I don't really have to counter this myself do I? KB asked us to vote for the greater professional wrestler and not just who we like best. Me right; you wrong.
Uh... no, you're a much bigger Lou Thesz fan than I am CM Punk fan. You believe Thesz is the greatest wrestler of all time and would vote for him over anyone. Would I do that for Punk? Absolutely not. But I do believe he's better than Lou Thesz and I've gone into great deal why.
While I strongly discredit Thesz in a lot of ways, I still give him at least some credit, whereas you haven't thrown one compliment towards CM Punk's way this entire thread. So, who's really the person letting bias play a role in their posting?
So people are supposed to vote for CM Punk based on these mystical things that he might do in the future? In that case I'll certainly be pushing Darrell Oblexon next year. He hasn't been born yet; but I'm absolutely certain that he's going t go on to surpass Hulk Hogan.
No, people should vote for Punk because he's a better wrestler now than Thesz has ever been, and would kick his ass in a match. The only reason I bring up the "years down the line" example is because the main thing Thesz has on Punk, outside of his drawing numbers, is that he was around much longer, which any rational person would realize shouldn't be a huge deal since Punk UNDOUBTEDLY has many glorious years in this business ahead of him.
And Punk would never have resin above jobber status if he'd been born in 1910. And it's not an indisputable fact, that's not what the word "fact" means; it's a theory.
So a theory can't be a true? All my "theories" are based around common sense and anyone unbiased to the match would realize it.
You mean like when you claimed that Lou Thesz had never seen a top rope elbow drop before? Yeah; you already got proved not to know what you're talking about on that front. I see you ignored that part of the debate.
If I'm wrong about that then fine... you got me. Big deal. But what about the GTS or much of other Punk's arsenal? Has Thesz seen that? No, so my prove still holds true.
The real one. He has a white belt. I know guys who work in an office all day and hit the gym once a week who've advanced higher than that. Hell; I'm pretty certain that there are a decent number of small children who have achieved the same level of mastery.
Let's look at the evidence here. You are saying he's an expert. I am saying he's a beginner. He has no competitive fighting history, has publicly admitted that he couldn't complete in MMA and has only achieved the beginner's in Kiu-Jitsu. Which of us do you think has the more compelling case?
And as I told Davi, Daniel Puder is also a white belt, yet he knew enough BJJ to where he could have ripped a guy's arm off who has zero training in Jiu-Jitsu, yet is an Olympic Gold Medalist wrestler.
That example right there proves my point. Just a little training in Jiu-Jitsu is more than enough experience against someone who doesn't have the first clue about it, especially a guy as big and athletic as CM Punk is.
Lou Thesz provided amusement or enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis. As such he was entertaining.
And where are those people today? That's right, there are hardly any. If his era of entertainment was truly entertaining, then it would still somewhat hold up today. But it doesn't. And you can't blame the business or wrestling fans today. Like I've said, films and television have heavily evolved, yet you can find many people who still like films and television broadcast from the 1950's. You can't do that for the wrestling of that era though, can you?
Oh; and for the record; there's a lot of stupid kids out there who don't think that Hogan holds up. Was he not entertaining either?
Yeah, and there's a LOT of people, including many on this forum, who find Hulk Hogan's work to still hold up. Now, where are the Lou Thesz fans?
So now you're not arguing that Lou Thesz wasn't entertaining; but that the entire 1950's and 60's weren't entertaining. There was literally nothing else for people to fill their time with, so bored people flocked in droves to shows that weren't entertaining just to break the monotony of staring at the wallpaper all day.
No, I'm saying big events didn't happen near as much back then as they do now. Wrestling didn't have a huge show every week. There wasn't high profile MMA and Boxing fights 3 times a month. Important sporting events every week. Concerts in every city every week. Blockbuster films weren't released at nearly the rate they are today. Do you not get the difference?
People in the 1950's had film, sport, sex, drugs, music, parties, friends, alcohol, theatre, books, food, dancing and a thousand and one other things that they could have been doing with their time. Instead they flocked in droves to watch Lou Thesz wrestle.
They had all those things in limited doses. There wasn't much variety of anything back then. How many true music superstars were there in the 50's? How many famous actors? Boxers? Wrestlers? How many restaurants to eat at per city for Christ sakes?
