Ongoing Thread For Smarmy Spam Responses to the WZT

[Con T.]

Did you notice that all the past winners where players in the attitude era?

2007 – Shawn Michaels
2008 – Undertaker
2009 – Bret Hart
2010 – Steve Austin
2011 – Steve Austin
2012 – The Rock

Cena would break the trend.

So would Hogan

 

[JGlass]

This is the first time Hogan has made the finals. This will be the second year in a row Cena has made them. I think the only other wrestler to do that was Austin. Do the math. Every day two people that don't like Cena quit watching wrestling while a future Cena mark starts. Any criticisms that you feel Cena unjustifiably gets are the only reasons people will vote against Hogan. Man up and right that wrong before it is too late. If you don't it just proves all the gripes you have had over the years aren't legitimate. You didn't actually care about any of them, you just wanted everyone to be a mark like you. Admit it, you like the chip on your shoulder anyway, subconsciously or not.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but if it's predicated on me caring who wins the tournament I'll have you know you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Con T.]

For the record, I remember saying something along these lines;

Oooh, I like it.

Also, I've put together some rough odds, for who I think will win this tournament, based on word of mouth around here. Here's a rough estimate of where I see certain wrestlers. I'm taking into account past performance,

Hulk Hogan: 5/2 odds (note; if you pick Hulk Hogan, that means you drink twice, brother.)

John Cena: 4/1 odds

 

[ServantofTwilight]

As would Hogan. The difference being a Hogan win would legitimize the tournament.

So would Hogan

No, Hogan was a major player in the attitude era. One could argue that his heel turn with the NWO helped usher in the attitude era.

My point is that yu can see when most voters got into wrestling by when the winners of the tourney were prominent. My guess is that we will start seeing winners from after the attitude era very soon. Cena would be the start.

 

[Con T.]

No, Hogan was a major player in the attitude era. One could argue that his heel turn with the NWO helped usher in the attitude era.

My point is that yu can see when most voters got into wrestling by when the winners of the tourney were prominent. My guess is that we will start seeing winners from after the attitude era very soon. Cena would be the start.

The only wrestler post attitude era that even have a remote chance of winning this is Cena; absolutely no one else could do what he has done. Not Edge, not Batista, not Punk, not Orton.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

The only wrestler post attitude era that even have a remote chance of winning this is Cena; absolutely no one else could do what he has done. Not Edge, not Batista, not Punk, not Orton.

Don't rule out Punk. He made waves last year and probably would have beat Flair if it was anything but in a cage.

 

[Bernkastel]

Punk will win because he's Punk. He's one of the Big 3 in overratedness.

 

[Con T.]

Don't rule out Punk. He made waves last year and probably would have beat Flair if it was anything but in a cage.

Punk will go pretty far; but here's the problem:

When Punk does eventually get to the final eight, at some point, he will run into any of these men.

-Rock
-Austin
-Hogan
-Cena

And that's at least one of them.


Besides Cena, who could you say, of those four, Punk would have a legitimate chance of beating?

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Punk will go pretty far; but here's the problem:

When Punk does eventually get to the final eight, at some point, he will run into any of these men.

-Rock
-Austin
-Hogan
-Cena

And that's at least one of them.


Besides Cena, who could you say, of those four, Punk would have a legitimate chance of beating?

Assuming Punk's popularity continues and the attitude era keeps slipping back then voters who favor Punk will find any reason to push him forward over anyone. Booker T has defeated Bruno Sammartino twice in these tournaments; once in the first round. Fans will find a way. Just look at the fact that Austin has only won twice and Hogan has never won. Two guys who most fans think are wrestling and yet they lose when push comes to shove.

 

[Bernkastel]

Punk will go pretty far; but here's the problem:

When Punk does eventually get to the final eight, at some point, he will run into any of these men.

-Rock
-Austin
-Hogan
-Cena

And that's at least one of them.


Besides Cena, who could you say, of those four, Punk would have a legitimate chance of beating?

Not to mention other ginormous draws like Sammartino, Thesz, Santo, Rikidozan, and possibly Savage or Sting.

 

[Bernkastel]

Assuming Punk's popularity continues and the attitude era keeps slipping back then voters who favor Punk will find any reason to push him forward over anyone. Booker T has defeated Bruno Sammartino twice in these tournaments; once in the first round. Fans will find a way. Just look at the fact that Austin has only won twice and Hogan has never won. Two guys who most fans think are wrestling and yet they lose when push comes to shove.

