Second Round : Montreal - Nick Bockwinkel vs. Kurt Angle

[Ferbian]

Bockwinkel's beaten guys who've countered his moves before. So the fact that Angle knows counters really has little effect on the result of the match.

And? so has Kurt, and just because both of these guys knows how to counter stuff, doesn't mean they always will.

Today's belts have no significance today, so knocking the titles of yesteryear is probably a road best left untravled.

I'm not knocking it, I'm just saying what significance does the AWA world heavyweight championship have of significance to the wrestling business today? as opposed to the business 20-30 years ago when it was actually active and competed for?

See, Lariat?

People do think promo skills are important.

I think it has a viable point in declaring a wrestler the greatest all-around wrestler ever, all-around which focuses on anything the wrestler has, such as, you guessed it.. promo skills, wrestling ability and what not.

I've seen Jeff Hardy matches that started in a similar manner. That doesn't mean Jeff Hardy is wrestling technical masterpieces, does it?

True, but Jeff Hardy isn't exactly lost behind a wagon when it comes to putting on decent wrestling matches, as opposed to simply putting on spotfests.

Also, when a guy can't get another guy's shoulders on the mat properly in a simple battle between headlocks, does it really speak THAT high of the Angle-Michaels encounters? It clearly doesn't make them "masterpieces."

Yet this match is still praised as one of the best wrestling matches in Wrestlemania history, and it was rated match of the year by PWI (yes I know, you don't like them.. well it's a perfect source if you need something to judge out from, and I'm pretty damn sure if you asked X, or KB they might be able to think rather decently about this match, I can just feel it.

You still don't see Angle as a spot wrestler? Really?

And you still don't see that mat wrestling isn't the end-all, be-all of making a good wrestling match?

What's wrong here?

Someone back me up on this stuff.

I'm not saying that a mat wrestling match equals greatest match ever, but seeing as Kurt Angle and Nick are both good technical wrestlers, therefore it's quite obvious that's where we're gonna draw our opinions from, and in the end, Kurt Angle's long range of moves (yes I'll use this again) is gonna be what will help him achieve victory over Nick Bockwinkel.

Benoit, at the peak of his career, was more of a brawler than anything. What are you talking about?

Yet Chris was incredibly gifted technical wise in the ring.

Described by WWE as "a favorite among WWE fans for his unbelievable athleticism and wrestling ability", Benoit was widely regarded as one of the most popular, respected and gifted technical wrestlers in history.

Jeff Hardy and Edge do plenty of headlocks. Does that make them technical masters?

A headlock doesn't make a great technical wrestler, the thing you're quoting is merely to point out the fact that the differences between amateur and professional wrestling in the end isn't very big other than some incredibly flashy moves, but as I mentioned, the variation of throws and some of the more basic holds aren't any different, or very far a part between the two worlds.

So sitting down and rating matches makes someone an expert?

What are you talking about?

Not necessarily just doing that, but also the fact that they're writing articles about a specific business, you would consider that to be at least in the direction of expertise, but then again if it doesn't, I guess we can just go ahead and call Dave Meltzer a fraud, right?

 

[Coco]

I could go on and on with this, but look at the score. It's the cocky point guard who just made a lucky shot and is taunting the better team because he did so. All I can say is 'look at the scoreboard.'.

We have 13% of the people on our side. That's more than Angle's first round opponent got. I think we're still in this.

And Coco, I'm sure that there isn't one person who knows me as 'the guy who talks about his sex life in the Bar Room' or considers me a Bar Fly.

What about Will?

I pride myself on knowing a lot about various aspects of pro wrestling and watching enough of it to form an opinion on who would win an actual match between two people from different eras.

And I pride myself on knowing a grea deal of Pierce Brosnan trivia. Doesn't mean I'm beyond reproach when it comes to that. We can all be wrong, sir.

And Bockwinkel's never went up against a guy who can lock in and give you three German suplexes before you even catch a breath.

I've seen men get a breath or two in between those suplexes. Watch Benoit's chest, for example. It's very telling.

Angle is very good at what he does and was made champion because he was believable as competition for Stone Cold, The Rock and Undertaker.

