Random Slyfox Comments (questions welcomed, replies not promised)
- Thread starter Slyfox696
- Start date
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Many have signature strategies.
Just as "word forts" are meant to appear as formidable walls of text that don't ever really make any good points, Sly "takes people out into the woods"
You will start the debate with "We could really use a stop sign at this intersection in town" and two posts later you are in the forest 2 miles outside of town arguing over why a family of rabbits chose a particular log to make their den in.
Just as "word forts" are meant to appear as formidable walls of text that don't ever really make any good points, Sly "takes people out into the woods"
You will start the debate with "We could really use a stop sign at this intersection in town" and two posts later you are in the forest 2 miles outside of town arguing over why a family of rabbits chose a particular log to make their den in.
I think people have never truly understood the point I've always tried to make about John Cena.
It's never been "Cena is the best ever". It's that Cena is the best today and so many of the criticisms of him are not valid. Instead of using evidence to draw conclusions, so many people draw conclusions about Cena and then search for evidence to confirm it.
And still smarter than you.
You have it all wrong really.
What you have to remember is that debating, whether in person or even on the Internet, is every bit as much psychological as it is having a firm grasp of facts. Most people have difficulty remembering even their own positions, so any good debater has to be able to remember all positions, draw their opponents position out to the fullest length and be able to go back and check for inconsistencies in their opponents argument. The best part about debates, especially with Cena, is that people many times don't REALLY believe their argument so much as they WANT to believe their argument. They want to believe Cena sucks but the evidence they are trying to use simply doesn't stack up to their preconceived opinions. And that's where you can always find the fatal flaw in the person's argument.
**Sign: You are now leaving town**
Damn!
Seriously though, Norcal, it's not really quite like you said. When I debate, I love to explore the entire space of an argument. If you simply run only on the direct tangent, many times (at least on pro wrestling) it'll come down to a he said, she said type thing. That kind of debating is pointless, in my opinion.
So I love to explore the entire space of an argument, taking apart each and every claim, dissecting it and deciding the validity of it. Usually if I don't respond to a particular part of a post, it's because it's either valid or irrelevant. Otherwise, I'll challenge the point and we'll go from there.
It's honestly not a debating strategy so much as it is fully exploring the space of the argument. And, at the end of the day, I'm posting on an Internet forum, so obviously I have the time, so why not?
Using your tongue-in-cheek comment about Reigns/HHH as an example, I could say "That's dumb, you know Wrestlemania sold the crowd.". Had you been serious, you might say, "They are the headline match, they sold the crowd". If we ended it there, think of all the unexplored subjects we would miss? We'd miss talking about the difference between a perennial draw in Cena vs. Reigns. We'd miss talking about the drawing power of Undertaker's Wrestlemania record, Lesnar and others. We wouldn't have a chance to debate the quality of the build between Reigns and HHH, a story which has been building for a LONG time now.
We're on a forum, we obviously have the time, so why not enjoy ourselves and fully flesh out the argument? Like I said, it's not so much a strategy as it is just a great way to discuss things.
So I love to explore the entire space of an argument, taking apart each and every claim, dissecting it and deciding the validity of it. Usually if I don't respond to a particular part of a post, it's because it's either valid or irrelevant. Otherwise, I'll challenge the point and we'll go from there.
It's honestly not a debating strategy so much as it is fully exploring the space of the argument. And, at the end of the day, I'm posting on an Internet forum, so obviously I have the time, so why not?
Using your tongue-in-cheek comment about Reigns/HHH as an example, I could say "That's dumb, you know Wrestlemania sold the crowd.". Had you been serious, you might say, "They are the headline match, they sold the crowd". If we ended it there, think of all the unexplored subjects we would miss? We'd miss talking about the difference between a perennial draw in Cena vs. Reigns. We'd miss talking about the drawing power of Undertaker's Wrestlemania record, Lesnar and others. We wouldn't have a chance to debate the quality of the build between Reigns and HHH, a story which has been building for a LONG time now.
