Who can defeat Andre the Giant? | Page 5 | WrestleZone Forums

Who can defeat Andre the Giant?

I recall participating in about four Wrestlezone tournaments, and I can't recall a single discussion about what constitutes a performer's prime that didn't make my brain hurt.

Snitsky was literally undefeated during his prime.
 
Speaking of that, the WZ tourney got boring for me when the ridiculous warrior hatred stopped, making his first campaign thread would rank as an achievement were it actually an achievement
 
Because the streak is self sustainable at this point. It will make money despite what condition Taker is actually in. It is a direct product of the WWE machine than really anything Taker did. So how can it be considered a "prime?" Especially now since Taker only works once or twice a year.

Because he literally cannot lose? And the fact that he only works once or twice a year and is still as over as he is a combined testament to the Streak and to the Taker character. And it's fake. I'm well aware that this will be the reason that Taker beats Lesnar at Mania (or that anyone beats Lesnar, for that matter).
 
I recall participating in about four Wrestlezone tournaments, and I can't recall a single discussion about what constitutes a performer's prime that didn't make my brain hurt.

Snitsky was literally undefeated during his prime.

Which is the beauty/horror of the WZT. It's the reason why travesties like SCSA losing to Vader and Great Khali almost beating Taker occur.
 
Because the streak is self sustainable at this point. It will make money despite what condition Taker is actually in. It is a direct product of the WWE machine than really anything Taker did. So how can it be considered a "prime?" Especially now since Taker only works once or twice a year.
This is silly. If Taker wasn't a "draw," the WWE machine could only do so much.

Ech,

How is Taker's streak at Mania not his prime? When else was he literally untouchable?
From a kayfabe POV, can someone's peak really be single nights cherry-picked from throughout a man's career? It just seems unreasonable.

Anyway, I'll be voting for Misawa over Andre if it comes to that. Because he's dead and Japanese, which trumps dead and large.
 
From a kayfabe POV, can someone's peak really be single nights cherry-picked from throughout a man's career? It just seems unreasonable.

Batista won the Royal Rumble over 30 other dudes after like, 4 years without wrestling a match. That seems unreasonable, too.

Pro wrestling = absurdity.
 
Batista won the Royal Rumble over 30 other dudes after like, 4 years without wrestling a match. That seems unreasonable, too.

Pro wrestling = absurdity.
If your best defence of your moronic kayfabe logic is "pro wrestling = absurdity," then what's the point in discussing anything with you? What's the point in discussing anything if it all boils down to that kind of flippant bullshit? Why not just throw everything out the window and vote on whatever wet fart of a whim we want? Because that's essentially what you just advocated.

Which is great, because that's what I was going to do anyway.

Oh, and Batista winning his comeback match isn't unreasonable at all in a kayfabe sense. I can find no shortage of guys coming back and winning high profile return bouts.

If you're going to insist on lowering the bar even further than this, can you at least wait till the tournament actually begins?
 
And now I'm stepping away from the computer. Because I just remembered how much I hate this tournament.
 
If your best defence of your moronic kayfabe logic is "pro wrestling = absurdity," then what's the point in discussing anything with you? What's the point in discussing anything if it all boils down to that kind of flippant bullshit? Why not just throw everything out the window and vote on whatever wet fart of a whim we want? Because that's essentially what you just advocated.

Because that's how pro-wrestling works, dude. Remember back in the day when Jack Tunney would pull out the WWF Rule Book? Hmmm. I remember that Shawn Michaels used the WWF Rule Book as a cop out in order to put Steve Austin in the WWF Title match at Mania XV (which was put on the line in a match against Vince). How often does WWF just make up random and ridiculous rules for the sake of storyline? How often do the rules of matches change without logic? How often are matches restarted out of the blue? It's wrestling. It's absurd. Why shouldn't a fake tournament on the Internet also have a bit of absurdity involved?

Which is great, because that's what I was going to do anyway.

You and everyone else. The tournament is an exercise in reason until the person that you want to win wouldn't reasonably beat his opponent. So then you make an argument that hopefully sounds reasonable enough to convince others.

Oh, and Batista winning his comeback match isn't unreasonable at all in a kayfabe sense. I can find no shortage of guys coming back and winning high profile return bouts.

Then how is it less reasonable that a wrestler is in his prime during a span where he doesn't lose ever at the biggest event of the year, always wrestling in main-event or semi-main-event matches?

If you're going to insist on lowering the bar even further than this, can you at least wait till the tournament actually begins?

The bar will be lowered on its own. It's all part of the process.
 
Why not name this "Guys who were a bigger star than Andre" if that's the only quality worthy of going over him. It isn't hard to unhinge that kind of 'logic'. Is it a one-off match from two guys who didn't even occupy the Earth at the same time? Is it a match with the informed history of said competitors? Is it a gimmick match? Do they have experience in gimmick matches? Does the match favor either competitor? What about respect of their peers compared to success? Does a short period of mega-booking outweigh a longer period of merely good booking? If you were to reduce every match to the base element of star power, the WZT would be so fucking boring.

As it stands, in this tournament you can make a case as for why Shelton Benjamin would go over Harley Race, and it's just as legitimate as any opposing.
 
