Second Round : Denver - El Santo vs. Booker T

[klunderbunker]

This is a second round matchup in the Denver Subregion. The ring and arena are universal throughout the first round and the organization is not a factor. There is a 20 minute time limit. Vote using any criteria you like. Most votes in the poll at the end of the time period wins. In the case of a tie we will go off of the number of written votes. In the case of a second tie, both are eliminated. Assume one week has passed since the first match.

Location: Pepsi Center, Denver, Colorado.

El Santo

Vs.

Booker T

Voting is open for 4 days.

 

[Big Sexy]

95% if not more of the people that are going to vote for El Santo are voting completely based off of what they read from wikipedia where it talks about how he was the Mexican Hulk Hogan. This isn't even like people voting for guys from the 70's like Sammartino where you can at least find some matches on youtube. You can look up El Santo all you want but I highly doubt you will find a complete match from him.

I'm not going to claim to be some Mexican wrestling enthusiast because I'm not but what I do know is that Booker T was a highly underrated professional wrestler. Great in the ring, great on the mic, highly entertaining, and he is a more then accomplished enough competitor to deserve your vote in this match up.

I'm sure Tastycles will come in here and wow you with stories and wikipedia facts about how great El Santo is and how he should go over pretty much everyone in this tournament, but the fact remains that it is highly unlikely 95% of the people voting in this thread have ever, or will ever see an El Santo match. Don't vote completely on hearsay. Vote for who you know is a tremendous performer and deserves to move on. Vote Booker T.

 

[gd]

Do you want to see an El Santo match? How bout a match against Hulk Hogan, and one that Santo wins no less. This should give a lot of people a good idea of the Santo is capable of doing in the ring.


That's right, Santo just beat the Hulkster. Booker may have called him the N word, but he's certainly never beaten him.

Really though, Santo is like the best Mexican wrestler ever. Name me someone better. You can't. Booker, on the other hand, isn't even close to being one of the greatest American wrestlers ever. I love Booker as much as the next guy. I was genuinely entertained by his schizophrenic TNA character more than 90% of things in wrestling nowadays. That being said, El Santo has some pretty entertaining stuff from random low budget movies and he is more than good enough to beat Booker T in a wrestling match.

 

[Big Sexy]

If your voting criteria is 1. Who was the more influential wrestler or 2. Who starred in more shitty, low budget films then I guess Santo should get your vote. However, if I see anybody using different criteria in other matches then they will get called out on it. So everyone voting for Santo be prepared to keep using your influential and shitty movie arguments for the rest of the tournament.

 

[gd]

If your voting criteria is 1. Who was the more influential wrestler or 2. Who starred in more shitty, low budget films then I guess Santo should get your vote. However, if I see anybody using different criteria in other matches then they will get called out on it. So everyone voting for Santo be prepared to keep using your influential and shitty movie arguments for the rest of the tournament.

The movie argument was slightly a joke. It shouldn't be used in this tournament. Unless, of course, you're talking about Andre and the Princess Bride, in which case it certainly should be used. The whole movie thing is probably pretty low on reasons to vote for El Santo, with all the other stuff such as him beinga demigod and all. Honestly, I may not be using the same criteria for every mathc. I feel it's better to take it on a match by match basis when it comes to how I vote.

 

[Tastycles]

95% if not more of the people that are going to vote for El Santo are voting completely based off of what they read from wikipedia where it talks about how he was the Mexican Hulk Hogan.

95% of people who vote for Booker T will do so having never seen an El Santo match nor without knowing anything about him. Booker T is not in the sort of league where you can make the assumption that he's better than any foreign wrestler.

This isn't even like people voting for guys from the 70's like Sammartino where you can at least find some matches on youtube. You can look up El Santo all you want but I highly doubt you will find a complete match from him.

You mean like this:

[YOUTUBE]_mgmpRZ1bQY[/YOUTUBE]

That wasn't very hard at all.

I'm not going to claim to be some Mexican wrestling enthusiast because I'm not but what I do know is that Booker T was a highly underrated professional wrestler. Great in the ring, great on the mic, highly entertaining, and he is a more then accomplished enough competitor to deserve your vote in this match up.

Santo was probably worse than Booker T in the ring, I'm not sure, there isn't much in it either way, and the different styles make it hard to assess. Santo certainly wasn't Chris Benoit in the ring, but he was a populist, who had his signatures that got him over. Kind of like every major star in wrestling history. As for mic skills, my Spanish isn't good enough to judge it, to be honest with you and I doubt yours is, and entertainment, is as ever a subjective thing. Santo certainly breached the mainstream, something Booker T never did, which would suggest he was less entertaining. As for accomplishment, winning titles when WCW was in the toilet doesn't really compare to carrying an entire country's wrestling establishment.