Conjecture, but we'll agree to disagree.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Angle was not believable as champion the first time. He won the title from The Rock because of help from Rikishi. He beat the Undertaker because of help from his brother. He won a clusterfuck of a HIAC where the title was an afterthought. He beat HHH because Austin interfered. When he ran up against the Rock at No Way Out, he lost and went straight to the midcard.

And just how did Nick Bockwinkel win his 3 world titles? Are you ready for this? CHEATING!

Yea, underhanded tactics won him the match. He managed to escape Jerry Lawler's grasp by nailing him with brass knuckles, making stipulations where if Lawler used his fist, it was 5,000 dollars a punch. Bockwinkel rarely had clean finishes when it counted.

Angle has. Despite the clusterfuck, he PINNED Stone Cold Steve Austin to retain his title. Now, as far as I'm concerned, their methods of winning big matches would be a push. And the Angle of today doesn't use underhanded tactics. He just wares you out with his move set and makes you tap with the Ankle Lock.

 

[Coco]

And? so has Kurt, and just because both of these guys knows how to counter stuff, doesn't mean they always will.

Which could be considered a knock against Kurt.

I'm not knocking it, I'm just saying what significance does the AWA world heavyweight championship have of significance to the wrestling business today? as opposed to the business 20-30 years ago when it was actually active and competed for?

Considering this tournament is to decide the best of all time, it has plenty of significance.

True, but Jeff Hardy isn't exactly lost behind a wagon when it comes to putting on decent wrestling matches, as opposed to simply putting on spotfests.

You have yet to name one Angle match where he pure wreslted to the max.

Since WRESTLING is seemingly all that matters in your eyes, I find that odd.

Yet this match is still praised as one of the best wrestling matches in Wrestlemania history

Doesn't make it true.

and it was rated match of the year by PWI (yes I know, you don't like them.. well it's a perfect source if you need something to judge out from, and I'm pretty damn sure if you asked X, or KB they might be able to think rather decently about this match, I can just feel it.

X was just an example. I don't actually value his opinion or anything.

Eddie vs. Rey from SmackDown in June that year had more emotion behind it, was superbly executed, and told a story regard Guerrero's frustration, both with not being able to beat Rey and with Rey targeting the massive bruise on his side.

Triple H vs. Ric Flair told the great story of Triple H trying to destroy his idol in an emotional, blood soaked war.

Both stand out far more than your run-of-the-mill "we're gonna do some headlocks and highspots and people will call it a classic because of who's in it" epic. However, the fact that those two "great" wrestlers were fighting for the first time ever at WrestleMania and the fact that it was the biggest show of the year caused a lot of people to decide it would be a classic before it happened. Other matches that year were just as good or better, but you hear nothing about them.

My point all along has been to question why general opinion or the opinion of the experts is right or carries any weight. I'm still not feeling it when you can so easily see how people are brainwashed by the lore of the "Mania epic."

Yet Chris was incredibly gifted technical wise in the ring.

Agreed.

DOESN'T MAKE HIM A MORE OF A TECHNICAL WRESTLER THAN A BRAWLER AT HIS PEAK.

Not necessarily just doing that, but also the fact that they're writing articles about a specific business, you would consider that to be at least in the direction of expertise, but then again if it doesn't, I guess we can just go ahead and call Dave Meltzer a fraud, right?

Einstein said that if you study something for 15 minutes a day, you can become a national expert within 5 years.

What makes Meltzer better than IC or KB?

When you realize there's no difference, kindly stop pushing PWI and WON crap or general opinion like it means anything.

 

[Remix]

If this is the case, Angle would never be defeated by anyone without an amateur background or anyone with a smaller moveset.

That argument makes no sense because anybody who's ever watching wrestling knows it doesn't work like that. Saying "amateur skills" shouldn't get someone an automatic bye based on the logic you used.

That's an excelent comeback Coco, and one from which I cannot easily come back from. However, if Angle gets into a mat based exchange of holds those amateur skills would factor in to the match, and possibly give Angle enough of an advantage to be able to pin Bockwinkel.

Deserve has nothing to do with it. Batista deserves it as much as HBK. He just doesn't have the same support on here.

Fair enough.

Bockwinkel reigned longer in an era where title reigns weren't given to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who got moderately over. Angle, in an era where everybody gets title reigns, never broke from the pack as a major champion.

