

Also, Cena could make the top ten depending on who he faces. He could luck out. You never know.

*Edit* ALLLLSO, this is the same group of people that sent Edge to the finals last year. Don't doubt the power of a longshot who also happens to be a current headliner (and is thus fresh in the tiny heads of many WZers).

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

People talked about how Foley was a better wrestler than Warrior and others argued that Warrior rarely lost and Foley always lost so they would have voted Warrior.

 

[klunderbunker]

Without going into a rant here, Foley is 100x the wrestler Warrior could ever be.

 

[The Champ]

*Edit* ALLLLSO, this is the same group of people that sent Edge to the finals last year. Don't doubt the power of a longshot who also happens to be a current headliner (and is thus fresh in the tiny heads of many WZers).

Edge got to the finals in a "best wrestler ever" tournament?

Well shit, Cena should win by like 100 votes then.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

Without going into a rant here, Foley is 100x the wrestler Warrior could ever be.

...and support is growing. Welcome to the club.

 

[X]

Without going into a rant here, Foley is 100x the wrestler Warrior could ever be.

Bingo.

And Coco, I'm not saying don't take the kayfabe idea out of the element, but like the scenario above, I wouldn't advise someone to vote for Warrior over Foley even though Warrior would almost certainly be booked over Foley because there isn't a single thing in professional wrestling that Warrior could do better than Foley (aside from look roided up I suppose). The kayfabe thing becomes way too much of a sticking point for some people, just vote for who you think is the better overall wrestler of the two men in each match-up, that's about as simple of a way of voting I could suggest.

 

[Tastycles]

Bingo.
...because there isn't a single thing in professional wrestling that Warrior could do better than Foley (aside from look roided up I suppose).

Except, err.., draw money. Which is the only subjective barometer of a wrestler's talent.

Vote how you want. That's what makes it better. There is no point in having the gimmick matches and locations if you aren't taking kayfabe into account, but some people don't, and that's their perogative. Something that makes the tournament so good is that you have a lot of people arguing a lot of things. If everyone voted solely on Kayfabe, then the arguments would get ridiculous. If people voted on who was the biggest draw, then Hogan would win every time. If people voted on subjective quality of matches, then people like Dean Malenko and Chris Benoit would be winning, despite the fact that they are about as charismatic as a sock.

People will vote however they want, but most people go by kayfabe because it is the funnest way to imagine the matches playing out. Those that moan about kayfabe do so because their favourites lose out. What those people fail to see is that the overall kayfabe career of somebody is directly related to their talent at making money and getting over. Yes, that's right, Hulk Hogan is a better wrestler than Primo Colon, even though he's never done a springboard move.

 

[MattMoses]

I pushed my hardest for Harley Race last year, and I still firmly believe he should have got past Bret Hart. With the influx of Harley supporters I'm hoping he can get further this time round.

As usual, I'll be backing Sting, Terry Funk, Stan Hansen, Harley Race and Goldberg.

 

[BooCocky]

People talked about how Foley was a better wrestler than Warrior and others argued that Warrior rarely lost and Foley always lost so they would have voted Warrior.

The Ultimate Warrior was pretty much robbed last year. No way not in 10 million years Foley goes over him. Just isn't going to happen.

And don't give me that bullshit about Foley being the better wrestler. His job for years was to lose and make others look good while winning occasionally.

 

[Tastycles]

The Ultimate Warrior was pretty much robbed last year. No way not in 10 million years Foley goes over him. Just isn't going to happen.

And don't give me that bullshit about Foley being the better wrestler. His job for years was to lose and make others look good while winning occasionally.

What made it more bullshit was that Ultimate Warrior - who lost three times in 5 years - had to lose two falls in 15 minutes, all because Mick Foley is better conditioned.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The Ultimate Warrior was pretty much robbed last year. No way not in 10 million years Foley goes over him. Just isn't going to happen.