I'm sure Tastycles will come in here and wow you with stories and wikipedia facts about how great El Santo is and how he should go over pretty much everyone in this tournament, but the fact remains that it is highly unlikely 95% of the people voting in this thread have ever, or will ever see an El Santo match. Don't vote completely on hearsay. Vote for who you know is a tremendous performer and deserves to move on. Vote Booker T.

The fact of the matter is, Santo is a better wrestler than Booker T. More succesful, more popular, more influential, it's as simple as that. I'm sick to death of this wikipedia bullshit. Firstly, the fact its on Wikipedia doesn't stop it being true. Secondly, I'd like you to read Santo's wiki, and then read this thread on Santo,

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=1134153&postcount=1

And tell me what comes from Wikipedia. Zero. But nice try to attack the man when your argument is shit.

Do you know what hearsay evidence even means? Hearsay is if I just tell you about Santo. What I'm doing is showing people evidence. It is just as hearsay as a vote for anyone who stopped wrestling before our predominate eras. That means that evidence of Hulkamania is hearsay for most people on this board. Well, actually it isn't, but by your incorrect definitition it is.

So, external evidence... Want testimony from other people, look here:

http://www.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingFeatures/santo.html

Want video proof of him winning, look here:

[YOUTUBE]d5WAw8E539E[/YOUTUBE]

Want proof of his importance to Mexico, look at the pictures of the statues in that thread I just reposted.

If your voting criteria is 1. Who was the more influential wrestler

A pretty important criterion in a "greatest ever wrestler tournament", if you ask me.

or 2. Who starred in more shitty, low budget films then I guess Santo should get your vote.

Santo's shitty films actually serve a useful purpose. They give the best account of his matches, which were interspersed throughout his films. For example this one:

[YOUTUBE]OaPy2I8W408[/YOUTUBE]

Seems to me that for someone with "no complete matches", Santo has had quite a lot of complete matches, and for that I thank you, shitty lucha films.

However, if I see anybody using different criteria in other matches then they will get called out on it. So everyone voting for Santo be prepared to keep using your influential and shitty movie arguments for the rest of the tournament.

Santo of course also would win this on a number of other criteria kayfabe, popularity, actually, I'm struggling to think of a category that Booker T would actually win this match on. World titles maybe. He's won more world heavyweight titles, but then, David Arquette has won more than Ted DiBiase, and Mexican wrestling doesn't really have titles in the same way, so even that point is fairly pointless.

 

[Suneeboy]

Booker T will wax the floor with this guy. I don't care how influential he is. Rey Mysterio is a bigger international star than Santo, and Booker beat Rey Mysterio, for the World Title no less. Booker has beaten a ton of luchadors in the past, and El Santo will be no different. Santo has never stepped foot in the ring with a guy as big, athletic, and unorthodox as Booker T. No way in hell I'm voting for Santo over Booker T. It takes a lot to put Booker out, and Santo doesn't have it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Booker T will wax the floor with this guy. I don't care how influential he is. Rey Mysterio is a bigger international star than Santo, and Booker beat Rey Mysterio, for the World Title no less. Booker has beaten a ton of luchadors in the past, and El Santo will be no different. Santo has never stepped foot in the ring with a guy as big, athletic, and unorthodox as Booker T. No way in hell I'm voting for Santo over Booker T. It takes a lot to put Booker out, and Santo doesn't have it.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmaLrvWEr_I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmaLrvWEr_I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

This little match occured two months before Booker would win King in the Ring and four months before he would become World Heavyweight Champion. It sure does take a lot to put Booker T out doesn't it?

Santo shits all over Mysterio as a international star? I'll go far as to say that Eddie Guerrero was a greater international star than Rey was due to Eddie's work in Japan.

I didn't know Booker has faced 2000 luchadors. Or maybe it was 2204. Maybe you wanted to put tonne instead of ton.

 

[Big Sexy]

95% of people who vote for Booker T will do so having never seen an El Santo match nor without knowing anything about him. Booker T is not in the sort of league where you can make the assumption that he's better than any foreign wrestler.

I never said they wouldn't, it works both ways. People always complain about legends in this tournament losing because people don't take time to learn about them but they win on some occasions just because one poster takes an interest, finds some internet facts and makes them into a post. Not knocking you at all for it, I'm impressed with the effort you show for the old school but a lot of people probably don't read half of what you typed. They see legend and decide that's enough of a reason to vote against Booker T.

You mean like this:



That wasn't very hard at all.

I typed El Santo into youtube and looked through multiple pages. I then typed El Santo matches and looked through a few pages. I always try to look up a guy I don't know but I'm not going to waste too much of time doing it. Thanks for posting that match but it doesn't do anything to change my views on who should win.

