Tenta's Apologia of the Tournament

[Tenta]

I've seen the complaint threads starting up now... I'm not going to say that you don't have the right to complain about a wrestler losing, because you do. This wouldn't be an open forum if we couldn't express how we feel about certain things. However, I'd like to simply say this, and hope that this matter dies down in time for the next round.

Simply put, this is a fictional tournament compiled completely so we could have fun, and so we can have a good discussion regarding the matter. Now then, if there were 92 people that voted for Edge, or 69 that voted for Bret, and nobody stated a reasoning behind that opinion, I'd understand completely why people would be upset. But that isn't the case. Take the example of Edge. Will, for example, presented a balanced a logical reasoning as to why Edge should win this match. Some of you will say it wasn't logical.

Why? Because you didn't agree with him. Not agreeing with someone is not a reason, whatsoever, to completely discredit an argument, that, for all you know, might be a good argument. You can disagree, but that doesn't make Will's point of view illogical. It was a debate, and while yes, there were cases of holes in logic, that works both ways. Sure, Edge voters had holes within their logic, but I'm sure if you look at the forum again, Austin supporters had that same sort of hole filled logic. Just because you don't agree with the results doesn't make this a bad tournament. You may not agree, but that doesn't give you the right to completely discredit all that the tournament does. Upsets happen, and favorites go down. It happens all of the time.

Let me throw this theory out to everyone; Do UNC fans get upset when The Tar Heels are bounced from the NCAA Tournament? Of course they do. Do they cry that the tournament is bull, and that they've lost respect for the NCAA Tournament? Absolutely not. There are no facts at all regarding an opinion debate on whom is better than whom. One wrestling getting bounced doesn't mean that those that actually took the time to express their opinions are wrong. Now, there should be something said for those who vote, and don't explain their reasoning. But that shouldn't mean that you completely discredit those that actually make arguments.

In closing, I'll echo Milenko. It's a fictitious tournament. Meant to be created solely for fun. And just that. Nothing more, and nothing less.


P.S. Apologia doesn't mean "apology". It means defense, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[X]

Austin's Boot laces > Edge

I can atleast somewhat understand Hart going over The Rock, but Edge over Austin is beyond absurd, it's actually insulting.

That's all.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I wanted Jeff Hardy or Ted Dibiase(Jr) to win it....damn! Go Jerichooooooooooooo

 

[X]

...Tell me you're joking me Mysterio. Seriously? Wow. Just wow. No words need be used to describe the lunacy of that statement.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Tis true though...to be completely honest I wouldn't mind if The Rock or RVD won it either...but that's just me.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So, I should take you seriously because you know something about Plato? Everyone seems to be dodging the issue here, and that is that 95% of that thread consisted of people making up lies about Austin to get Edge over. And, you were definitely one of the people who loved to bring in fictitious accounts of Austin's career in order to make it seem like he wasn't as big of a deal as he truly was.

I already told you once, but I'll tell you again: no one would have complained if Edge's supporters had simply said that they either hated Austin or loved Edge but didn't know shit about Austin, because, this is essentially what everything boils down to when you see through the fuckload of canards that populated that thread.

So, go ahead and practice your rhetorical skills elsewhere, please. We've had enough specious bullshit for the time being.

 

[Tenta]

So, I should take you seriously because you know something about Plato? Everyone seems to be dodging the issue here, and that is that 95% of that thread consisted of people making up lies about Austin to get Edge over. And, you were definitely one of the people who loved to bring in fictitious accounts of Austin's career in order to make it seem like he wasn't as big of a deal as he truly was.

I already told you once, but I'll tell you again: no one would have complained if Edge's supporters had simply said that they either hated Austin or loved Edge but didn't know shit about Austin, because, this is essentially what everything boils down to when you see through the fuckload of canards that populated that thread.

So, go ahead and practice your rhetorical skills elsewhere, please. We've had enough specious bullshit for the time being.

I'd like to see where once I made up anything about Austin's reign. My simple logic was that Austin's reign was overrated. I didn't say I knew everything that there was to know about wrestling, nor about how this tournament is run. I simply have my opinion, and we differentiate. Doesn't make make it wrong. It's an opinion. And that's what you should learn to take it as. I never once said that my word was gospel. So quit acting like yours is.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'd like to see where once I made up anything about Austin's reign. My simple logic was that Austin's reign was overrated. I didn't say I knew everything that there was to know about wrestling, nor about how this tournament is run. I simply have my opinion, and we differentiate. Doesn't make make it wrong. It's an opinion. And that's what you should learn to take it as. I never once said that my word was gospel. So quit acting like yours is.