And don't give me that bullshit about Foley being the better wrestler. His job for years was to lose and make others look good while winning occasionally.

That stuck in my craw a lot. Look at the wrestlers Foley made good: Orton, Undertaker, HHH, Rock, etc. He lost to them to make others look better, plain and simple. I just couldn't believe that a guy who maybe has been pinned no less than five times in his career would lose two falls in a match.

 

[X]

Except, err.., draw money. Which is the only subjective barometer of a wrestler's talent.

Foley didn't draw money? Huh? He made the WWF millions during their peak years in the Attitude Era just from his first book alone, which topped the bestsellers list for months. Clearly Foley was a draw, a big one at that.

Besides, Warrior is the most overrated draw of all time. He had a few hot years in the late 80s (almost entirely fueled by the Hogan rub) and than went on to not draw a dime for the next decade or so. Nobody gave a fuck when he went to WCW in 1998.

 

[Tastycles]

Foley didn't draw money? Huh? He made the WWF millions during their peak years in the Attitude Era just from his first book alone, which topped the bestsellers list for months. Clearly Foley was a draw, a big one at that.

You're using the money people made outside of wrestling as a barometer for their success inside the ring? Give the tournament to JBL right now then. The quality of a wrestler is determined by their ability to draw fans to watch wrestling, not write self-indulgent books. That is actually a worse argument than that guy who based his arguments on ring attire last year. He was joking though.

Besides, Warrior is the most overrated draw of all time. He had a few hot years in the late 80s (almost entirely fueled by the Hogan rub) and than went on to not draw a dime for the next decade or so. Nobody gave a fuck when he went to WCW in 1998.

Absolutely bollocks. The WrestleMania he headlined absolutely trounced the following one in terms of buyrate. Royal Rumble 1991, which he headlined also trounced the previous one and as for Summerslam and Survivor Series 1990, they had amongst the highest buyrates for any PPV that decade, including WrestleMania. The argument that Warrior was a bad draw is completely unfounded. Foley's one WrestleMania main event was a four man match that came after he had retired. Difficult backstage? Alledgedly. Mental? Possibly. Bigger draw than Foley? Certainly. As for being a shit wrestler, I defy you to find a Foley non-gimmick match better than Warrior's match at WrestleMania VII.

 

[Coco]

I'd go with Mankind-Michaels for the title from that one IYH pay per view in a heartbeat over that match or any other involving Warrior, however I see the "You can't appreciated WM6 because you didn't live it" argument coming a mile away. At least I think that's what I see. Could be wrong, though.

 

[gd]

What made it more bullshit was that Ultimate Warrior - who lost three times in 5 years - had to lose two falls in 15 minutes, all because Mick Foley is better conditioned.

I found the "he'd willingly DQ himself in the 1st fall in order to win the next two" argument quite compelling myself.

 

[Tastycles]

Except it's bullshit. Undertaker twatted Warrior with the urn and he still got up and chased him out of the arena.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Another match people had a problem with was RVD beating HHH and Savage in a Monster's Ball Match. All the arguments for the three wrestlers were good but at the end of the day, triple threat matches are hard to call. The best wrestler doesn't always win and I found myself believing that RVD had the best chance to win because he would be calmer than the other two and would let Savage and HHH fight it out.

 

[gd]

At least it was some kind of argument. I think I'm going to go with vote for whoever the fuck I want, but try to create some type of kayfabe argument for them. May even have to resort to the roll up at times.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Since there will be less wrestlers and less jobbers, I will miss the arguments Jake tried to make for Skinner beating Austin and Stasiak beating HHH.

 

[X]

You're using the money people made outside of wrestling as a barometer for their success inside the ring?

When that money is made entirely because of his wrestling career, yes.

Give the tournament to JBL right now then. The quality of a wrestler is determined by their ability to draw fans to watch wrestling, not write self-indulgent books. That is actually a worse argument than that guy who based his arguments on ring attire last year. He was joking though.

