Why you people completely suck. By: Slyfox696

[Slyfox696]

For what inevitably appears to have happened for the third straight tournament, you people have voted for active workers to be champions of the tournament. First, it was Shawn Michaels in the "Original" Wrestlezone Tournament, then it was Edge & Christian in the tag tournament, and now it's Undertaker in the current tournament.

Are you people aware that wrestling actually took place before 1997? I mean, it's like if they don't wrestle today, they must be boring workers and terrible to watch. But that wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't for some of the justifications to support these ridiculous results.

For example:

E&C went over The Outsiders, The Hart Foundation and The Steiner Brothers because they are "sneaky". Seriously.

Triple H went over Hogan because "Hogan doesn't need to hide behind gimmick. Therefore he has less experience. HHH also excels in gimmick matches. It's all he has to offer.". So basically because HHH is an inferior worker, he deserves to advance ahead of Hogan.

Chris Benoit went over Sting, because apparently climbing a ladder requires years worth of experience to do. Nevermind the fact, Sting probably climbs a ladder every spring to paint his shed, climbing a ladder is still way out of his element.

I mean, seriously, the excuses people give to vote one guy over another is ridiculous, and they only do it to justify the fact they only have the mental capacity and experience to vote for guys who have competed in the last 3 years.

I think I'd die if someone who has competed within the last 5 years were to win one of these tournament, simply out of shock.

This is why you people completely suck.

Now, so to have discussion in this thread, feel free to explain to me your theories on why a current worker must win the tournament, or why it is you refuse to put over a worker that does not compete anymore as a champion.

 

[WholeF***ingShow]

You do realize that 1 of the people in the finals was not a current worker right?

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

Originally posted by Slyfox696
Are you people aware that wrestling actually took place before 1997? I mean, it's like if they don't wrestle today, they must be boring workers and terrible to watch. But that wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't for some of the justifications to support these ridiculous results.

For example:

E&C went over The Outsiders, The Hart Foundation and The Steiner Brothers because they are "sneaky". Seriously.

I agree. I thought there were plenty of tag teams more worthy of winning the Tournament, but the IWC is halfways up both E&C's asses these days. You could be right about E&C getting votes because they are very well known current wrestlers from the Attitude Era.

Triple H went over Hogan because "Hogan doesn't need to hide behind gimmick. Therefore he has less experience. HHH also excels in gimmick matches. It's all he has to offer.". So basically because HHH is an inferior worker, he deserves to advance ahead of Hogan.

You still can't get pass this can you? I hate how people treat Triple H as if he is still a midcarder, the man won 11 WWE/World titles, he was an IC champion, European champion, Tag team champion, a KOTR winner, and a Royal Rumble winner. Along with that, he won 3 Elimination Chamber Matches, multiple HIAC Matches and multiple Cage matches in his career, he knows how to work in different kinds of cage structures. Hogan only competed in classic cage matches, but they competed in a Triple Cage match, so it only makes sense for Triple H to have the bigger advantage going into this match. Also, Triple H puts on good non-gimmick matches as well, he doesn't need to hide behind gimmick matches all the time, so I wouldn't necessarily call him inferior to Hogan. If it was a normal match between the two, it would have been more even and Hogan may have won, he is one of the greatest wrestling Legends of all time, but that doesn't mean he is impossible to beat.

Chris Benoit went over Sting, because apparently climbing a ladder requires years worth of experience to do. Nevermind the fact, Sting probably climbs a ladder every spring to paint his shed, climbing a ladder is still way out of his element.

You are contradicting yourself here, Sting is still a current wrestler(he took a couple of months off, but everybody knew he would be back), you defending him goes against everything you were arguing about in the first place. It is not about ladder climbing, Benoit had more experience than Sting in TLC matches plain and simple, because Sting never took part in one, that has to count as something when voting Sly. It is about knowing your environment and knowing the tricks of the trade in gimmick matches, Benoit would be able to utilize the weapons better than Sting would, giving him an advantage in this type of match. Chris Benoit was also an excellent wrestler, the votes may not of changed that much even if it was a normal match, Sting would have a better chance, but Benoit would still get his fair share of votes.

I think I'd die if someone who has competed within the last 5 years were to win one of these tournament, simply out of shock.

This is why you people completely suck

I voted for Savage, so you can't say I only vote for current wrestlers. I voted for Savage because it would be a great ending to this tournament if the Macho Man survived through all of the punishment from three ruthless wrestlers(Taker, Vader, and HHH) in his home state Florida, at the Citrus Bowl, Savage is definitely capable of pulling it off. Is that a justified reason? Maybe not, Taker has more stamina going into this match, so I can't really argue against people that voted for Taker because they can use that good reason why he should win. Yes, it is very predictable for Taker to win(which is another reason I voted for Savage), but I can't say he don't deserve it.