Santo was probably worse than Booker T in the ring, I'm not sure, there isn't much in it either way, and the different styles make it hard to assess. Santo certainly wasn't Chris Benoit in the ring, but he was a populist, who had his signatures that got him over. Kind of like every major star in wrestling history. As for mic skills, my Spanish isn't good enough to judge it, to be honest with you and I doubt yours is, and entertainment, is as ever a subjective thing. Santo certainly breached the mainstream, something Booker T never did, which would suggest he was less entertaining. As for accomplishment, winning titles when WCW was in the toilet doesn't really compare to carrying an entire country's wrestling establishment.

Ah the typical "Booker T won the world title when WCW sucked argument." People act like his entire career was that one year period. He worked his way up through WCW and was one of the few young guys to get the title. Did it come at a time when WCW sucked? Sure it did, but that doesn't mean that those 4 reigns should be completely dismissed as not being credible. Lets also not forget his time in the WWE where he was the ONLY WCW guy from the Invasion angle to actually make it to the main event in the WWE. He won a world title, had a world title match at a Wrestlemania, was the 16th triple crown champion, and the eighth grand slam champion.

The fact of the matter is, Santo is a better wrestler than Booker T. More succesful, more popular, more influential, it's as simple as that. I'm sick to death of this wikipedia bullshit. Firstly, the fact its on Wikipedia doesn't stop it being true. Secondly, I'd like you to read Santo's wiki, and then read this thread on Santo,

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpo...53&postcount=1

And tell me what comes from Wikipedia. Zero. But nice try to attack the man when your argument is shit.

I never said wikipedia facts weren't true and whatever website you got the facts from is irrelevant to me. It doesn't change the fact that besides a few youtube clips that show a few minutes of chopped up wrestling action from the man, the only thing people have to base their vote off of is what they read about him.

Do you know what hearsay evidence even means? Hearsay is if I just tell you about Santo. What I'm doing is showing people evidence. It is just as hearsay as a vote for anyone who stopped wrestling before our predominate eras. That means that evidence of Hulkamania is hearsay for most people on this board. Well, actually it isn't, but by your incorrect definitition it is.

Again besides the few youtube clips that really don't show evidence of in ring greatness, pretty much everything written about Santo on the internet is from people who either weren't alive when Santo was in his prime, or didn't know anything about the guy until after he was dead.

So, external evidence... Want testimony from other people, look here:

http://www.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingFeatures/santo.html

Want video proof of him winning, look here:

Again more people telling me that he was very influential and transcended Mexican wrestling. I'm not disputing any of that, but that's really all there is. Lets just make the final four Santo, Hogan, Baba, and Stu Hart and be done with it.

Santo of course also would win this on a number of other criteria kayfabe, popularity, actually, I'm struggling to think of a category that Booker T would actually win this match on. World titles maybe. He's won more world heavyweight titles, but then, David Arquette has won more than Ted DiBiase, and Mexican wrestling doesn't really have titles in the same way, so even that point is fairly pointless.

I always found it hard to say someone whose prime was in the 1940's to the 60's would kayfabe beat a guy from the 90's and 2000's. It was two completely different eras of wrestling and in this case two completely different cultures. So again, I guess if your criteria is a guy that was extremely influential then vote for Santo. I choose to vote for the very successful and entertaining wrestler that I saw great matches and great promos from. A guy with the strength and speed to compete with and defeat guys like John Cena, Goldberg, Kurt Angle, Benoit, Big Show, Jericho, and RVD.

It's obviously two different criteria that we are voting on and a vote for El Santo isn't exactly a bad one. I just find it funny that the majority of the people voting for El Santo in this round are going to turn around and vote for Shawn Michaels in the next round.

 

[thepalaceprince]

Booker wins this one for a couple reasons 1)spinarooni 2) Ive actually seen booker wrestle Ive seen him 100s of times and I know hes a great competetior and hes incredibly entertaining. Im sure el santo is very talented but he wrestled in mexico. I live in a 1st world country idc what you accomplish in mexico its meaningless to me. 3) did I mention the freaking spinarooni?

 

[Hulkamaniac]

I want to get really annoyed about this, but after watching Booker ridiculously go over Bruno Sammartino in the first round, I just can't. This shouldn't be close, it's El Santo in a landslide. He outdrew Booker T by a ridiculous amount, had more charisma then almost anyone in wrestling history (notice I didn't say Mexican wrestling). Booker T, meanwhile, is a amusing character who mostly does comedic stuff and once lost to the freaking Boogey Man at Wrestlemania. Do the right thing. Vote Santo.

 

[Snow_Leopard]

This would probably be a really close match and I'm guessing a definite classic. Both wrestlers are legendary in their own rights. Booker T has a definite size and strength advantage here and would give El Santo a run for his money but I see him tapping out to the Camel Clutch.

Winner - El Santo

 

[Lancer]

I hate to seem like I'm disrespecting Santo here, but I have to vote for Booker in this one. Booker is no doubt the greater physical and athletic specimen of the two. Sure, Santo is a legend, I know that much. But unfortunately I know little about him besides hearsay, and the videos Tasty has posted here.