I would seriously like you to go and take a look at the first two posts you made in that thread. I already called you out on your bullshit in it, and I believe xfear did as well, so why should I have to repeat myself?

I hardly treat my word as gospel; I am always open for good discussion and debate, so long as the person I am debating with has at least some amount of respect for the truth. So, all you're really doing here is calling me an asshole for calling you out on your own lies. Do a little more research, let your desire for truth override your desire to convince yourself of something, and then maybe we'll talk.

 

[Tenta]

Yes, and I answered you with my opinions. But you simply wouldn't accept it for what it was, and had to go on a rant regarding it.

Besides that, here's a quote from Steamboat Ricky... someone who holds the strongest convictions over Austin, and loves Austin more than anyone on this forum. He repped me on my post, and I asked him why.

It was an amazing post...that's why. I could MAYBE understand someone voting for Edge based on that post alone.

..... I value Steamboat's opinion much more than yours. Why? Because he doesn't act like everything someone says is complete bullshit. You took one look at parts of my post that you could argue, and you argues them. But why did you never answer anything when it came to Austin's overrated title reigns? Why did you pick out the McMahon argument, which admittedly had a ton of holes, yet choose to ignore a good portion of my post?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Austin's First Reign
True, Austin came into his reign at a breakneck pace, and was a viable contender. But he won the title from a Shawn Michaels that was already suffering from a crippling back injury. This would Shawn's last match until 2002, and it's pretty nice that he came back, because I don't think any WWE fan wanted the winded, somewhat bloated Shawn Michaels that was present at Wrestlemania 14. I argue that this was the worst incarnation of Shawn Michaels, in terms of pure talent, that you'll ever find. It showed just how injured he was. Steve didn't beat HBK... He beat a corpsed shell of the man.

Where's the steadfastness with which you cling to kayfabe in this post? What the fuck does Shawn Michaels being in poor health have to do with the character he portrayed at this point in his career? This was the same man who had, in the previous year, beat The British Bulldog for the European Championship in England and who then beat Bret Hart for the WWF Championship in Canada. Oh, but I guess you're going to use what went on backstage to your advantage here as well and argue that Michaels politicked for those belts, and that he really didn't deserve them.

Kayfabe, this was the strongest Michaels had ever been in his career. So, I would say that Austin taking the title off of him, FOR HIS FIRST REIGN, was pretty fucking impressive.

He then went on to wrestle Dude Love twice on pay per view. He wrestled the least formidable of Mick Foley's possible four incarnations, and even then struggled at times to handle Foley. Then, at the next pay per view, he went on to lose to Kane in a first blood match.

This reign was much more interesting for the tension that was building between Austin and McMahon. Why are you ignoring this?

Austin's Second Reign

Austin beat Kane clean the next night on Raw. Ok, that was impressive, I'll grant that. From there, he did not defend his title at Fully Loaded pay per view. The Undertaker won the WWE tag titles for he and Austin. Woo.

He then went on to pin The Undertaker clean at Summerslam. Ok, impressive, to an extent. This was not a kayfabe strong version of The Undertaker. No matter which way you slice it, Taker's kayfabe height was never with the ministry, nor when he was answering to a higher power. The only two versions of a kayfabe strong Undertaker that I'll accept are his run from 1990-1992, or his current form. More on that later. Anyway, there's no way I'm giving this win half the credit most of the people that will vote for Austin would. That then leads us to the September pay per view, in which he was pinned by The Undertaker and Kane... Somehow...

All right, so, essentially, you have defined what you consider to be The Undertaker's kayfabe primes, and then you treat these opinions as facts. Could it be that, maybe, just maybe, the reason The Undertaker seemed so weak in this interregnum was because there were people that were simply better than him?

Here's how I see it: you don't like Austin, so, you treat The Undertaker losing to Austin as a criterion to judge whether or not The Undertaker was weak at this point in his career. Since he did lost to Austin, you do consider this to be a weak point in his career. But, then you use this point again to argue why this title reign is overrated. This is circular reasoning at its best. You already alluded to Plato in a previous post of yours, so I'm assuming that you've taken an Intro. to Philosophy course. Shouldn't you know about such simple methods of reasoning?

We then go on to a period where Austin does a big fat pile of nothing. He referee'd a match, he got beat by Mankind, which kinda puts a dent into his wins against a weaker Dude Love, and he beat a Kayfabe-weak Undertaker in a buried alive match. Oh, and Kane helped him win... For some reason...

Then he has a steel cage match with Vince. Pardon me for being underwhelmed. And this leads us to:

So, I take it that you didn't like his feud with Vince throughout the late 1990s? I think there are millions of people that would disagree with you on the quality of this feud.