How is this a bad argument that Foley was a draw? JBL didn't make his money from telling stories about his wrestling career, now did he? If you're making the WWE a shit-ton of money with your merchandise, you're drawing. It's not all about attendance, it includes everything from TV ratings to merch sales, all of this "draws" money.

People didn't run out to buy Foley's book in mass because they wanted to read about his childhood or something, they bought it because Foley was a huge star during the most popular period in wrestling history and he drew them in on that alone. This is pretty much the definition of drawing money, doesn't have to be live attendance.

Absolutely bollocks. The WrestleMania he headlined absolutely trounced the following one in terms of buyrate. Royal Rumble 1991, which he headlined also trounced the previous one and as for Summerslam and Survivor Series 1990, they had amongst the highest buyrates for any PPV that decade, including WrestleMania.

Wrestlemania 6 was just as much about Hogan as it was Warrior, so I'm not sure why you're giving Warrior all the credit for that PPV buyrate.

The argument that Warrior was a bad draw is completely unfounded.

Never said he was a bad draw, just an entirely overrated one. Remember his 1996 return to the WWF and how massively that flopped? Nobody gave a fuck about him anymore and that was only six years removed from main eventing Wrestelmania and pinning Hulk Hogan clean.

Foley's one WrestleMania main event was a four man match that came after he had retired. Difficult backstage? Alledgedly. Mental? Possibly. Bigger draw than Foley? Certainly. As for being a shit wrestler, I defy you to find a Foley non-gimmick match better than Warrior's match at WrestleMania VII.

A) Allegedly difficult backstage? I don't think they fire people (more than once) for "allegedly" being difficult backstage.

B) Really not seeing how he's a bigger draw than Foley. Because of Wrestlemania 6? That was a different era, who had the highest rated segment in the history of professional wrestling on television? Mick Foley doing one of his classic promo segments with The Rock.

C) A better Foley non-gimmick match than Warrior's match at Wrestlemania VII? Pretty easy, Mankind vs. HBK at Mind Games in 1996. I'd also rank his back-to-back matches on PPV in 1998 with Austin as Dude Love above the Wrestlemania VII match. Foley was/is certainly a better worker than Warrior. He's a far better wrestler all-around as well, be it his promo skills his selling or his technical ability, Foley is superior to Warrior in every one of those categories.

Warrior kind of sucked. Massively. I can literally count on one hand the amount of good matches he had in his entire career. I wouldn't even be able to get through Foley's WCW run without having to start growing new hands to count how many classic matches the man has had.

 

[Coco]

Another match people had a problem with was RVD beating HHH and Savage in a Monster's Ball Match. All the arguments for the three wrestlers were good but at the end of the day, triple threat matches are hard to call. The best wrestler doesn't always win and I found myself believing that RVD had the best chance to win because he would be calmer than the other two and would let Savage and HHH fight it out.

I had a much harder time buying Jericho over Van Dam. I maintain that if kayfabe if your game, Jericho had NO CHANCE. In non-kayfabe terms, Jericho is a guy whose main event runs tanked time after time. RVD, on the other hand, was a potential successor to Austin and Rock who was held down by political interests. I would even argue RVD at the peak of his popularity was far more over than Jericho at the peak of his.

Anyhow, I thought Tasty said WM6. In response to the question he actually posed, it's another match that's hard to judge as I didn't live through it. Warrior's "calling to the heavens" act might have worked then, but when I watch it today, I cringe.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Never said he was a bad draw, just an entirely overrated one. Remember his 1996 return to the WWF and how massively that flopped? Nobody gave a fuck about him anymore and that was only six years removed from main eventing Wrestelmania and pinning Hulk Hogan clean.

Even the greatest in the business were on top or over for a short period of time. Austin was on top from 1997-2001 and Rock from 1998-2002. Unless you're Hogan or maybe Flair, you're not going to have a prolonged run at the top.