Ongoing Thread For Smarmy Spam Responses to the WZT | Page 8 | WrestleZone Forums

Ongoing Thread For Smarmy Spam Responses to the WZT

A lot of guys would say I'm "reaching" by saying that. But then again, aren't all of our arguments in this tournament considered to be "reaching?"

Regardless, I love backing Owen in this tournament. And although he'd never win it, I truly believe in my heart and soul that he's LEAGUES above Jeff Hardy. I also fully expected Owen to lose the round. But at least now I feel better for making a good argument.

Anyone who is arguing for Jeff Hardy over Owen based on primes, titles, and big wins better also be choosing The Miz over Kane. Yet somehow I don't see that happening.
 
Well, I dunno about you, but I seem to remember his aerial arsenal...

[YOUTUBE]UOSYcM4AJ8k[/YOUTUBE]

Well sure but the problem is that WCW management asked him to do it, and Sid never felt comfortable with it. He told them he had his doubts and told them about the issues with his legs, but they insisted on him doing it anyway to differentiate himself from other big men.

If any guy his size tried to do a top rope big boot and were near 300 pounds comes down on one leg you would likely have the same result each time.
 
Well sure but the problem is that WCW management asked him to do it, and Sid never felt comfortable with it. He told them he had his doubts and told them about the issues with his legs, but they insisted on him doing it anyway to differentiate himself from other big men.

If any guy his size tried to do a top rope big boot where near 300 pounds comes down on one leg you would likely have the same result each time.

A big boot from the top rope is ******ed. He was supposed to do a dropkick, but I guess someone should have made sure he could do a standard dropkick before asking him to do one from the top rope.
 
A big boot from the top rope is ******ed. He was supposed to do a dropkick, but I guess someone should have made sure he could do a standard dropkick before asking him to do one from the top rope.

Asking someone Sid's age to do anything off the top rope when he already had bad wheels and was self-conscious about doing it in the first place is ******ed. It would be different if he had been leaping off the top rope his entire career, but the only move I've ever seen Sid do off the turnbuckles is a double axe-handle.
 
We should assume this is a joke and move on, correct? Good deal.

Just for the sake of argument there was a time during the Edge/Matt feud where Matt was extremely over, and they could have cashed in on it, but then they realized he was still the same whiny bitch regardless of how "over" he was getting... Then they made fun of him and jobbed him out until he ate himself to the point you could have cut off the excess fat and formed a third Hardy brother.
 
My main argument in that thread was if you took the first nine years of both men's careers (Owen died in his ninth year so this would make both men even,) Owen accomplished more than Jeff.

Regardless of anyone's rebuttle, I truly believe Owen is not given a fair shake because he died. I don't feel it's fair to judge Jeff Hardy based on his accomplishments after his ninth year when, if Owen lived, he hypothetically could have accomplished the same things. Especially since both men had such similar beginnings to their careers.

Agree with me or disagree... no matter. I will always support Owen and I will always believe what I believe: that Jeff Hardy's career has been exaggerated far more than Owen's before his death.
 
Steve Austin didn't win his first WWF world championship until nine years into his career. The same is true of Triple H. It took Mick Foley thirteen years. But no, if you arbitrarily discount Jeff Hardy's actual prime and invent a future for a dead man that never actually happened...
 
Oh, Sam... you're so clever. But last I checked, Austin, Triple H and Mick Foley aren't dead.

Who said anything about "inventing a future"? Once again, we can make our arguments in any way that we see fit. My argument is that we can either base both wrestlers primes on an unfair comparison of 9 years in the business versus 14 (where all of Jeff's major accomplishments happened after his tenth year) or we could even the playing field and make it more fair.
 
I think if you had argued it spun slightly differently, you would've been better off. Instead of cutting Jeff off at nine years (which I showed was wrong anyway ;)), you could've instead said they had nearly identical careers until the point that Owen died. Then use Jeff's future success against him and say that Owen would've had a similar career trajectory.
 