And lest we not forget that Booker took Chris Benoit to the limit (and eventually emerged victorious) in their best-of-7 series for the WCW TV Title. That alone is reason enough for me to vote for Booker T.

Sucka.

 

[Tastycles]

I never said they wouldn't, it works both ways. People always complain about legends in this tournament losing because people don't take time to learn about them but they win on some occasions just because one poster takes an interest, finds some internet facts and makes them into a post. Not knocking you at all for it, I'm impressed with the effort you show for the old school but a lot of people probably don't read half of what you typed. They see legend and decide that's enough of a reason to vote against Booker T.

True, but since I made my post the people who have voted for Booker T, have cited a) The Spinaroonie and b) the fact that he beat somebody noticably shorter than Santo, and who weighed 2 and a half stone less. The amount of people seeing recognisable name Booker T, the man who lost the WCW Championship to Vince Russo, and just clicking it are greater in number.

I typed El Santo into youtube and looked through multiple pages. I then typed El Santo matches and looked through a few pages. I always try to look up a guy I don't know but I'm not going to waste too much of time doing it. Thanks for posting that match but it doesn't do anything to change my views on who should win.

When searching luchadors, remember they always have quite generic names in Spanish. Type in "Santo lucha" and quite a lot comes up quickly.

Ah the typical "Booker T won the world title when WCW sucked argument." People act like his entire career was that one year period. He worked his way up through WCW and was one of the few young guys to get the title. Did it come at a time when WCW sucked? Sure it did, but that doesn't mean that those 4 reigns should be completely dismissed as not being credible. Lets also not forget his time in the WWE where he was the ONLY WCW guy from the Invasion angle to actually make it to the main event in the WWE. He won a world title, had a world title match at a Wrestlemania, was the 16th triple crown champion, and the eighth grand slam champion.

Booker T became a main eventer in WWE 6 years after his stint at the top of WCW. He was the only person that came across in the Invasion who was feasible as a world champion, so he got given the title. He was the face of the WCW during the Invasion, and wasn't strong enough to take that forward.

I never said wikipedia facts weren't true and whatever website you got the facts from is irrelevant to me. It doesn't change the fact that besides a few youtube clips that show a few minutes of chopped up wrestling action from the man, the only thing people have to base their vote off of is what they read about him.

But what does that matter. Which event was more significant in world history? The signing of the declaration of independance, or the old woman who's cat got stuck up a tree. Only I saw one of those events transpire on the local news on television, but I've only read about the other one.

Again besides the few youtube clips that really don't show evidence of in ring greatness, pretty much everything written about Santo on the internet is from people who either weren't alive when Santo was in his prime, or didn't know anything about the guy until after he was dead.

What?! He died in the 80s, and was still wrestling into the 70s. Indeed, his "prime" was in the late 50s. I'm pretty sure there's about 50 million Mexicans who were alive in the 1970s. That being said, it doesn't matter if those people were alive or not in his prime. Nobody has 10,000 people at their funeral for no reason.

Again more people telling me that he was very influential and transcended Mexican wrestling. I'm not disputing any of that, but that's really all there is. Lets just make the final four Santo, Hogan, Baba, and Stu Hart and be done with it.

I don't know enough about Japanese wrestling to comment on Baba, and not really sure why you included a man that was primarily a promoter and trainer, but if Santo and Hogan were in the last four, it would be a vindication that this tournament finds the true greatest.

I always found it hard to say someone whose prime was in the 1940's to the 60's would kayfabe beat a guy from the 90's and 2000's. It was two completely different eras of wrestling and in this case two completely different cultures.

I see your point, I really do, and you are the only person making an intelligent argument for Booker T, which is why you're being dignified with a response. However, this isn't the difference between shootfighting and pro wrestling, and somebody could debut with Santo's moveset tomorrow. He finished most matches with a submission hold, a method that Booker T has lost by multiple times.

So again, I guess if your criteria is a guy that was extremely influential then vote for Santo. I choose to vote for the very successful and entertaining wrestler that I saw great matches and great promos from. A guy with the strength and speed to compete with and defeat guys like John Cena, Goldberg, Kurt Angle, Benoit, Big Show, Jericho, and RVD.

It's obviously two different criteria that we are voting on and a vote for El Santo isn't exactly a bad one. I just find it funny that the majority of the people voting for El Santo in this round are going to turn around and vote for Shawn Michaels in the next round.

Absolutely. I appreciate your arguments. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will vote Santo then Michaels, but hopefully that won't happen.

 

[Big Sexy]

True, but since I made my post the people who have voted for Booker T, have cited a) The Spinaroonie and b) the fact that he beat somebody noticably shorter than Santo, and who weighed 2 and a half stone less. The amount of people seeing recognisable name Booker T, the man who lost the WCW Championship to Vince Russo, and just clicking it are greater in number.

