Well it's true. You do learn something every day. Today I learned that the boards 'expert' gets real personal when his opinion is challenged.
I'd respond in kind, but something tells me if I did, I'd end up in the prison. So I'll rise above.
I see no rebuttals so I'll call that a combination of a cop out from you/some scores for me.
Nope. You just had to keep reading.
No. Actually I responded that people weren't able to try them on him. In other words, his offense is good enough to prevent opponents from getting him in that much trouble. If you want to say that means he'd give up as soon as he was in one, I'm going to call that another cop out because if you think that's how a wrestler like Warrior would be respond, you really, really don't get wrestling.
That actually isn't what I said at all.
My challenge to this "Warrior wouldn't quit" theme is that he rarely ever was put in a situation where that was tested. You agreed with that... you just have different reasoning as to why.
I never once said that he'd give up as soon as he got into trouble. Please do not put words into my mouth to make your argument.
And I hate to break it to you... but my understanding of wrestling is just fine, and quite a few people around here tend to agree with that.
I'm going to go with the two word response of "common sense" here.
So common sense is that he obviously would never submit? Because all I said was we don't know because he was never tested that much in this regard.
I think this is where I give myself a couple points by using your cop out response.
Flair.......smart? SERIOUSLY?
The guy spent twenty plus years trying the exact same things (chopping Sting, figure fouring Hogan, going to the top rope) with an average success rate of maybe half a percent. That's not smart, but rather really, really stupid. How many times did he come out on top of Hogan? Two or three I believe? Compared to roughly 8000 losses? How many of those were by submission again?
I'm curious. Is the majority of your Flair experience from about 1990 on? Because it seems that way based off of your response here, and I've gotta say you really missed out then.
Because you're really just describing Flair from after his peak. When he was mid-40's into his late 50's, and he wasn't even close to being the same performer he was in the 80's. You yourself mentioned that we should consider all competitors here to be in their peaks. It would help if you held yourself to that same standard. Then again, it would also help your arguments if you avoided the blatant overexagurations like saying Flair had roughly 8000 losses to Hogan. I'm sure you're well aware that it was really a fraction of that.
Keeping with kayfabe though... we're talking about a guy that spent his career always finding a way to come out on top. When he got knocked down, it never lasted for long and he'd quickly find a way to return to the top. That's smart.
And those would be........?
Indian Death Lock. Boston Crab. Half Crab. Abdominal Stretch. Sleeper.
Really. You should watch the guy in his prime. Believe it or not, he could actually do a lot.
Please.....I beg of you, tell me how Savage and Hogan are totally different than Warrior. PLEASE explain that to me. I could use a good laugh today.
I have to ask... are you intentionally misunderstanding everything I write? I said in the context of the actual match in question. The match that you yourself picked for these two.
In a standard match, none of the mentioned ever submit to the figure four. In an 'ultimate submission' match? Yeah that becomes a key part of the story.
While Warrior just extends his legs and reads the paper right?
You wanted me to give you a laugh? Sorry, but this is where you gave me one.
You're the expert on these forums. But you don't understand how Flair would use nefarious means to target a specific limb of his opponent to make his submission more effective? When this was a tactic Flair used in the majority of his matches?
Because if you think that what you wrote is how it would happen? Maybe I'm not the one that doesn't understand wrestling.
I'm going to sum this up very simply:
You're really, really bad at this and have next to no idea what you're talking about. Basically your argument comes down to "this never happened so you can't prove that!" That's about as lame and pitiful of an argument that there is, but hey, maybe it will work if you never try it because stranger things have happened right?
Well let's see.
When I started in this thread, Warrior was beating Flair about 20-10. Now he's within 2 votes of tying it up. He was further back when you wrote this to me. I've been getting green repped quite a bit in this tournament. I've been able to sway matchups into my favor in the past.
If that's being really, really bad at this? Then it sucks what you're saying about a lot of the participants here.