Shit arguments you will definitely see in WZWT7

[shattered dreams]

Raw is just as shit as Jersey Shore.


... Yeah, I said it.

Now maybe, in the past doubtful.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I call this type of argument "throwing a Lariat."

Ric Flair would beat Batista in a Last Man Standing match? My pasty white ass he would!

Batista managed to get his stupid ass tied to the bottom of a rope in order to lose a Last Man Standing Match...to John Cena.

Flair's 1000 more times more resourceful than Cena ever wished to be and he managed to put the gassed up gorilla in a spot where he lost. You just like to troll... and that's all well and good. But most of the time "throwing a Lariat" helps my old school wrestler get through.

Luger didn't lose his US title belt for TWO YEARS, yet folks know he was overrated. Batista is overrated, too.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Batista managed to get his stupid ass tied to the bottom of a rope in order to lose a Last Man Standing Match...to John Cena.

Flair's 1000 more times more resourceful than Cena ever wished to be and he managed to put the gassed up gorilla in a spot where he lost. You just like to troll... and that's all well and good. But most of the time "throwing a Lariat" helps my old school wrestler get through.

Luger didn't lose his US title belt for TWO YEARS, yet folks know he was overrated. Batista is overrated, too.

Batista's not overrated, he's just not Ric Flair. Ric Flair from 1983-1992 would not have lost to the Batista we saw from 2005-2010 in any type of match. He would certainly Beat the dog shit out of Flair as everyone else he's ever wrestled has, but Flair always found a way to win no matter the stipulation. You two have been arguing about this for two years now, seriously get over it.

 

[Coco]

Ric Flair from 1983-1992 would not have lost to the Batista we saw from 2005-2010 in any type of match. He would certainly Beat the dog shit out of Flair as everyone else he's ever wrestled has, but Flair always found a way to win no matter the stipulation.

This is what I resent. Posts like these.

"Ric Flair would win because in his prime he ALWAYS found a way to win."

No. He didn't. Ric Flair didn't win the world title as many times as he did without losing. You're overplaying your hand in regards to how good is record actually was.

Conversely, you discount Batista's record simply because you prefer Flair. Newsflash: Batista doesn't take decisive falls against guys like Flair, certainly not the decisive kind of result a LMS match necessitates.

Lariat dismissing my points as "trolling" shows even he knows how weak his shit is. How weak is his shit? About as weak as Ric Flair is made to look in nearly every match he's ever wrestled against "random babyface x."

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Batista's not overrated, he's just not Ric Flair. Ric Flair from 1983-1992 would not have lost to the Batista we saw from 2005-2010 in any type of match. He would certainly Beat the dog shit out of Flair as everyone else he's ever wrestled has, but Flair always found a way to win no matter the stipulation. You two have been arguing about this for two years now, seriously get over it.

If Flair can lose to Dusty Rhodes, he can and would lose to Batista.

 

[Lee]

Yeah the Bret one is true. I went on a few dates with a girl from Edmonton and she'd never heard of Bret Hart or the Hart family. Her friend had because she passed the dungeon on the way to work.

 

[PsychoBlack]

This is what I resent. Posts like these.

"Ric Flair would win because in his prime he ALWAYS found a way to win."

No. He didn't. Ric Flair didn't win the world title as many times as he did without losing. You're overplaying your hand in regards to how good is record actually was.

Conversely, you discount Batista's record simply because you prefer Flair. Newsflash: Batista doesn't take decisive falls against guys like Flair, certainly not the decisive kind of result a LMS match necessitates.

Lariat dismissing my points as "trolling" shows even he knows how weak his shit is. How weak is his shit? About as weak as Ric Flair is made to look in nearly every match he's ever wrestled against "random babyface x."

Whats a guy like Flair? A guy like Cena, Edge, HHH, and Taker one of the greatest of all time. These are the guys that Batista loses to. I think your underrating Flair here. Yes Flair lost but more often than not he won, A lot of his losses during his prime came to give guys the rub they needed to solidify them into the main event and seeing as how this tournament is based in their primes Batista doesn't need this rub. All wrestlers lose no matter how big of a star they are or how good they are. Flair has beaten any style of wrestler that you can name including big strong athletic monsters like Lex Luger and Vader which might be the best comparison we can find to Batista. If he can beat these monsters then I'm sure he can find a way to overcome Batista (not saying that one is superior to the other they just have similar strengths and advantages over Flair).

 

[PsychoBlack]

If Flair can lose to Dusty Rhodes, he can and would lose to Batista.

Dusty was one of the biggest stars of that era and beat virtually everyone in the NWA at some point don't sell him short. BTW what part of Mississippi are you from I go to school at State.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I went to Ole Miss.

State sucks.

 

[PsychoBlack]

I went to Ole Miss.

State sucks.

Fuck Ole Miss and whoever loves those coward ass black bear rebels or whatever they're calling their self these days. Hail State!

 

[Coco]

Whats a guy like Flair? A guy like Cena, Edge, HHH, and Taker one of the greatest of all time.

Batista doesn't lose to Triple H. Like, at all.

Taker and Cena are the only guys I've seen take him. Power house top faces. Guys like Edge (second-rate chicken-shit heels) might get a cheap count-out win over him, but to leave him lying for a ten count? Never. And Flair is of Edge's ilk in kayfabe.

I think your underrating Flair here.

I think you're overrating Flair here.