I'll agree with you there.

When searching luchadors, remember they always have quite generic names in Spanish. Type in "Santo lucha" and quite a lot comes up quickly.

Duly noted

Booker T became a main eventer in WWE 6 years after his stint at the top of WCW. He was the only person that came across in the Invasion who was feasible as a world champion, so he got given the title. He was the face of the WCW during the Invasion, and wasn't strong enough to take that forward.

He didn't win the title until 6 years after but he had been around the main event scene and getting title shots from day one.

But what does that matter. Which event was more significant in world history? The signing of the declaration of independance, or the old woman who's cat got stuck up a tree. Only I saw one of those events transpire on the local news on television, but I've only read about the other one.

If I was basing my vote solely on historical relevance and influence then Santo would get my vote no doubt, but that isn't my only criteria.

What?! He died in the 80s, and was still wrestling into the 70s. Indeed, his "prime" was in the late 50s. I'm pretty sure there's about 50 million Mexicans who were alive in the 1970s. That being said, it doesn't matter if those people were alive or not in his prime. Nobody has 10,000 people at their funeral for no reason.

I understand his importance to the Mexican Wrestling scene and the country as a whole as an iconic figure, but by the 70's he was well into his 50's and his appearances and matches were probably Ric Flair like in nature (WWE Ric Flair from a few years ago, not psycho TNA Flair who goes crazy and blades himself).

I don't know enough about Japanese wrestling to comment on Baba, and not really sure why you included a man that was primarily a promoter and trainer, but if Santo and Hogan were in the last four, it would be a vindication that this tournament finds the true greatest.

I was just trying to get the most influential names I could from different countries. Not sure why I put Stu hart in there.

I see your point, I really do, and you are the only person making an intelligent argument for Booker T, which is why you're being dignified with a response. However, this isn't the difference between shootfighting and pro wrestling, and somebody could debut with Santo's moveset tomorrow. He finished most matches with a submission hold, a method that Booker T has lost by multiple times.

Booker T has also defeated many submission wrestlers, and many different styles in general. He has wins over Kurt Angle, multiple wins over Chris Benoit, wins over Guerrero, Cena, Goldberg, Big Show, RVD. Booker T has fought and defeated every style of wrestling imaginable and has wins over some of the best the wrestling business has to offer.

 

[Suneeboy]

This little match occured two months before Booker would win King in the Ring and four months before he would become World Heavyweight Champion. It sure does take a lot to put Booker T out doesn't it?

Santo shits all over Mysterio as a international star? I'll go far as to say that Eddie Guerrero was a greater international star than Rey was due to Eddie's work in Japan.

I didn't know Booker has faced 2000 luchadors. Or maybe it was 2204. Maybe you wanted to put tonne instead of ton.

Fuck that Boogeyman match man, let's get real here. The Boogeyman was a joke character and the people he beat was a result of bad booking, not due to skill. The guy was released when they realized that no matter how good they "thought" the gimmick was, the guy was shit and just couldn't get over.

Booker T wins this match, and should not get knocked out of the tournament by fucking El Santo. Let's let someone who can actually kick his ass take him out. El Santo ain't it.

 

[8thwotwATG]

Booker is nowhere near the league of wrestler that Santo is, This man carried his entire COUNTRY in this biz, Santo should go over easy here. Santo is one of the greatest stars the business has ever seen, the hogan of Mexico. Not to mention the fact that he should have never gone over Sammartino, but that's in the past.
Vote El Santo.

 

[Big Sexy]

Booker is nowhere near the league of wrestler that Santo is

Why? Give me reasons why Santo is a better wrestler. All he has on Booker T is influence. He was the first major wrestler to get over in Mexico and is an icon there, but why does that alone mean he would beat Booker T. Especially in a match that is taking place in America.

Not to mention the fact that he should have never gone over Sammartino, but that's in the past.

I already proved why Booker should and did go over Sammartino. I didn't see you making any compelling arguments for Bruno.

 

[Tastycles]

In my previous post I said that Big Sexy was the only person who's arguments were good enough to be dignified with a response. However, sometimes someone makes a post so bad, you just have to step in.

Fuck that Boogeyman match man, let's get real here. The Boogeyman was a joke character and the people he beat was a result of bad booking, not due to skill. The guy was released when they realized that no matter how good they "thought" the gimmick was, the guy was shit and just couldn't get over.

So what? The fact of the matter is that Booker T lost to a dogshit wrestler because he wasn't perceived as good enough not to, if you want to go down the booking route. Booker T has lost to both The Boogeyman and fucking Vince Russo in professional wrestling matches. Santo has never lost to anyone like that.