We're on a forum, we obviously have the time, so why not enjoy ourselves and fully flesh out the argument? Like I said, it's not so much a strategy as it is just a great way to discuss things.
I am curious, if Roman Reigns is as despised by all as claimed, then why do his youtube videos tend to have the highest views consistently, even now(whilst he is at his 'lowest' in terms of momentum). Yes, the Shane O'Mac return got a huge boost as should be expected, but this week's Shane, Taker and Vince segment has done almost a full 100k views less than Roman's beatdown of HHH.
Even Roman's short speech for the Orlando Mania announcement has done more than all the other speeches(including John Cena's).
Your thoughts?
Even Roman's short speech for the Orlando Mania announcement has done more than all the other speeches(including John Cena's).
Your thoughts?
Because, much like it was with Cena, you simply cannot measure how over someone is solely by the reaction of specific crowds. Furthermore, the crowd booing someone is not the opposite of loving someone. The opposite of caring is not caring in another way, the opposite of caring is not caring.
People care about Reigns. So if his videos are doing well, that would explain why.
On the same note: The current fan favourite, Dean Ambrose, is getting almost half the views of Reigns' segments, whilst in a feud with Part-Time star, Brock Lesnar.
Now, I understand Reigns has been given the huge push, but if the argument is that he is hated, and Ambrose is loved, surely, their numbers should be closer to prove such even if Reigns' numbers are ahead, no?
Now, I understand Reigns has been given the huge push, but if the argument is that he is hated, and Ambrose is loved, surely, their numbers should be closer to prove such even if Reigns' numbers are ahead, no?
Again, what you hear through your TV screen isn't always representative of the wrestling community at large.
Also, I still don't get the love of Dean Ambrose.
Personally, I find Dean Ambrose entertaining.
However, I find that he lacks the long-term presence that Roman has, and that the Top Guys have in general, be it Cena, Orton, Batista, Lesnar, Austin, Rock, HHH, etc...
That said; I look forward to seeing how he is handled when the likes of Cena, Orton and Rollins return.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Indeed. I'd put Cena third after only Austin and Hogan. Those two are in another universe.
And still smarter than you.
In the words of a Fozzy song: Keep dreaming. You'll never be me.
Cereal Killer
Boy Better Know
What are your thoughts on the main event from last night?
Probably the non-wrestling segments of HBK/Foley/Austin and Rock/Cena. But that's a little unfair since those guys almost never show up, so it's easy to be entertained/excited for that. And obviously the Shane McMahon spot was a breath catcher.
I think the Styles/Jericho match would have easily been the match of the night, if not for the constant sloppiness/confusion. The story they told was very good and the layout for the match was very good. But the constant timing issues just drug it down so much. Those two just don't seem to have good chemistry together, for whatever reason.
Over the last 5-10 years, it sure does seem that way.
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
I think I remember they you used to rate AJ Styles very highly. I'm pretty sure you've even ranked him in your top 5 at one point. Am I mistaken?
If not, is AJ vs. Cena something you'd like to see?
If not, is AJ vs. Cena something you'd like to see?
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
I'd say Sammartino as well. But I have no problem putting Cena over the Rock.
I think Styles used to be a very good worker, but before his WWE work, I hadn't seen him in a few years. But I always enjoyed his work and included him in my top favorites.
I would enjoy watching that match very much. I think they could do some good work together also.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Well yeah, he's been gone for months and even the most jaded of hardcore fans probably view him as the lesser of two evils when compared to Roman Reigns.
Cereal Killer
Boy Better Know
Do ya think Reigns is the right man to be pushed as the next big thing, or is there someone else you think is more worthy of getting that big push?
Right now, I don't see anyone who has more potential to be a mega superstar. You can never predict lightning in a bottle, but there are certain characteristics which make a superstar and Reigns is as close as they have at the moment. I can easily see him and Rollins being on top for a long while.
Cereal Killer
Boy Better Know
On that note, do you think he's at the stage John Cena was at in let's say 2005, surpassed that stage or just not there yet?
Similar threads
- Poll