It was a much, much different time, and it was a big reason why Thesz' wrestling matches drew people.
I'm half a decade younger than you; and that's so fucking depressing right now.
So 3 years is half a decade?
Actually that isn't what you'd argue. What you would originally argue is that people would come to the shows no matter who was competing. Then Tastycles and I proved you to be full of crap, so now you're making something new up.
No, my original argument was that WRESTLING is what drew the people there, not just one man. And then I built on top of that argument with more "theories" in a later post.
I like the way it's only about 24 hours since you made your self righteous "I'm one of the few people who'll admit when I'm wrong" speech; but when you get caught out making up information you're response is simply to pretend it didn't happen and move on to making up something new.
So, who is really backpeddling here? Instead of disproving my theory, you just throw up a bitch storm about me switching gears a bit in my argument, even though my argument has always been the same that the overall wrestling product (which includes the BOOKING) is what drew people to the arenas more than anything else. Yes, people of that era having nothing else to do is also apart of my argument. I can't have two reasons to believe why people would show up to a wrestling event?
Back then people thought wrestling was real. It was the reputation that nobody could beat Lou Thesz why more people showed up than usual as his reign went longer.
So what you are saying as that anyone for whom Jiu Jitsu is a hobby will automatically and invariably defeat anyone for whom it isn't. I think you're confusing martial arts training with attending Hogwarts.
Talk to anyone who knows anything about Jiu-Jitsu and they'll tell you that it gives you a significant advantage in a fight if you have just a little training in it against someone who has zero training in it. What part of that do you not understand?
You have absolutely nothing to back that statement up other than your assertion that amateurs who practise martial arts as a hobby have magical powers.
I backed it up with the Daniel Puder/Kurt Angle match. Would you like another example?
Pat O'Connor. Wrestling legend. NWA champion for multiple years. Lou Thesz drew twice as many gates of 10000+ than he did whilst O'Connor held the strap (and Thesz was in the armed services for a significant portion of that).
Maybe because by the time O'Connor won the strap Thesz still had that "unbeatable" reputation about him? It's not like Thesz went on some big losing streak. He only lost clean once by the time O'Connor had his reign. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you'll tell me if I am, but if not, then let me ask you this...
Would you rather watch the World Champion vs. someone, or a former World Champion who in the last 10 years was pretty much undefeated vs. a big name? As long as Thesz kept winning, his "unbeatable" reputation would stick with him. That's simply good booking more than it is actual talent.
You were wrong when you said Billy Watson vs. Gorgeous George would draw nearly the same amount of fans to the arena as Lou Thesz vs. either one of them.
I strongly believe they would if either one were booked like Thesz was.
But, yes, okay... I was wrong to say that. I made a mistake when, yes, including the 'long reign' thing should have been apart of my argument the entire time. But better late than never, right? It doesn't make that theory wrong because it popped into my mind as our arguments progressed.
Now let's see you admit that almost any top name from that era who would have held on to the championship for close to ten years would have started to get huge houses as the years went by. It's common sense, especially since we're talking about an era where
PEOPLE THOUGHT WRESTLING WAS REAL and promos/entertaining matches wasn't what put asses in the seats, but let's see if you can admit it. I strongly doubt it, though. I also doubt you'll admit that 3 years isn't half a decade.
You were wrong when you said that anyone holding that belt for that long would draw large crowds as the years went by. You were wrong last round when you tried to claim Verne Gagne never got over in the NWA.
How was I wrong about that? O'Connor didn't hold the belt nearly as long as Thesz. You say multiple years, but it was only TWO. Way to try to manipulate anyone reading this. First you claim I'm half a decade old than you, but it's only 3 years, and now you put multiple years instead of two, when Thesz was champion (and more importantly cleanly unbeaten) for much longer than that. It's obviously going to take much longer than a couple of years to develop the reputation Thesz had.