Although we will never really know I've heard numerous times that Owen just wanted to put enough money away to retire which I've also heard that he was damn close to achieving when he died. I've heard both Bret, Owen's family and his wife all say that he may have wrestled another 2 years tops before he left the business for good.

Owen was probably the only member of the Hart family that wasn't a mark, he just wanted to get paid so he could get his money and get out. Hart liked wrestling but his love was his family.

Of course there is no way of really knowing this. You don't know what a person is really gonna do but going with all I've heard my guess is by WM18 Owen probably wouldn't have been wrestling anymore anyways. To be fair I just don't see between those years Owen becoming a main eventer and champion, especially if it was widely believed he was close to retiring as it is when you have a shit ton of talent that can carry the ball.
 
My laptop is in 'the shop' and I'm on my phone so I can't quote D-Man. Special thanks to the the two ***** who posted in between us without predicting this very specific problem.

Who said anything about "inventing a future"? You did:

"I don't feel it's fair to judge Jeff Hardy based on his accomplishments after his ninth year when, if Owen lived, he hypothetically could have accomplished the same things."

Certainly we can vote and argue how we like, but I'd expect to be ridiculed if I made a ridiculous argument. For example - what did Jeff Hardy do after his first nine years? Win world titles and take world champions like Triple H, John Cena, The Undertaker and CM Punk to the limit. What did Owen Hart do? Not much.

Jeff Hardy is a multiple time world champion. Owen Hart is, at best, a could-have-been midcarder. I'm sorry Owen didn't do more before he died, but I'm not putting him over people who accomplished more just because he had a short career.
 
Remind me to rep you when I get my laptop back. I was beginning to think I was on the receiving end of some grotesque prank.
 
Oh, Sam... you're so clever. But last I checked, Austin, Triple H and Mick Foley aren't dead.

Who said anything about "inventing a future"? Once again, we can make our arguments in any way that we see fit. My argument is that we can either base both wrestlers primes on an unfair comparison of 9 years in the business versus 14 (where all of Jeff's major accomplishments happened after his tenth year) or we could even the playing field and make it more fair.
If this now constitutes a legitimate argument, I'll never again feel bad for voting for Eddie Guerrero.
 
I hope that anyone who votes for Michaels to go over Lesnar in the 2nd round gets verbally raped in this thread unless they use succinct reasoning.

But then again, this tournament isn't known for succinct reasoning.
 
not after reading that I don't

just because I don'r doesn't mean I can't

The military gives you computer privileges?

I can't see this board voting Inoki over Brock.

I wouldn't vote Inoki over Brock.

Neither would I. I can't stand Inoki.

That's because you'd also vote CM Punk over Andre. If the board wants to do things the right way like the tournament supposed to be then they would.

I would too, but that's only because I have CM Punk winning this whole thing, and I kind of want to win that bracket thingy.

Well that can't just be it; Echelon. Why, We need to bring in Dave Meltzer, and snide that he gave Misawa twenty million five star matches, because Dave Meltzer is a puro mark, and he's a jackass, and herp a derp a derp

This is sarcasm but I'm confused. Are you mocking shareholders (man...regardless of how you felt about him, Sidious was one clever bastard with the terminology) or puro marks?

I've come up with a new formula to vote.

Step 1- See who Dagger voted for.

Step 2- Vote for the other guy.

He did something ridiculous last year but I forget what it was. I think it was something along the lines of voting for Mick Foley over Jushin Liger in a match that took place in the Tokyo Dome. He along with one other guy were the only two people that voted for him.
 
He did something ridiculous last year but I forget what it was. I think it was something along the lines of voting for Mick Foley over Jushin Liger in a match that took place in the Tokyo Dome. He along with one other guy were the only two people that voted for him.

Foley beat Liger last year. I was so pissed. There were like 15 posts in the thread, 12 of them for Liger, but Foley got around twice as many votes.
 

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