Long reigns were a feature of the time though, and who's to say that if Angle had been wrestling in the 70's that he wouldnt have held the title for a prolonged period of time (which if he'd been in the WWWF he probably would have, given why Bob Backlund was given the title and held it for so long). The difference between today's title reigns are that in the old days quality was more important that quantity. Now the inverse is true. If it means the title is worth less than it was in the 70s and 80s, so be it. It's a product od the times and booking.

Bockwinkel was a superior mic worker who never lost his edge while the goofy Kurt that got him over vanished after a couple years to be replaced by the average, generic hack that is intense Angle.

Irrelevent. Bockwinkel and Angle aren't cutting promos.

Bockwinkel didn't need all the crazy moves Kurt does because the few big moves Bockwinkel did mattered. Guys in that era simply hit harder than they do today. Which is why a five year title reign is even more impressive.

The commonpplaceness of big moves ia another product of the time. If someone invents a badass super awesome move and uses it on TV, another wrestler is doing to work out how to do it and use it himself, and the cycle repeats itself until moves like Jake the Snake's (accidentally invented) DDT go from feared finisher to being unable to get a 2 count, and Harley Race's (accidentally invented) powerbomb being a staple move in every power wrestler's moveset. Once again, if Angle had been in Bockwinkel's era, chances are he wouldnt be doing moonsaults (mostly because Muta hadn't popularised them in the USA yet), and would have had some psychology slapped into him.

Why can't Angle keep people down with his Slam? Simple. He hits like a pussy.

If Bockwinkel gave Kurt a gentle rub down by 1977 standards, Kurt Mangled (a name he earned by beign frail beyond the call of duty in an era of frail models) would likely be spending the next three months in traction.

A bit of an exageration but yes, Kurt Angle is an injury prone motherfucker. Because of that, he's also able to wrestle well in spite of injury. The dude tore 3 muscles off the bone in his final WWE match and still continued to wrestle. Even if Angle needed to spend the next three months in traction, he'd still continue the match until he or Bockwinkel has their shoulders held to the mat for 3 seconds.

That is spot wrestling. You're correct.

'Tis a question of definitions then. Any move in a match can be considered to be a spot. Any match consisting of a long series of moves can therefore be considered a spotfest. If Bockwinkel went hold for hold with any contempary wrestler it would also be a spotfest (regardless of whether or not the spots made the same amount of sence as Benoit and Angle repeatedly trying to apply their favored submission spots.

Also, Benoit didn't tap at WM17.

You're quite right. I must have confused the ending with a different Angle vs Benoit match. They tended to contain the same sort of spots (though Benoit got your vote in his match).

Which brings us to the fact that Angle's never wrestled anyone like Bockwinkel. He wouldn't know how to deal with someone who cuts that pace and whispers sweet, articulate nothings into his ear while bringing him to his limit.

I'll get back to you when I've watched Nick Bockwinkel wrestle more. I pretty much voted for Angle on principle, as he's one of my favorite wrestlers who I'd vote for him over most of the guys in this tournament.

Oh my.

Once again it's a question of definitions. I think Kurt Angle is a good wrestler. I think this because he puts on good matches. I think they are good matches because they entertain me. Psychology (good or bad) is not high on my list of reasons to think a match is good or bad.

The majority of moves Angle uses didn't come from his expierences as an amateur. When's the last time you watched an Angle match?

Just before I wrote that post. As it featured rather more takedowns and rolling around on the mat than the average wrestling match, I mistakenly assumed that those sorts of skills were relavent to that match and Angle's abilities as a whole.

We all know which he uses more.

The pro wrestling skills. Probably because he's a pro wrestler. However, his amateur skills are there and used on occasions.

 

[Ferbian]

First of all, Holy shit Coco I barely get a chance to reply and refresh the page before you've replied..

Which could be considered a knock against Kurt.

And it could very well also be a knock against Nick.

Considering this tournament is to decide the best of all time, it has plenty of significance.

Sure but in reality right now if someone was to cut a promo on Nick's ass they could easily go on to say "I don't care what you did in some defunct promotion 20-30 years ago" therefore showing the insignificance it has in todays business.
In an overall look on the wrestling history, yes it's significant, but so is Kurt Angle's numerous world titles, it doesn't matter when it was earned, the matter is that it was earned.