Austin's Third Reign

Austin beat a Rock that was nowhere near ready for the spotlight yet, and was nowhere the kayfabe height of where he would be. When you look at it, it's pretty laughable, really. The Rock was over, but he surely wasn't main event, in my mind. At this point, The Rock found himself in a place where Chris Jericho usually finds himself before his return; over, yet not really ready to take the step to full time main eventer. That would come later, but as for now, this man was certainly not ready for the spotlight. He then beat The Rock at the next pay per view. Again, I'm not giving this match half of the credit that Austin supporters will. the Rock was not ready yet, and it was evident. We then go to Over The Edge, where Austin lost the title to The Undertaker. He then lost a ladder match to Shane and Vince. We then go to

The only thing laughable thing is how much you discount The Rock. Were you not watching wrestling during this time? Did you not see how much of a heat machine The Rock was? The Rock was more then ready to take a hold of the brass ring at this point. But, I guess this is just you trying to make it seem reasonable that this title reign should be overrated. Too bad that there are actually people here who watched the WWF at this point in time.

Austin's Fourth Reign

Beat a still kayfabe weaker version of The Undertaker. He would then lose it a month later, to Mankind, again getting pinned cleanly by Mankind. Hey, it could have been worse. Remember, Chyna was the number one contender for the longest of times. And that should speak volumes for the WWE's main event scene at this point. He then went on to become a special enforcer in a title match, and lost to an actually kayfabe weak (at least compared to what he'd become) Trips. Oh, and then he got hit by a car.

Well, since I actually am consistent in my reasoning, unlike you, I won't argue with you on this one. But, how does it make you look when you discount Austin's first title reign by talking about Michaels' health while totally ignoring Austin's health at this time? I'll let everyone else decide on that one.

So, he left for about a year, and believe it or not... The WWE thrived without him. Yes, it actually got... Better? Yes, The WWE got better with Austin's abscence, at least from a talent and storyline aspect. So he comes back and beats up some fat guy, almost kills Triple H (Even his car crashes were kayfabe weak. Trips was back a month later. Randy Orton's punt did more damage.) He lost a six man HIAC, and was the one to get pinned. He won a Royal Rumble, which was his specialty, lost to Trips, and then went on to

Yeah, things did manage to stay strong, since Austin's job of bringing the WWF out of the shitter was complete.

Austin's Fifth Title Reign

And I'll actually give him credit, because he beat the Rock at his kayfabe height. He then went on to have a tag team match with Trips against Kane and The Undertaker. He lost a handicap match, with Trips as a partner, against The Undertaker, beat the absolute weakest form of The Undertaker possible, and beat two mid carders at this point in Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, in a match they caried. He lost by disqualification to Kurt Angle, and then lost to Angle by submission at Unforgiven. This leads to

Nothing much to say here...I'm actually getting kind of tired going through such a shit post. This all goes back to my theory that it takes longer to undo lies than to tell them.

Austin's Sixth Title Reign

He beat Kurt Angle. Impressive, perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that this wasn't Kurt Angle at his best right now. But that's neither here nor there. He then beat Angle and RVD in a triple threat match, in which these two weren't close to their eventual kayfabe height. His team lost a Survivor Series Match, and then, to close out his final reign, he lost to a Chris Jericho that wasn't at kayfabe peak yet.

When was Kurt Angle at his best then? This is just laughable, man. It looks like you have done nothing but look up PPV results and explained away all of Austin's wins by saying that everyone he faced wasn't in their prime at the time.

Yes, Austin's reigns sold merchandise. But they were vastly overrated, mixed with tag matches and periods of time where he was used as a "special enforcer", or some crap like that. The only names I spot on here that he beat at their kayfabe peak were Kane and the Rock. So for reigns that have people saying he's one of the best champions, I somewhat scoff.

No one really gives a fuck if you scoff, as people would actually have to think that what you had to say carries weight.

I'll actually disagree with Ricky here and say that this post was a steaming pile of dog poo. And, yeah, I am going to be harsh about it, because I can't fucking stand it when people lie so damn much and then expect the utmost respect when someone calls them out on it.

So, there you go, I've stepped up to the plate. You probably won't though. All I'll hear is more shit about how I'm so stuck-up and I think my opinion carries so much weight around here. But, the truth is: a) I only act stuck up when people try to bullshit their way through an argument; b) I don't have an opinion in areas where cold, hard facts exist.

There you go...I just replied to what you had to say.