But how many of those people actually knew what the fuck they were talking about? It wasn't even widely accepted by all the regulars that Cena could do more than 5 moves until 2009.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Not to mention other ginormous draws like Sammartino, Thesz, Santo, Rikidozan, and possibly Savage or Sting.

Won't matter. Sammartino, as much as I hate to say this, has gotten as far as I think he ever will. Punk lost to Thesz by 7 last year. He will beat Thesz if they meet again. Santo had a great run but was due mostly to location. Rikidozen might make a second round but will never go deep. Savage will be called a second fiddle and Sting the top draw of a secondary company.

No Punk has a good chance of winning one of these in the near future.

 

[Con T.]

Not to mention other ginormous draws like Sammartino, Thesz, Santo, Rikidozan, and possibly Savage or Sting.

See, this is going to be a problem, too;

This tournament, it seems, is a battle of attrition. I know we say that for certain rounds, wrestlers are fresh, but there has to be a certain sort of thought process from the voters; how far do I think this wrestler would go?

Last year was actually more impresssive to me, than his run last year. He beat Edge, Bret, and Andre to get to the finals, but he lost to Lou Thesz. At some point, posters thought, "Punk's won a lot, but I can't reason voting for him", save the delusional Punk fans. And there are far more normal (for the IWC) wrestling fans than there are delusional Punk fans.

This tournament is a battle of attrition, in spite of what we may believe

 

[ServantofTwilight]

But how many of those people actually knew what the fuck they were talking about? It wasn't even widely accepted by all the regulars that Cena could do more than 5 moves until 2009.

That's kind of my point. People will vote for the shiny new thing they see week in and week out rather then an established but older star. That is not to say that every now and then one might sneak in or have a big push( Bruno and the hall of fame ), but in the end I believe the winners of this thing will only getter younger not older.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

See, this is going to be a problem, too;

This tournament, it seems, is a battle of attrition. I know we say that for certain rounds, wrestlers are fresh, but there has to be a certain sort of thought process from the voters; how far do I think this wrestler would go?

Last year was actually more impresssive to me, than his run last year. He beat Edge, Bret, and Andre to get to the finals, but he lost to Lou Thesz. At some point, posters thought, "Punk's won a lot, but I can't reason voting for him", save the delusional Punk fans. And there are far more normal (for the IWC) wrestling fans than there are delusional Punk fans.

This tournament is a battle of attrition, in spite of what we may believe

Last year only 7 more. And the gimmick killed Punk this year.

 

[Con T.]

Last year only 7 more. And the gimmick killed Punk this year.

Well, let's just say he beats Flair.

Then he faces Cena; that's a 50/50 chance of winning at best. Then he faces Andre, a guy who pretty much everyone acknowledged would have beaten Punk were it not a gimmick (and essentially spawned it's own meme, "Andre can't climb a ladder"). Then, he faces Hogan.

In a three round tournament, no matter how young the audience gets, what are the odds he beats all three men, in one night?

The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for Joe... Err... Punk

 

[shattered dreams]

I could maybe see Punk winning one of these, but there will be a narrow window of opportunity and it won't be "soon."

 

[Con T.]

"Hulk's prime was in WCW"

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

He did have 2 hot periods. But his prime unequally was in WWF.

 

[Con T.]

It's going to take some pretty good arguments to argue why Cena should win.

So far, color me unimpressed

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

8 years consecutively THE face of the biggest wrestling promotion of that span?

No?

 

[Con T.]

That would be a good start;

Of course, even in that time, Cena suffered many a puzzling loss. And you'd have to answer the problem of a weaker, less star studded talent pool

 

[Con T.]

Also, how is this any different from Hogan?

 

[Bernkastel]

8 years consecutively THE face of the biggest wrestling promotion of that span?

No?

No. Because while the WWE may be a larger and more viable company now than it was in the 80's, they still aren't capable of drawing the attention and money with Cena that they did 25 years ago with Hogan. And whether or not you blame the economy or the fanbase or lack of marquee stars or whatever, point is Cena - despite having a larger pool to draw from - still can't draw like Hogan did.

And it's not like we are comparing one country to another here; Cena worked the same cities and regions as Hogan did and was less successful.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Hmmm but its akin to this, Hogan lost to the top babyfaces of his hot periods: Warrior and Goldberg. Hogan has a crack in his shield.