You have yet to name one Angle match where he pure wreslted to the max.

Yes that will be very hard to find, but not even Nick Bockwinkel can brag about that, hell I could probably only say Lou Thesz to be one of the few able to brag about that.. in the past 50-60 years.

Since WRESTLING is seemingly all that matters in your eyes, I find that odd.

Wrestling is a wide description Coco, a very wide description, High flying would actually be considered wrestling you know.

Doesn't make it true.

That's something you could argue for a long time, it's like saying "Velvet Sky's tits are praised for being spectacular" but seeing as we haven't seen them all out in the open, we can't clearly say it's true.. there's a lot of things you can say isn't true even though it's praised, but that's of personal opinions, and since the majority of people we could probably ask in this forum would praise Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels more than they would praise Nick Bockwinkel vs.. say Ric Flair.. or whomever he had great matches with.

X was just an example. I don't actually value his opinion or anything.

Very well, all a matter of opinions.

Eddie vs. Rey from SmackDown in June that year had more emotion behind it, was superbly executed, and told a story regard Guerrero's frustration, both with not being able to beat Rey and with Rey targeting the massive bruise on his side.

Yet even though it told a perfect story, it might not have been regarded as the match of the year because it could very well not have been handled the perfect way in ways of wrestling, as opposed to the whole storyline behind it.

Triple H vs. Ric Flair told the great story of Triple H trying to destroy his idol in an emotional, blood soaked war.

Look above, it's exactly the same, even if Triple H was furious with Ric Flair, it doesn't necessarily mean that "oh shit, this match has to be match of the year cause Triple H is hammering away on Ric Flair, there's absolutely no wrestling to be praised, but it's a great story.. oh boy!"

Both stand out far more than your run-of-the-mill "we're gonna do some headlocks and highspots and people will call it a classic because of who's in it" epic. However, the fact that those two "great" wrestlers were fighting for the first time ever at WrestleMania and the fact that it was the biggest show of the year caused a lot of people to decide it would be a classic before it happened. Other matches that year were just as good or better, but you hear nothing about them.

The fact of the matter is that the chain wrestling in it self had the crowd clapping, exactly in the same way as Dean Malenko vs Eddie Guerrero in ECW for the ECW Television title.
It was a great match for the sheer fact that the holds exchanged back and forth made them look incredibly equal and it made the match less predictable as opposed to the whole "he's gonna dominate ya for 25 minutes, then you get the upper hand in the last 2 and pin him.. mkay?"

My point all along has been to question why general opinion or the opinion of the experts is right or carries any weight. I'm still not feeling it when you can so easily see how people are brainwashed by the lore of the "Mania epic."

True, some experts may be a little biased, but that doesn't deny that throughout the last many years Shawn Michaels for has won the PWI award, and has put on arguably the greatest classics of that year by a long shot, just because you had a hard-on for some other match, doesn't necessarily make the majority of the world co-exist in one big orgasm that could be heard around the world.

Agreed.

DOESN'T MAKE HIM A MORE OF A TECHNICAL WRESTLER THAN A BRAWLER AT HIS PEAK.

That might be arguable, even if he was a brawler, you cannot deny the fact that he had an amazing array of moves up his sleeve, be it mat wrestling, high flying etc. you can't say that Benoit wasn't a technical sound guy.

Einstein said that if you study something for 15 minutes a day, you can become a national expert within 5 years.

But what made him an expert on that subject?

What makes Meltzer better than IC or KB?

When you realize there's no difference, kindly stop pushing PWI and WON crap or general opinion like it means anything.

Certainly there's no difference, except for the fact that KB and IC aren't making money off it for a living, and has no reputation whatsoever for being tough to please guys when it comes to rating a match, they might have that reputation on this forum, but.. lets see.. there's like.. how many? 15k or so on this forum, and let's then look at how many Meltzer is backed up by.. yeah I don't even know, but I'm pretty damn certain there's a firm array of people reading the Wrestling Observers Newsletter.

And if those things doesn't matter, I guess it's okay we slowly cover up Nick Bockwinkel's PWI Stanley Award with shit.. right?

 

[Coco]

And it could very well also be a knock against Nick.

Good. So we're in agreement that your counter-wrestling argument gives the advantage to no man.

Moving on.