Yes Flair lost but more often than not he won, A lot of his losses during his prime came to give guys the rub they needed to solidify them into the main event and seeing as how this tournament is based in their primes Batista doesn't need this rub.

So if Flair comes up against a main eventer, you'll argue that he won't lose to them as they're already established. If Flair comes up against a midcarder, you'll simply say that they're not on Flair's level.

You've created an absurd reasoning where Flair never loses. It's astonishingly self-serving and out of touch with reality. Vintage Lariat.

All wrestlers lose no matter how big of a star they are or how good they are. Flair has beaten any style of wrestler that you can name including big strong athletic monsters like Lex Luger and Vader which might be the best comparison we can find to Batista.

Flair can have beaten whoever. Doesn't matter. When it comes to LMS, face prime Batista doesn't go down to guys like Flair. That's Batista's record.

If he can beat these monsters then I'm sure he can find a way to overcome Batista (not saying that one is superior to the other they just have similar strengths and advantages over Flair).

Except I've seen those guys take losses the likes of which Batista never has. Your comparison doesn't touch The Animal.

 

[PsychoBlack]

We'll save it for the tournament, fair enough?

 

[shattered dreams]

Batista sucks. As a person, at being drug free, at being intelligent and the list goes on.

 

[Bernkastel]

Batista sucks. As a person, at being drug free, at being intelligent and the list goes on.

[youtube]dbuQLNItFxk[/youtube]

 

[IAmTheGame101]

Its still real to me damnit!
Yeah we will hear those

 

[Miko]

Luger didn't lose his US title belt for TWO YEARS, yet folks know he was overrated. Batista is overrated, too.

On what planet is Luger overrated? You bastard.

Stan Hansen was a half blind, dangerous, incoherent idiot!

 

[PsychoBlack]

Batista sucks. As a person, at being drug free, at being intelligent and the list goes on.

I like drugs

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

On what planet is Luger overrated? You bastard.

Suck eggs.

Stan Hansen was a half blind, dangerous, incoherent idiot!

You're a video game.

 

[Coco]

I suspect that Jericho will do far better in this tournament than he deserves. There's plenty of arguments as to why he'd lose here too, but I suppose I can't really see it. Jericho, for all of his big losses, tends to win the early matches in feuds, and Kobashi is someone who he'd probably have a long old feud with.

I see a lot of this in the WZT and never really get it. We're not talking about feuds here. If you want to consider the future implications of a win, shouldn't we be focusing on the utility of each man for you as the prospective booker of this massive tournament and who a booker might find useful going deeper into this thing?

 

[Papa Pillman]

First I honestly don't ask this to troll you, but rather to get your honest reaction...

shouldn't we be focusing on the utility of each man for you as the prospective booker of this massive tournament and who a booker might find useful going deeper into this thing?

Not to beat dead horses, but in the Flair/Batista scenario-

True question: With this reasonable justification you have just presented for why a guy should advance, would you argue that most bookers would find Batista as being more "useful" going deeper in this tournament than they would find Ric Flair? And why?

Wouldn't you even admit that Flair was a better proven draw? And that his best quality is the ability to make any opponent look good? With that level of drawing power and the ability to create intriguing matches out of most any potential match-up, wouldn't Flair's advancing to the next round by definiton be more useful than Batista's were they to face off? And therefore would those justifications not be viable reasons to pick Flair?

Just asking, not flaming.

 

[deem]

I see a lot of this in the WZT and never really get it. We're not talking about feuds here. If you want to consider the future implications of a win, shouldn't we be focusing on the utility of each man for you as the prospective booker of this massive tournament and who a booker might find useful going deeper into this thing?

Completely agree. The only future matches we should be concerned about is looking at the draw and working out logical booking to make good matches throughout. Winds me up that no one considers this in the predictions of who goes over.

Tbf Tasty could of meant Jericho is good in his first match with an opponent, and he has never faced Kobashi. Mentioning the long feud could be tangential and not relevant to this match, idno.

 

[Coco]

First I honestly don't ask this to troll you, but rather to get your honest reaction...


Not to beat dead horses, but in the Flair/Batista scenario-

True question: With this reasonable justification you have just presented for why a guy should advance, would you argue that most bookers would find Batista as being more "useful" going deeper in this tournament than they would find Ric Flair? And why?

Wouldn't you even admit that Flair was a better proven draw? And that his best quality is the ability to make any opponent look good? With that level of drawing power and the ability to create intriguing matches out of most any potential match-up, wouldn't Flair's advancing to the next round by definiton be more useful than Batista's were they to face off? And therefore would those justifications not be viable reasons to pick Flair?

Just asking, not flaming.

My honest reaction? My Batista support was largely a reaction to Lariat and his ilk making poor arguments about him and Flair. But if someone used the logic I proposed in a measured, reasonable fashion, I'd have no problem voting for Naitch.

Basically, it all comes down to Lariat hurting the cause of whoever he supports by being a dimwit. At the shallow, reality-driven level of kayfabe he likes to examine, Batista wins. Simple as that.

 

[shattered dreams]

What I find frustrating about someone like Jericho is that people will say he wasn't above Stone Cold and Rock in his era as the reason he should lose to someone that clearly was not on their level either. Never mind that he actually beat these guys unlike these new school fools that struggle to dispense of guys like the Muz.

I like drugs

Vote Jeff Hardy next round and I won't report you.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Vote Jeff Hardy next round and I won't report you.

I voted him this round if that means anything

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I expect some Benoit support against Mick Foley.

If you're smart.