Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Now that I stop to think about it, Sheamus really is the sixteenth greatest wrestler of all time.
9. Randy Orton (initial days of The Viper gimmick and introduction of the Punt Kick),
17. Jeff Jarrett (coward, cheater, but best use of a guitar- TNA 2005-06)
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.
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.
This is silly. If Taker wasn't a "draw," the WWE machine could only do so much.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.
From a kayfabe POV, can someone's peak really be single nights cherry-picked from throughout a man's career? It just seems unreasonable.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.
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.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?
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
Fuck that bumbling lunatic. I would vote Blue Meanie over his crazy ass. (There's your fire).
Ech,
How is Taker's streak at Mania not his prime? When else was he literally untouchable?
Without even the pretence of logic, what's the point?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?
A man's prime can't be measured on one night a year. That's not a prime. That's a good night.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?
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.
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.
Thanks.The problem is, some people are REALLY good at arguing points and making cases that can distract the masses from the obvious.
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.