Sure but in reality right now if someone was to cut a promo on Nick's ass they could easily go on to say "I don't care what you did in some defunct promotion 20-30 years ago" therefore showing the insignificance it has in todays business.

If it were a way to get a new heel over and make money, of course. That doesn't make it fact.

Wrestling is a wide description Coco, a very wide description, High flying would actually be considered wrestling you know.

So why is Kurt Angle more of a wrestler than Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio, or Rob Van Dam?

Yet even though it told a perfect story, it might not have been regarded as the match of the year because it could very well not have been handled the perfect way in ways of wrestling, as opposed to the whole storyline behind it

But the wrestling was just as sound, if not better than in the Flair match considering in pro-wrestling, any phsyicality constitutes wrestling.

Which you still fail to grasp.

Look above, it's exactly the same, even if Triple H was furious with Ric Flair, it doesn't necessarily mean that "oh shit, this match has to be match of the year cause Triple H is hammering away on Ric Flair, there's absolutely no wrestling to be praised, but it's a great story.. oh boy!"

Same thing I said above.

The fact of the matter is that the chain wrestling in it self had the crowd clapping, exactly in the same way as Dean Malenko vs Eddie Guerrero in ECW for the ECW Television title.

Not like the high spots had them clapping.

Also, the wrestling in Guerrero-Malenko was far more lively. Not a proper comparison.

It was a great match for the sheer fact that the holds exchanged back and forth made them look incredibly equal and it made the match less predictable as opposed to the whole "he's gonna dominate ya for 25 minutes, then you get the upper hand in the last 2 and pin him.. mkay?"

The former only pleases a niche audience.

That might be arguable, even if he was a brawler, you cannot deny the fact that he had an amazing array of moves up his sleeve, be it mat wrestling, high flying etc. you can't say that Benoit wasn't a technical sound guy.

Technically sounds isn't the same as technical.

But what made him an expert on that subject?

Exactly what I'd have said.

Certainly there's no difference, except for the fact that KB and IC aren't making money off it for a living, and has no reputation whatsoever for being tough to please guys when it comes to rating a match, they might have that reputation on this forum, but.. lets see.. there's like.. how many? 15k or so on this forum, and let's then look at how many Meltzer is backed up by.. yeah I don't even know, but I'm pretty damn certain there's a firm array of people reading the Wrestling Observers Newsletter.

So more readers validates the opinion.

Riiight...

And if those things doesn't matter, I guess it's okay we slowly cover up Nick Bockwinkel's PWI Stanley Award with shit.. right?

Yep.

 

[Ferbian]

Good. So we're in agreement that your counter-wrestling argument gives the advantage to no man.

Moving on.

I'm glad we could agree on something.

If it were a way to get a new heel over and make money, of course. That doesn't make it fact.

Just because it doesn't make it a fact, doesn't mean we should automatically ignore it, and therefore I think the relevance of the fact that Kurt angle held X amount of titles when the belt mattered less than around Nick Bockwinkel's time where he held the title less times but for longer, the significance of the title doesn't do much for the argument of either wrestlers, it just shows that the promotion would rather put said title on said wrestler for said period of time.

So why is Kurt Angle more of a wrestler than Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio, or Rob Van Dam?

Because the majority of Kurt Angle's matches are praised superior to what I know of Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam's matches, now I'm not saying cause it was praised superior to those said wrestlers, that it automatically makes them superior, I think the major fact is that Kurt Angle fights rather well around any style of match, where as a guy like Rey Mysterio fights his opponents in one more specific style rather than an actual variation, same goes for Jeff Hardy, and RVD to a certain extend (RVD probably being the closest thing we get to a perfectly well all-around wrestler of those 3)

But the wrestling was just as sound, if not better than in the Flair match considering in pro-wrestling, any phsyicality constitutes wrestling.

Which you still fail to grasp.

I remain unconvinced to the fact that I should be praising a Triple H vs Ric Flair match that was more obvious around the storyline basics of it than praising a match for the actual wrestling performed in it, where as the storyline of it was actually fairly decent also, to prove who's the superior wrestler, Kurt Angle who had a grudge against Shawn Michaels for overshadowing him in 96, in case you forgot.

Not like the high spots had them clapping.