Wah, wah that was bad booking

You don't see fucking Goldberg losing to Vince Russo or John Cena losing to The Boogeyman do you? You know why? Because they were good enough to be protected by booking, Booker T wasn't, so he jobbed out. A lot.

Booker T wins this match, and should not get knocked out of the tournament by fucking El Santo. Let's let someone who can actually kick his ass take him out. El Santo ain't it.

Serious question, do you know who El Santo is? Because you seem to think that he's some nobody. Santo was popular wherever he went. Booker T was popular when he was in WCW and there was nobody else there. He was moderately popular at times in TNA.

Why? Give me reasons why Santo is a better wrestler. All he has on Booker T is influence. He was the first major wrestler to get over in Mexico and is an icon there, but why does that alone mean he would beat Booker T. Especially in a match that is taking place in America.

Because everywhere Booker T has been, international stars do well. Booker T was a success in WCW, and less so in TNA, where international stars did well to. If we're talking WWE, then ok, foreign stars don't do that well, but then neither did Booker. When he finally got his World Title the WWE was pushing international stars like it never had before - Rey Mysterio, though American, is booked as a Mexican, The Great Khali was running wild and even fucking Finlay got world title shots. In short, when Booker T does well, sodo foreign stars, location is not a factor.

As for being a better wrestler, it's difficult to see what you mean. I mean, Santo's finisher may have been a camel clutch, but he had plenty of interesting things in his arsenal, as do all luchadors, so I don't think you can argue move set. Booker T is hardly a technical god, so that aspect is covered. Charisma? Well Booker T can do a spinaroony, but to be honest, I doubt that's enough to outweigh a man who was charismatic enough to be put into films.

He didn't win the title until 6 years after but he had been around the main event scene and getting title shots from day one.

Not really. He was tagging with Goldust and jobbing to the main eventers for a long while.

If I was basing my vote solely on historical relevance and influence then Santo would get my vote no doubt, but that isn't my only criteria.

What else are your criteria? Because Santo is a bigger draw, had similar match quality, was more over with the crowd, and would probably be able to beat a man that lost to Vince Russo in kayfabe.

I understand his importance to the Mexican Wrestling scene and the country as a whole as an iconic figure, but by the 70's he was well into his 50's and his appearances and matches were probably Ric Flair like in nature (WWE Ric Flair from a few years ago, not psycho TNA Flair who goes crazy and blades himself).

Not really. He wrestled tag matches predominantly, yes, but he was pretty much as big a deal as he had always been.

Booker T has also defeated many submission wrestlers, and many different styles in general. He has wins over Kurt Angle, multiple wins over Chris Benoit, wins over Guerrero, Cena, Goldberg, Big Show, RVD. Booker T has fought and defeated every style of wrestling imaginable and has wins over some of the best the wrestling business has to offer.

Santo wasn't a submission wrestler, as such, just had a submission finisher. A bit like Jericho in that sense, but still, I wouldn't say those two were particularly comparable. Booker T did beat luchadors, but he never wrestled one that had the resiliance of Santo, and where Booker T beat most of the big names of his time, Santo beat all of the big names of his. I think Santo would win this one.

 

[Suneeboy]

In my previous post I said that Big Sexy was the only person who's arguments were good enough to be dignified with a response. However, sometimes someone makes a post so bad, you just have to step in.

I'm glad I got your attention.

So what? The fact of the matter is that Booker T lost to a dogshit wrestler because he wasn't perceived as good enough not to, if you want to go down the booking route. Booker T has lost to both The Boogeyman and fucking Vince Russo in professional wrestling matches. Santo has never lost to anyone like that.

What I'm saying is, the match with the Boogeyman shouldn't be used in this argument, because its not to be taken seriously. That was a comedic stage of the King Booker gimmick, and they were trying to get the Boogeyman over. Shelton Benjamin beat Triple H, does that mean Triple H loses stripes for that? HBK lost to Lance Cade who's been released twice. Does that take stripes off of HBK? The Great Khali was World Champion!...does that take stripes away from the opponents he beat? No. Sometimes guys lose to people they shouldn't lose to. This is wrestling...a scripted sport. You can't highlight that Boogeyman match as if Booker is some slouch, when Booker T has a 20 year career against main event level talent and titles up the ass. Plain and simple.

You don't see fucking Goldberg losing to Vince Russo or John Cena losing to The Boogeyman do you? You know why? Because they were good enough to be protected by booking, Booker T wasn't, so he jobbed out. A lot.

If this was Booker vs. Goldberg, I'd probably vote Goldberg. But this is El Santo.

Serious question, do you know who El Santo is? Because you seem to think that he's some nobody. Santo was popular wherever he went. Booker T was popular when he was in WCW and there was nobody else there. He was moderately popular at times in TNA.

Yeah, I know who El Santo is. I read Wikipedia and watched YouTube just like you did...unless you're a lot older than I think you are, and you grew up in Mexico.