Because that's how pro-wrestling works, dude. Remember back in the day when Jack Tunney would pull out the WWF Rule Book? Hmmm. I remember that Shawn Michaels used the WWF Rule Book as a cop out in order to put Steve Austin in the WWF Title match at Mania XV (which was put on the line in a match against Vince). How often does WWF just make up random and ridiculous rules for the sake of storyline? How often do the rules of matches change without logic? How often are matches restarted out of the blue? It's wrestling. It's absurd. Why shouldn't a fake tournament on the Internet also have a bit of absurdity involved?
Without even the pretence of logic, what's the point?

Of course there is none except generating activity. I'm just surprised to hear you be so obvious about it. You seem to care as little as I do.

I'll just have to do my best not to let the reality of the situation reduce the hilarity of Lariat's annual attempt to outdo the last moronic post he made.

Then how is it less reasonable that a wrestler is in his prime during a span where he doesn't lose ever at the biggest event of the year, always wrestling in main-event or semi-main-event matches?
A man's prime can't be measured on one night a year. That's not a prime. That's a good night.

Saying WrestleMania is Taker's prime would be like me pretending I'm Don Juan based on the fact that I have no problem bedding 9s after Canada Day BBQs. Based only on evidence gathered during a single day of the year, I sure am a stud, aren't I?

Thankfully, I likely won't have to defend my silly "big names coming in well-rested for a return match." Still, there's plenty of evidence to back up that it's a general trend, and it's far less stupid than pretending a guy's prime is a single night every year, ignoring the rest of his work.
 
Why not name this "Guys who were a bigger star than Andre" if that's the only quality worthy of going over him. It isn't hard to unhinge that kind of 'logic'. Is it a one-off match from two guys who didn't even occupy the Earth at the same time? Is it a match with the informed history of said competitors? Is it a gimmick match? Do they have experience in gimmick matches? Does the match favor either competitor? What about respect of their peers compared to success? Does a short period of mega-booking outweigh a longer period of merely good booking? If you were to reduce every match to the base element of star power, the WZT would be so fucking boring.

As it stands, in this tournament you can make a case as for why Shelton Benjamin would go over Harley Race, and it's just as legitimate as any opposing.

I much prefer that approach to simply saying Austin/Hogan/Cena was the biggest deal evar, how can you top that. Defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned.

The non-top guy battles are the real treats.
 
I much prefer that approach to simply saying Austin/Hogan/Cena was the biggest deal evar, how can you top that. Defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned.

The non-top guy battles are the real treats.

Of course to add to that, you do want to keep a leash on it at least a little, as Coco says. Whilst it might be deeply gratifying to say "I wanna vote Heath Slater here cos he said he likes nachos and I like nachos and I don't think Yokozuna liked nachos and also he looked silly", and in fact it certainly is, it's just a bit beyond the pale. You've gotta at least, y'know, TRY to think of a good reason why this guy > that guy, even if it is quite far fetched.
 
Of course to add to that, you do want to keep a leash on it at least a little, as Coco says. Whilst it might be deeply gratifying to say "I wanna vote Heath Slater here cos he said he likes nachos and I like nachos and I don't think Yokozuna liked nachos and also he looked silly", and in fact it certainly is, it's just a bit beyond the pale. You've gotta at least, y'know, TRY to think of a good reason why this guy > that guy, even if it is quite far fetched.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Though in the hundreds of reasons we might hear to vote against Yokozuno, I doubt him NOT liking food will be a common one.
 
Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Though in the hundreds of reasons we might hear to vote against Yokozuno, I doubt him NOT liking food will be a common one.

The problem is, some people are REALLY good at arguing points and making cases that can distract the masses from the obvious.

At the same time, without these kind of Heath Slater type arguments...sometimes everyone agrees. And then it's not as fun. Some people should feel annoyed during the tournament or it's not serving good purpose.
 
Because he literally cannot lose? And the fact that he only works once or twice a year and is still as over as he is a combined testament to the Streak and to the Taker character. And it's fake. I'm well aware that this will be the reason that Taker beats Lesnar at Mania (or that anyone beats Lesnar, for that matter).

The Streak is kayfabe booking. The implication that Taker couldn't lose at Mania is silly. That means he could beat Thesz, Lewis, Hogan, and Sammartino in their primes at Mania... yeah, not buying it. Based off kayfabe booking I could push Kane into the final 16. And Khali at least to the 3rd round.
 
The Streak is kayfabe booking.

Yes. As is the rest of pro-wrestling. Except when they did Brawl for All.

The implication that Taker couldn't lose at Mania is silly.

Why? It's been over 20 years, and he still hasn't lost. Not sure why that is silly.

That means he could beat Thesz, Lewis, Hogan, and Sammartino in their primes at Mania... yeah, not buying it.

Taker has beaten every top star from every era of his career, including a bunch at Wrestlemania. You might not buy it, but a great many definitely would.

Based off kayfabe booking I could push Kane into the final 16. And Khali at least to the 3rd round.

Wrestling is kayfabe. Why shouldn't a tournament pitting wrestlers against one another not be treated in the same way?
 
Because kayfabe voting doesn't give us an accurate reading of who were the "best." And it is extremely biased. Literally anyone could beat anyone looking from kayfabe. Bryan has beaten Cenza clean. I guess that makes him a better wrestler overall. Kane beat Taker 3 separate times on PPV with the world title on the line, thus we should all vote Kane over Taker in the WZT.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top