Also, the wrestling in Guerrero-Malenko was far more lively. Not a proper comparison.

I'm not saying that it's the perfect comparison, but I'm saying the fact is that their back and forth exchange of holds and moves had the crowd clapping, the exact same thing that had the crowd clapping for Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels.

The former only pleases a niche audience.

Yet for the majority of times it's that niche of the audience that actually has a proper knowledge of the business, and would rather watch a back and forth wrestling hold for hold dominated match than a match that looks more like a squash match, only to turn around for the others favor.

Technically sounds isn't the same as technical.

Explain me the difference please.

Exactly what I'd have said.

Fine, then why use that argument?

So more readers validates the opinion.

Riiight...

The matter of the fact is that without discrediting KB, IC etc. they would've probably been more mainstream or already doing it for a living if their reputation was the same of Dave Meltzer.

 

[Coco]

Just because it doesn't make it a fact, doesn't mean we should automatically ignore it

No. That's exactly what it means. As a result, I'm ignoring the rest of your point.

Because the majority of Kurt Angle's matches are praised superior to what I know of Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam's matches

Mysterio's praised in many circles as the best pro-wrestler of last year and one of the best of the 2000s, even surpassing Angle on many people's lists as a great storyteller and a superior asset to any company he works for.

Considering consensus is so important to you, why are you so out of the loop? If you don't have your finger on the pulse like you claim to, why should I believe any of your claims about Angle's appeal?

I remain unconvinced to the fact that I should be praising a Triple H vs Ric Flair match that was more obvious around the storyline basics of it than praising a match for the actual wrestling performed in it,

Seeing as the point of wrestling is to tell a story, why is the lack of "actual wrestling" an issue?

Also, considering you said earlier that high flying can be wrestling, why isn't what Flair and Triple H did great as far as "wrestling" is concerned?

You really need to nail down what you think wrestling is for me.

Yet for the majority of times it's that niche of the audience that actually has a proper knowledge of the business

That's HIGHLY elitist thinking, Ferb.

What is this "proper" knowledge?

and would rather watch a back and forth wrestling hold for hold dominated match than a match that looks more like a squash match, only to turn around for the others favor.

What makes the former "proper"?

Explain me the difference please.

Technical wrestler implies his style is to frequently trade holds first an foremost. Benoit, at the peak of his exposure, resorted to brawling for most of his best and most significant encounters, occasionally throwing in his signature submissions.

Technically sound implies, to me, a precision in execution.

Fine, then why use that argument?

To see what you'd do.

The result: You'd much sooner accept the words of those at PWI and WON than Einstein.

Something's not adding up here and I'm having trouble taking your Angle opinions seriously as a result. All the more reason for me to vote Bockwinkel.

 

[Ferbian]

No. That's exactly what it means. As a result, I'm ignoring the rest of your point.

The choice to ignore something that isn't a straight forward fact is all a matter opinion, and therefore it doesn't automatically mean that you ignoring it is the right choice, it's merely a choice.

Mysterio's praised in many circles as the best pro-wrestler of last year and one of the best of the 2000s, even surpassing Angle on many people's lists as a great storyteller and a superior asset to any company he works for.

Yet the exactly same thing could be said about Kurt Angle, perhaps proving to be more of an asset to a promotion than Rey Mysterio, it all depends on what the crowd wants to see, let's take TNA for example, Rey Mysterio would quite obviously be stuck in the X-division, where as Kurt Angle has proved to be a firm placement in the top of the food chain in that company, Rey Mysterio is a fast paced high-flyer with the ability to sell merchandises, where as Kurt Angle is a very all-around praised wrestler with adaption to many styles, and could probably sell quite a handful of merchandises also.

Considering consensus is so important to you, why are you so out of the loop? If you don't have your finger on the pulse like you claim to, why should I believe any of your claims about Angle's appeal?

It's not cause I don't have a finger on the pulse, I'm not saying I don't know shit about the quality of matches that these 3 high flying talents (high flying to the majority yet their high flying styles are so different) yet I have yet to hear any high praise of their matches other than Rob Van Dam's matches, which again I believe to be the superior talent of the 3.
Certainly their matches have been praised, Rey Mysterio tag team wrestling with Edge vs Kurt Angle and Benoit, Jeff Hardy at Wrestlemania 2000 and against The Undertaker for the Undisputed Championship, and Rob Van Dam in various matches such as his performance in the very first Elimination Chamber.