 

[Tenta]

Where's the steadfastness with which you cling to kayfabe in this post? What the fuck does Shawn Michaels being in poor health have to do with the character he portrayed at this point in his career? This was the same man who had, in the previous year, beat The British Bulldog for the European Championship in England and who then beat Bret Hart for the WWF Championship in Canada. Oh, but I guess you're going to use what went on backstage to your advantage here as well and argue that Michaels politicked for those belts, and that he really didn't deserve them.

You of course discredit that Michael's injury happened AFTER all that you've mentioned. His injury happened at the Royal Rumble, after all of these events you've mentioned. I like how you ignore that little caveat.

This reign was much more interesting for the tension that was building between Austin and McMahon. Why are you ignoring this?

Because from a business standpoint, it was great. And it was even better, because it was a feud that didn't involve these two wrestling. It was a great storyline feud. Not something that actually had to do with wrestling.

All right, so, essentially, you have defined what you consider to be The Undertaker's kayfabe primes, and then you treat these opinions as facts. Could it be that, maybe, just maybe, the reason The Undertaker seemed so weak in this interregnum was because there were people that were simply better than him?

or, you know, he may have just been weak. And I don't think you'll find too many people to disagree with that notion.

Undertaker as weak because people were better than him? Or maybe because he was still slow as molasses, had no sense of a submission style, and lacked the cardio and resilience you'd see in other reincarnations. Yeah, that's what I think, and I really don't need for you to agree with me.

Here's how I see it: you don't like Austin, so, you treat The Undertaker losing to Austin as a criterion to judge whether or not The Undertaker was weak at this point in his career. Since he did lost to Austin, you do consider this to be a weak point in his career. But, then you use this point again to argue why this title reign is overrated. This is circular reasoning at its best. You already alluded to Plato in a previous post of yours, so I'm assuming that you've taken an Intro. to Philosophy course. Shouldn't you know about such simple methods of reasoning?

I've already said, I love austin, and what he did for the company from a business standpoint. But as a wrestler, I just don't think he was too much to snuff at from this period on.

So, I take it that you didn't like his feud with Vince throughout the late 1990s? I think there are millions of people that would disagree with you on the quality of this feud.

Yes, and they love it due to the story, not due to the wrestling.

The only thing laughable thing is how much you discount The Rock. Were you not watching wrestling during this time? Did you not see how much of a heat machine The Rock was? The Rock was more then ready to take a hold of the brass ring at this point. But, I guess this is just you trying to make it seem reasonable that this title reign should be overrated. Too bad that there are actually people here who watched the WWF at this point in time.

then answer me this: Why was The Rock placed back into an upper mid-card position, working matches with Trips, Mr. Ass , and Ken Shamrock after this push. why didn't he stay constantly in the main event scene? Why did Vince put him with Mankind in a buddy tag team? Because he was in the doghouse? Or maybe because he just wasn't ready yet.

Well, since I actually am consistent in my reasoning, unlike you, I won't argue with you on this one. But, how does it make you look when you discount Austin's first title reign by talking about Michaels' health while totally ignoring Austin's health at this time? I'll let everyone else decide on that one.

Well, by your logic, the injuries don't matter, Shawn shouldn't have been judged bu his injuries, right? Isn't that what you said in the first title reign's beginning?

Yeah, things did manage to stay strong, since Austin's job of bringing the WWF out of the shitter was complete.

Yeah, from a business standpoint. So Vince decided to offer his fans legitimate wrestling again, because he actually could.

When was Kurt Angle at his best then? This is just laughable, man. It looks like you have done nothing but look up PPV results and explained away all of Austin's wins by saying that everyone he faced wasn't in their prime at the time.

I'd say from 2002 to 2004. But again, that's an argument on kayfabe height, and I'm not about to really disect Kurt Angle here.

I'll actually disagree with Ricky here and say that this post was a steaming pile of dog poo. And, yeah, I am going to be harsh about it, because I can't fucking stand it when people lie so damn much and then expect the utmost respect when someone calls them out on it.

So, there you go, I've stepped up to the plate. You probably won't though. All I'll hear is more shit about how I'm so stuck-up and I think my opinion carries so much weight around here. But, the truth is: a) I only act stuck up when people try to bullshit their way through an argument; b) I don't have an opinion in areas where cold, hard facts exist.

There you go...I just replied to what you had to say.

no, I'll say you bring up good points, and it actually pushed me. so my question is this; why couldn't you have done this before? Where was this a couple of days ago? Is it because you needed a few days to think about it? Or is it that you didn't know how to respond to it.

I never ask for respect; I put my ideas there, and let other people see them as they will. You apparently don't feel too highly on my opinions, and that's ok, I don't need you to. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop.

Anyway, i'm done for the night, and we've done enough bringing wrestling into the bar room.