This works in baseball, but it has been proven time and again not to be the case in professional wrestling. Jerry Lawler's prime was in the early 70s. He beat Jack Swagger in 2011, 40 years removed from his prime. Now, as you say at some stage, there's a difference between 40 years and 60 years, which is true, certainly. However, Jerry Lawler had also aged 40 years in that time, and was clearly slower etc. My point is this - someone who wrestles with a completely out of date style can succeed in kayfabe and it has been proven time and time again. I can't show you someone from the 50s in their prime beating someone from the 2000s in their prime, because it's obviously impossible. I can show you people from the 50s beating people from the 80s, thirty years out of their prime and people from the 70s beating people from the 2010s beating people from the 2010s
Lawler has also been apart of the business all of this time, and has seen it progress first hand. Lou Thesz doesn't have that going for him though, does he?
So Thesz fought the guy who invented that, and Punk has never been seen to do it on anyone in the history of the earth, I'm pretty sure it will be ok. Funnily enough, when Gotch crossed Thesz in 1964, Thesz used a (legitimate) double wristlock to win. Again, I don't know anything about that, but it would seem that is a common submission in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.
So, on this Jiu Jitsu front - Thesz wrestled the guy who invented one of the strongest submissions, and won a match using one of its most common. Punk practiced Jiu Jitsu to some level at some point when he was under 18, yet there is zero hard evidence for how much he progressed in that or even if he fought a single bout in anger.
Wait... when did Thesz "fight" Masahiko Kimura? Did he even have a wrestling match against him? And I've never seen someone win an MMA fight and Jiu-Jitsu exhibition with a double wristlock.
Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. Does Thesz know about the triangle? Various leg locks? Various neck cranks? Body locks? All the different transitions and defenses that have been invented far after his death? No, he doesn't, and Punk has the advantage to learn just enough with limited training, which he has done under the founding family of the art.
1) That's because it's a modern pro wrestling forum. Do you think if you went on a car forum there'd be an abundance of people who love Model T Fords? No. They're specialist and niche, so they go and make their own forums, like the Lou Thesz forum.
I looked up the Lou Thesz forum and it seems to average about a post a day, if not less. Very impressive....
You're grasping at straws here, man. Be unlike Gelgarin and admit that there are only very few out there who find any enjoyment watching any of that stuff today.
2) You have to remember that as an all-time tournament, you have an all-time audience. This is hard to conceptualise, but you have to imagine that the crowd would be from all of time. Sure, a lot of people now are bored by 1950s wrestling, but the audience members with past attitudes would think that CM Punk looked ridiculous and like a complete phony.
But as soon as he went in there and kicked ass, their opinions would change.
How can you know you'd like something you've never seen? But again, by all means backtrack to save face.
Because it's obvious? Baseball is baseball. Not much has changed about it, Tasty. Pro wrestling over the years, however, has changed for the better. Much better.
But it isn't. If this tournament was judged on the entertainment of the IWC, there's plenty of people who'd go nowhere when they should.
But I'm not arguing about the entertainment of the IWC, but of people period. And the fact is, hardly anyone today would ever find any entertainment value in watching a Lou Thesz match.
I'm not sure I agree with that. If you showed this:
to the Transformers 2 audience, they'd say "this is boring and shit", as would happen if you played Liszt at a Metallica concert, but we aren't looking to find the wrestler who would be the most entertaining in 2012, we're looking to find the best wrestler of all time.
Lou Thesz = Wrestler from the 1950's. CM Punk = Wrestler from the 2000's. On the Waterfront = Movie from 1956. Transformers 2 = Movie from 2009. Fans of film (not just anyone, but true movie buffs, which are millions and millions of people) from the age range of 18-42 will find more enjoyment out of On the Waterfront than they will Transformers 2. Now, can you say the same about wrestling fans from that age range would find more enjoyment watching Thesz instead of Punk? No, you cannot. Why? Because Thesz's work is simply does not hold up.
That doesn't look like a lot of people to me, Tastycles. I never said no one could enjoy a Thesz match in a literal sense, but those who could are very few and far between. Even Uwe Boll has a fanbase out there.
You're missing the point anyway. The preferences of an audience now have no bearing on the quality of product from the past. More people now like Justin Bieber than the music of Mozart, does that mean Bieber goes over Mozart in a musicians tournament?
No, since Mozart's music is still enjoyed by millions, if not billions, of people to this day.
If the same promoter in the same arena draws 5,000 people for a match between Watson and George and 15,000 for Thesz and Watson it means one of two things:
1) Gorgeous George drove audiences away
2) Thesz is responsible for bringing them in.