But all in all, what I'm saying is that I've heard more praise from people towards Kurt Angle, on this forum, or in general discussions, than I have of any of the 3 above mentioned talents.

Seeing as the point of wrestling is to tell a story, why is the lack of "actual wrestling" an issue?

Also, considering you said earlier that high flying can be wrestling, why isn't what Flair and Triple H did great as far as "wrestling" is concerned?

You really need to nail down what you think wrestling is for me.

Because the lack of actual wrestling is what tells the story, and keeps the crowd entertained, while you could easily tell a story through mere pounding and stomping someone till they're beaten enough to get pinned, that's not entertaining.

And I'm not saying Flair vs Triple H wasn't wrestling, jeez, Triple H vs Ric Flair was wrestling sure, but all in all the impressive showboating that went on in that match couldn't hold a stand against what Kurt and Shawn put on at Wrestlemania, just because their match told a better story.

What I think wrestling is? sure, Wrestling to me is, yes a storytelling, but it's not just that, it's the need to keep the crowd entertained, half of the people watching the show without having somewhat of a backstage knowledge, won't be able to tell that "this is storytelling" rather than people doing insane unneeded stuff for the sake of keeping someone down for the 3 count.

As I said, while physical confrontations with mere fists being exchanged would be enough for the sake of storytelling, but it wouldn't be entertaining, the flashy movements, the spot fests, the precision of the holds and how it's executed in a whole for the sake of catching an reaction from the crowd, that to me is wrestling.

That's HIGHLY elitist thinking, Ferb.

Might be, might not be, the fact of the matter is that while the majority of the crowd might want to see a spot fest, there's a group of people that would be far more impressed by a hold for hold wrestling match, and the majority of those guys are most likely to be people with a certain knowledge for the business.

What is this "proper" knowledge?

As I mentioned above, proper knowledge of the backstage business, the knowledge of how a match works, the greater talents throughout a longer period of history, that's proper knowledge, the people able to place a proper argument for someone, or something, that to me is proper knowledge.

What makes the former "proper"?

I'm not saying that it makes it proper, I'm saying I would rather watch that, for the sake of eliminating predictability and easy boredom to the fact that someone is selling his ass off, instead of getting some offense to showcase his talent to what could easily prove to be a new fan, a completely new crowd, god knows who could be affected differently by watching two wrestlers exchange holds and wrestle back and forth in a equal match as opposed to someone dominating X wrestler for X amount of time only to be pinned after a series of moves and a finisher.

Technical wrestler implies his style is to frequently trade holds first an foremost. Benoit, at the peak of his exposure, resorted to brawling for most of his best and most significant encounters, occasionally throwing in his signature submissions.

I thank you for clearing it up, and while looking at this Benoit might be leaning more to the direction of technical sound, we still can't deny the ability Benoit had, be it in his peak or not, he was able to switch back and forth between holds in a strong way, just look at his match with Randy Orton for example at Summerslam 2004.

To see what you'd do.

The result: You'd much sooner accept the words of those at PWI and WON than Einstein.

That depends in which way we connect the two, in the way of which you used Einstein as an example, with the 15 minutes of studying, I have my sincere disbeliefs in that very theory, as opposed to my beliefs that PWI and WON might actually have a backing in what they're talking about.

Something's not adding up here and I'm having trouble taking your Angle opinions seriously as a result. All the more reason for me to vote Bockwinkel.

And what is it that isn't adding up?

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

I don't know much about Nick Bockwinkel. But I do know that the letter A (as in Angle) comes before the letter B (as in Bockwinkel). Therefore, I'll smackdown my vote for Kurt Angle for this match up.

 

[Lancer]

The Bock was a great wrestler in his heyday, wrestling clinics and repeatedly taking challengers for his AWA World Heavyweight Championship to the limit. He relies on taking his opponent to the mat and wearing them down. The problem is, Angle can do the same.

But Angle can do more than ground and pound. He has a power game and a pretty good aerial game when needed. Not to mention, he seems to get a second wind out of nowhere...which causes problems for many of his opponents. When the straps come down, they have no answer...as would Bockwinkel. Vote goes to Angle.