Ongoing Thread For Smarmy Spam Responses to the WZT | Page 27 | WrestleZone Forums

Ongoing Thread For Smarmy Spam Responses to the WZT

Why oh why do people feel the need to constantly repeat something that all the other posters have already mentioned in a thread?

I'm fairly sure that each comment in the Santo - Sammartino thread has paraphrased, "If you voted Santo because he was in Mexico, you have to vote Sammartino in North East America."

And no, the irony of me repeating the oft-repeated phrase isn't lost on me.

How is it any different than the only argument being made in the Sting/Santo thread being that it was in Mexico City, so if he beats the Rock there then he must beat Sting there?
 
How is it any different than the only argument being made in the Sting/Santo thread being that it was in Mexico City, so if he beats the Rock there then he must beat Sting there?

Or the fact that... I don't know... Santo was a bigger draw than either Rock or Sting when placed in a neutral location?
 
Or the fact that... I don't know... Santo was a bigger draw than either Rock or Sting when placed in a neutral location?

More Mexicans know who Rock is than Americans do Santo though. If that match was held in Kashin, Russia the crowd would be more behind Rock
 
More Mexicans know who Rock is than Americans do Santo though. If that match was held in Kashin, Russia the crowd would be more behind Rock

Not in 1999-2000 though, which would have been Rock's prime. If all of Santo's fans and all of Rock's fans had easy access to a match in Russia, who would you think would draw more? Santo in his drawing prime or Rock in his? Answer would be Santo.
 
Not in 1999-2000 though, which would have been Rock's prime. If all of Santo's fans and all of Rock's fans had easy access to a match in Russia, who would you think would draw more? Santo in his drawing prime or Rock in his? Answer would be Santo.

Actually Rock's prime was from 1998-2002 if we're talking about as a draw, which could arguably be called the biggest boom period in the history of pro wrestling.
 
Actually Rock's prime was from 1998-2002 if we're talking about as a draw, which could arguably be called the biggest boom period in the history of pro wrestling.

Rock was playing second fiddle to Austin until about late 1999 - 2000. After 2001 ratings and revenue plateaued before gradually starting to decline until the mid 2000's.

Ratings and attendance records from the Attitude era were better than the mid 90's, but not as good as the mid 80's.
 
How is it any different than the only argument being made in the Sting/Santo thread being that it was in Mexico City, so if he beats the Rock there then he must beat Sting there?

I didn't say that that wasn't annoying too.

I don't mind the drawing factor being argued, but when it's the only thing being argued and the same stuff being mentioned in each comment then it gets quite tiresome.
 
I don't care THAT much, but I'll be a little disappointed if the Cena guys let the Flair guys come back. I can't see any reasonable argument for Flair here.
 
Can we all agree that Paper Ghost's argument that Taker has a Bollywood film about him, so he's more famous than Hulk fucking Hogan, is the most asinine argument in the whole damn tournament?
 
So, the group consensus is that Ghost is an absolute moron, right?

Just want to make sure we're clear on that
 
I saw an argument that while Cena is an eight in the ring, Flair was a ten. Please explain that one to me...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top