Except for height, weight, strength, stamina, and agility.
All of which, as I have now said about twelve thousand times, are irrelevent to the process I use to vote in this tournament. I vote for the better wrestler, encompassing everything from in-ring skills to promo skills to impact on the business and longevity. I don't understand why other people don't vote this way. I thought this was a tournament to determine who the best wrestler of all time was, not who would logically win a tournament of shoot wrestling.
You make it seem like The Undertaker is completely inept in the ring. You're better than that.
I wasn't trying to. I simply believe Funk is arguably the greatest wrestler of all time, so obviously that will make the Undertaker sound weaker in comparison. Don't get met wrong, I respect the Undertaker highly and believe him to be a legend of the business. Just not as good as Funk.
As a technician, Terry Funk is a better wrestler. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that, in last man standing matches, the better wrestler doesn't always win.
Again, I don't vote in this tournament on who would win a legit shoot fight. I vote on who
IS the better wrestler, regardless of match type. I mean, unless the match is an "Anyone Named Terry Funk Automatically Loses" match, theres no scenario I won't go with Funk in.
The Undertaker's ring psychology, at kayfabe height, proves to be a better fit for this match. Cold, calacluated, and impervious to pain.[/quote]
Again, I highly disagree. Funk's heel tactics and ring psychology were among the very best I've ever seen from a wrestler, ever. In my book there was never a better heel then Funk, the man just made you want to jump into the TV and beat the shit out of him, knowing full well he was simply playing a kayfabe character.
As for ring psychology, Funk has fought in countless Last Man Standing matches, countless Japanese death matches. The man is f'n insane, he was doing things CZW wouldn't even do. No other wrestler is willing to totally annhiliate his own body in order to win like Funk, not even Foley.
Simply enough, The Funker doesn't have enough offense to keep The Undertaker down for more than ten seconds.
How do you figure? Funk has beaten bigger guys plenty of times.
Any time a wrestler has been able to do such, it wasn't a direct attack on the Undertaker. Names like Warrior, Hogan, Savage, Flair, Bret Hart. These men have proven to be unable to keep the Undertaker down for a long stretch of time. Terry Funk's psychology would be to flat out attack The Undertaker with all he has. Terry would only be worried to use his offense on The Undertaker. The wrestlers that have been able to keep The Undertaker realize that the smart way to attack The Undertaker is to manuever around him, maybe attacking other objects beside The Undertaker. The urn, Paul Bearer, something along those measures. Terry is far to honorable a man to do such a thing. He would rather fight a strong man the honest way. That would prove to be his undoing.
I can't believe what I'm hearing. You're honestly bringing the Undertaker's "magic powers" into this debate? The Urn? Really? If that works to beat Taker, then logically why not just have Funk capture the Urn and win the match by usurping Taker's soul through his Urn?
Do you see how ridiculious that sounds?
As for saying Terry is far too "honorable" a man to do such a thing...clearly you're not very familiar with Funk's history. Terry Funk as a heel in the 80s was known as the most despicable, dishonorable, cheating no-good son of a bitch in all of wrestling. That's what made him such a great heel.
I'm sorry, but aren't we dealing with these wrestlers at their kayfabe peak?
If you want to judge the tournament that way, that's up to you. But last time I checked the WrestleZone tournament does
NOT have a set of mandatory guidelines by which you
must judge the matches. It's all up to personal choice really.
But you guys are confusing far too much kayfabe into this. If we're accounting for kayfabe, why not just have Undertaker use his magic lightning power to defeat Funk?
Then yes, booking has something to do with how you are viewed from a kayfabe value. At kayfabe height, Taker was built to be as strong, if not stronger than, Hulk Hogan. Correction: not simply a watered down version of Hulk. The actual wayyyyy over Hulk Hogan. He, for all intents purposes, placed Hulk Hogan's Hulkamania run at an end.
Booking shouldn't have anything to do with your judgment here, because countless talentless pieces of shit have been booked to the moon and beyond. Total losers have gone over class A talent countless times.
Again, absolutely, kayfabe applies here. You seem to be forgetting the value of this tournament determining whom is better from a Kayfabe standpoint.
Again, where are you guys coming up with these imaginary rules that have no once ever been created or forced on this tournament? No where has Shocky ever outlined that you must judge each match according to kayfabe.
So, let me get this straight.... Are you implying we're using WCW as the standard here. Well, splendid.... Let's throw in the Terry Funk from late 1999-early 2000, as he's in the midst of his "comissioner" role, and forming up the Old Age Outlaws. The Terry Funk who proceeded to job to Kevin Nash for the role of "commisioner", and quite frankly, was a shell of himself. That is, we are going by WCW standards, right? Is that REALLY what you want?
I didn't say that we should be judging the match from a WCW kayfabe POV, I said that we
shouldn't be judging the match based on WWE kayfabe in reference to the Undertakers supernatural gimmick. I was not implying that we should instead judge it from WCW point of view at all in any way, shape, or form.
You also contradicted yourself. First you say we should be judging based on the kayfabe peak of the individual wrestler, yet you want to use a 50+ year old Funk as a comparison?
Besides, Funk was a powerful force in the NWA, which can be counted as the WCW.
I'm sorry, since when do promo skills come into play here? What, is Terry going to talk Taker to death?
Since when
haven't they? This is what I'm talking about.
THERE ARE NO MANDATORY JUDGING GUIDELINES. PERIOD.
When this tournament first started, we definately took promo skills into account, because we were interested in who was the best wrestler/entertainer of all time, not who was the best shoot fighter or who achieved the most success or who won the most gold belts, but who was the best all-around wrestler, and promo skills are one of the most important factors in becoming a great wrestler. Don't forget that a wrestler is nothing more then a performer/entertainer.
Oh, and for the record... what you're describing right now sounds eerily familiar... Better in ring wrestler.... Better promos..... Hmm....
How did the Taker/Mick Foley feud work out for Mick? Mick's a disciple of Terry. The only possible advantage he ever had over The Undertaker is when he'd use the Mandible Claw. Terry Funk doesn't have a submission hold that can make Taker pass out quite like the Mandible Claw. And, when it comes right down to it, The Undertaker came out on the winning side on his feud with Mick Foley/Mankind.
Please,
please explain to me how the outcome of a Mick Foley-Undertaker feud has anything at all to do with Terry Funk? Mick Foley was not trained by Terry Funk. Foley was simply an avid fan who became a friend and work partner. Foley definately took pointers from Terry on how to improve as a wrestler I'm sure, but to say that because Foley couldn't beat Taker, Funk couldn't, is just absurd.
Since when have we mentioned merchandise?
You're the one mentioning career success and popularity, aren't merch sales a reflection of those things?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't intend on proving you wrong. I just intend on showing the fallacies of your logic. Taker goes over. Get over it.
Listen kid, I been doin' this tournament for quite a while. There's no argument you can come up with that I can't squash. Don't patronize me, tell me you don't intend on proving me wrong in one sentence and then tell me that "Taker wins, get over it". That sounds prety clear that you want to prove me wrong.
We should really save some of this debate for when voting is actually open. I think I'm going to hold off from posting again in the tournament until then.