General wrestling knowledge says that 1) isn't true. Therefore Thesz is the reason.
What does that have to do with what I said? I meant booking from the sense of Thesz continuing to win, which at that time having a long term champion was the right thing to do.
Doesn't that imply it? Thesz may have started in a better place genetically, but his achievements are so far out of Punk's league that for Punk to have overcome "par achievement" in the same way he would have had to have been someone Helen Keller described as unfortunate.
No, it does not. It implies that the level of success Punk has reached is more impressive than what Thesz was able to do. I'm not claiming Punk has more "achievements."
Firstly, Thesz had sway because he was so good. They had to keep him onside. Secondly, Ed Lewis trained Thesz, but Thesz helped him out by having him ringside. Lewis was basically broke, and certainly didn't open any doors for Thesz.
Obviously a wrestler who had a shit ton of success in the 1930's doesn't mean he's going to be financially secure for the rest of his life. However, it's not ridiculous to think that if Thesz never met Lewis than he wouldn't have amounted to anything in the business. Punk was trained by Ace Steel... do you not see the difference? If Ace Steel wasn't there Punk could have simply gone somewhere else and got the same results. But if Lewis wasn't around for Thesz, who knows what would have happened.
To say Punk didn't luck out is an absolute joke. He won his first MITB because Jeff Hardy got suspended. Winning the world title because somebody else can't stop taking crack is pretty fucking lucky in my book.
No, it wasn't luck. They had 6 others to choose from and they chose Punk. And that first World title reign held Punk back more than it helped anyway. His title run was booked pathetically. The fact he was able to recover from it to now be one of the biggest faces in the company today speaks highly of Punk's talent.
When Punk was the world champion in 2008, he couldn't make the contemporary crowd give a shit about him, despite the fact he went over Edge, the biggest heel in the company at the time. Then he feuded with JBL, again a hugely hated heel, and got no reaction.
And the booking had nothing to do with it? You know as well as I do that WWE made Punk as generic as possible. His mic work was only given very limited time, and he was made to look weak quite a bit.
Thesz last wrestled in 1990, and the crowd still cared.
Yeah, the Japanese were intrigued to see a 70 year old wrestle. Would have loved to seen how that would have gone over in the states.
By the way, I have Thesz's induction into the WCW Hall of Fame on video tape at Slamboree 1993 somewhere at my mom's house, and the crowd didn't seem care all that much IIRC.
Not really. Unless you only consider "winning the UFC/Pride championship" as success. Yoshida and Nakamura were both top 10 fighters at their weights at different points in their careers.
Lol... give me a break, man. Yoshida beat Japanese bums, a washed-up Don Frye, a Mark Hunt who had yet train any form of ground game, and Tank Abbott. And Nakamura lost to every big name he ever faced and whose name is only remembered because of Wanderlei's knock out of him.
Manny Gamburyan fought for UFC Featherweight title less than 2 years ago.
And now he's on a 3 fight losing streak, 11-7 overall, and has only one good win his entire career. The only reason he got a title shot was because there was no one else.
Karl Amoussou and Gegard Mousasi are both Judo black belts.
Amoussou sucks, and Mousasi might be a black belt, but his striking is what got him this far. Bad examples, again, because we're talking about Lou Thesz beating a guy who ONLY knew Judo, nothing else.
Even the great Anderson Silva chooses Judo for his takedown/grappling training as opposed to wrestling, as he is a blackbelt in Judo and rarely gets taken down.
And we saw how well that worked out against Chael Sonnen and Travis Lutter, huh? Not so well, did it? Nope, but what bailed Anderson out? JIU-JITSU.
As I just showed you, Judo is alive and well in MMA.
I'm not arguing with you whether or not there are some guys in MMA who use Judo for their benefit; I'm saying pure Judo practioners are nothing to harp about and that most guys who started in Judo and made the transition to MMA have not done well. Those are simply facts.
Have you ever seen world Sambo championships? It's hilariously sloppy.
And ridiculously popular and much more beneficial to someone in MMA or in an actual fight than judo is. Fedor and the Diaz brothers > Any Judo practitioners.