The guy was big in Mexico, but that's it. He was popular in a time, when revolution was needed, in a country that yearned for a star. This is the difficulty with debating over stars from completely different eras. Its the Wilt Chamberalin vs. Shaq argument. Booker wrestled in a time when more money was made, there was better competition, more athletic individuals, and better advertising, in a more economically stable country. He did shows around the world. Major shows, televised in 100's of countries. He main evented PPV's and helped to generate millions of dollars. El Santo was a giant amongst his peers at the time, but bring him up to the current era and he pales in comparison. Bring Booker T back to Santo's era, and he completely dominates it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm glad I got your attention.



What I'm saying is, the match with the Boogeyman shouldn't be used in this argument, because its not to be taken seriously. That was a comedic stage of the King Booker gimmick, and they were trying to get the Boogeyman over. Shelton Benjamin beat Triple H, does that mean Triple H loses stripes for that? HBK lost to Lance Cade who's been released twice. Does that take stripes off of HBK? The Great Khali was World Champion!...does that take stripes away from the opponents he beat? No. Sometimes guys lose to people they shouldn't lose to. This is wrestling...a scripted sport. You can't highlight that Boogeyman match as if Booker is some slouch, when Booker T has a 20 year career against main event level talent and titles up the ass. Plain and simple.




If this was Booker vs. Goldberg, I'd probably vote Goldberg. But this is El Santo.



Yeah, I know who El Santo is. I read Wikipedia and watched YouTube just like you did...unless you're a lot older than I think you are, and you grew up in Mexico.

The guy was big in Mexico, but that's it. He was popular in a time, when revolution was needed, in a country that yearned for a star. This is the difficulty with debating over stars from completely different eras. Its the Wilt Chamberalin vs. Shaq argument. Booker wrestled in a time when more money was made, there was better competition, more athletic individuals, and better advertising, in a more economically stable country. He did shows around the world. Major shows, televised in 100's of countries. He main evented PPV's and helped to generate millions of dollars. El Santo was a giant amongst his peers at the time, but bring him up to the current era and he pales in comparison. Bring Booker T back to Santo's era, and he completely dominates it.

You bring Booker T back to Santo's era and he may not last two matches. Booker T should be lucky to be in the era he is in because if he wrestled fifty years ago, he wouldn't last.

I have said that Orton was the epitome of average and Booker T was that before Orton. All Booker T was good at was being in tag teams and comedy segments. The King Booker gimmick was awful and I'm sad they continued it for as long as they did. People will remember Santo's greatest matches. People will barely remember Booker's good matches.

 

[Tastycles]

What I'm saying is, the match with the Boogeyman shouldn't be used in this argument, because its not to be taken seriously. That was a comedic stage of the King Booker gimmick, and they were trying to get the Boogeyman over.

They were getting him over at the expense of Booker T though. The fact of the matter is is that top stars don't job out to comedy characters unless its part of a storyline. John Cena doesn't lose to Hornswoggle, Dolph Ziggler does. Losing to joke opponents has happened to Booker T twice. Why? Because he isn't worth protecting in the eyes of the bookers.

Shelton Benjamin beat Triple H, does that mean Triple H loses stripes for that? HBK lost to Lance Cade who's been released twice. Does that take stripes off of HBK? The Great Khali was World Champion!...does that take stripes away from the opponents he beat? No.

All of those guys were serious wrestlers they were trying to push. Booker T lost to Vince Russo, a fat guy that didn't wrestle ever, and Boogeyman, who ate worms. Shelton Benjamin is a multiple time midcard champion. Booker T lost to Boogeyman within months of being the World Champion. That is not someone bookers have faith in.

Sometimes guys lose to people they shouldn't lose to. This is wrestling...a scripted sport. You can't highlight that Boogeyman match as if Booker is some slouch, when Booker T has a 20 year career against main event level talent and titles up the ass. Plain and simple.

But how did he compare to that main event talent? He has losing records against Batista, Bret Hart, CM Punk and I can't be arsed to carry on past C, but rest assured, there's a lot more.

Santo has a winning record against just about everyone, so yes, he's more prolific as a winner.

If this was Booker vs. Goldberg, I'd probably vote Goldberg. But this is El Santo.

A man who went on a longer winning streak than Goldberg.

Yeah, I know who El Santo is. I read Wikipedia and watched YouTube just like you did...unless you're a lot older than I think you are, and you grew up in Mexico.

Really, because you don't even appear to have read wikipedia.

The guy was big in Mexico, but that's it. He was popular in a time, when revolution was needed, in a country that yearned for a star.

What the fuck are you talking about? There were plenty of stars already there, he just eclipsed them.

This is the difficulty with debating over stars from completely different eras. Its the Wilt Chamberalin vs. Shaq argument. Booker wrestled in a time when more money was made,

True.

there was better competition,

What does that mean? Because any time Booker was with good competition he floundered. He did well on a Smackdown main evented by Rey Mysterio and The Great Khali, and in WCW, when everyone had gone/got injured. Hardly great competition.

more athletic individuals,

Yeah, JBL is a lot more athletic than luchadors.

and better advertising, in a more economically stable country.

And yet he still couldn't draw the numbers to the arenas.

He did shows around the world.

So did Santo

Major shows, televised in 100's of countries.

And how many people were tuning in for him?

He main evented PPV's and helped to generate millions of dollars.

Did he star in any films though? Did he breach the mainstream? Not even close.

El Santo was a giant amongst his peers at the time, but bring him up to the current era and he pales in comparison. Bring Booker T back to Santo's era, and he completely dominates it.

So you think somebody who doesn't have the charisma to be the biggest deal on TNA would somehow eclipse the most popular wrestler ever? You really are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Big Sexy]

Because everywhere Booker T has been, international stars do well. Booker T was a success in WCW, and less so in TNA, where international stars did well to. If we're talking WWE, then ok, foreign stars don't do that well, but then neither did Booker. When he finally got his World Title the WWE was pushing international stars like it never had before - Rey Mysterio, though American, is booked as a Mexican, The Great Khali was running wild and even fucking Finlay got world title shots. In short, when Booker T does well, sodo foreign stars, location is not a factor.

Yes they do well, but with the exception of Mysterio and Guerrero, two guys Booker has beaten, and a shit reign from Khali not many of the international stars become heavyweight champions. That's something Booker did 5 times with the WCW title and once with the WWE title.

Not really. He was tagging with Goldust and jobbing to the main eventers for a long while.

There were periods of him going down to the mid card but he was always having stints in the main event his entire time in the WWE. He was on of the big names in the Invasion angle and main evented Summerslam in 2001 during his initial heel run. Then during the Goldust thing he turned face and that led to title matches at the Elimination Chamber in 2002 and Wrestlemania 19 in 2003 against Triple H. Then in 2004 he had a title match against JBL at Survivor Series. Finally in 2006 Booker won his first, and long over due world title in the WWE. So he basically had main event stints every year he was in the WWE.

What else are your criteria? Because Santo is a bigger draw, had similar match quality, was more over with the crowd, and would probably be able to beat a man that lost to Vince Russo in kayfabe.

Santo was more over with the crowd in Mexico because he was an icon there, I doubt the same reaction would have been received other places. And after watching the matches of him on youtube the match quality is not on Booker's level. That's not Santo's fault as it was a different era but that's still something else in Booker's favor.

Not really. He wrestled tag matches predominantly, yes, but he was pretty much as big a deal as he had always been.

I didn't say he wasn't a big deal. That's why I used the WWE Ric Flair comparison. He was still a huge name and the most over guy but obviously when you are as old as he was match quality and overall performance are going to go down.

Santo wasn't a submission wrestler, as such, just had a submission finisher. A bit like Jericho in that sense, but still, I wouldn't say those two were particularly comparable. Booker T did beat luchadors, but he never wrestled one that had the resiliance of Santo, and where Booker T beat most of the big names of his time, Santo beat all of the big names of his. I think Santo would win this one.

Booker T has beaten every style of wrestling and some of the biggest names in the business and I don't think Santo would be any different. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Ferbian]

OH god.. it's a fucking tie..

While I have to admit I really, and I mean really enjoyed Booker T through his career, he's kept me entertained a lot of times, and certainly he's a pretty decent wrestler (while a lot of people argue this, even in the first round, he was getting his ass handed to him on his wrestling abilities).

While I know Booker T spend the majority of times loosing matches, and holding less memorable title reigns here and there, I simply have to admit, I didn't vote in El Santo's match last round purely for the fact that I didn't know anything of either Shane Douglas or El Santo, and I think if I had to vote in this one, even though the many people making good arguments for voting for El Santo, I'm probably gonna be going with what I know the most of in this one, and while Booker T certainly wasn't a bad wrestler, therefore I think it's still somewhat legitimate to consider Booker T the worthy winner in this one.

So I'm voting Booker, bash me if you want cause yes I know almost nothing of El Santo than what people have written, but I'm just gonna be a little biased here, and pull that "I'm allowed to be biased once cause I'm blank of knowledge" vote.

 

[Gabriiel07]

I'm not a big fan of wrestling, I just know Booker T from a videogame, and deam he always eliminated me in the Royal Rumble, and I just know El Santo from a cartoon that was really weird, so I decided to look them up in wikipedia, and in El Santo page it says that he popularized wrestling in Mexico, and now in Mexico wrestling is very, very important, and Booker T did some important things too, but not as important as changing the culture of a country.
So i'm going to vote for El Santo. If you have something against me, ok, I'm new on this.