 

[Slim Pickns]

You still can't get pass this can you? I hate how people treat Triple H as if he is still a midcarder, the man won 11 WWE/World titles, he was an IC champion, European champion, Tag team champion, a KOTR winner, and a Royal Rumble winner. Along with that, he won 3 Elimination Chamber Matches, multiple HIAC Matches and multiple Cage matches in his career, he knows how to work in different kinds of cage structures. Hogan only competed in classic cage matches, but they competed in a Triple Cage match, so it only makes sense for Triple H to have the bigger advantage going into this match. Also, Triple H puts on good non-gimmick matches as well, he doesn't need to hide behind gimmick matches all the time, so I wouldn't necessarily call him inferior to Hogan. If it was a normal match between the two, it would have been more even and Hogan may have won, he is one of the greatest wrestling Legends of all time, but that doesn't mean he is impossible to beat.

That match was BS and everyone knows it. Hogan lost due to people thinking he can't climb a ladder. My father is a 52 year old retired power lifter. He has limb damage from all the strain he put his body through over the years. Yet, when I went over there last summer to help paint his house, he could climb a ladder just fine. So to say Hogan couldn't in his prime was stupid.

Sly is actually making a very valid point. I'm not sure how Savage got to the finals considering the favoritism towards current stars but Vader would have never made it without IC25. Taking those two out the Elite Eight was all wrestlers who have wrestled in the last two years. People put too much stock in the gimmicks and not enough in the wrestlers. I don't care if the match is a "first to pull of a pedigree wins" match, Hogan would never lose to HHH. Hogan in his prime would take a beating come back, and lay out Hunter with his signature move. The young kids on her would vote HHH due to him "mastering" the move over the years completely disregarding that anyone can pull that move off.

 

[Bernkastel]

I realize that the tournament could have been better, there were matches that had question outcomes as many poeple were voting for their favorites. I like the techique of locking the thread before each match to discuss it before letting people vote, that seemed to make things a little easier. Even though a regular, full time, popular wrestler has won this years version of the tournament, we did see 2 retired wrestlers make it to the final 4, which in my book could be considered a success.

Maybe the outcome of the women's tournament will be to your liking then Slyfox, eh?

 

[Shocky]

Meh, I think the only really terrible thing in here is Edge and Christian winning the tag team titles. I suspected foul play, did what I could with it, but in the end they won. I don't agree with it, but I'll deal with it.

Pretty much from waht I've seen, is if people can campaign and get behind someone, then that person has a damn strong shot at getting far. It all depends on how willing and dedicated you are to get behind someone and push them all the way threw. You have to be dedicated to it, because the slightest slip up, and they'll be gone. Sure this tournament can be tweaked to be better (the 48 hours rule is damn good) (gimmick matches are staying), but the purpose is spreading knowledge about someone.

IC25 did a helluva job this year with getting Vader almost single handedly to the final four, and almost into the finals. He had everyone drinking the Vaterade and it damn near worked. Instead of people assuming guys like Rock, Angle, Austin or Flair were going to win, the guys behind RVD and Vader were out there, making their case known, and got the people sitting on the fence. People see threw bullshit, and realized that an argument of Vader sucks, Austin is better, wasn't going to beat an argument of IC25 and his way with words to get people to vote for Vader.

Same thing happened last year. X got behind Terry Funk, excuse me, Terry Fucking Funk, and made people realize that the man wasn't always a 50 year old washed up ECW champion. You wouldn't believe how many people were clueless when it came to Funks NWA days, and X exposed people to that, and got the Funker to the Elite 8.

Do I agree with everything that has happened, of course not. Triple H would have been sent packing to Andre a long time ago, but that's how the votes go. There are a lot of people that voted anonymously this year, that I'm assuming based there votes on some of the arguments going on. Right now with Randy Savage, no one said anything the first 3 days in favor of why Savage is winning, but all of a sudden people realize he's losing and people start to petition for him. The Undertaker had guys like me, Sam and Norcal feeding the fan base on why to vote for him for two days before one pro savage person went in there. You have to be quick on the draw.

Overall, I don't have a problem with it. You're going to have a hard time telling me that this year and last years winners (two guys that have spent in and around the main event scene of the biggest company in the world for the better part of two decades) aren't deserving champions. I do have a problem with Edge and Christian winning the tag team tourney, but hey it happens.

 

[Slyfox696]

I would like to add to the list of "ridiculous" justifications for why people win.

I'm going to paraphrase Justinsayne.


Undertaker is fresher than Savage, and so Undertaker wins the match, despite being completely out-classed in all areas of wrestling by Savage.

So, why is Undertaker fresher? Because, he ONLY had to have an ECW rules match vs. the Big Show which ONLY lasted 20 minutes, and THEN, he only had to defeat Shawn Michaels in a 45 minute match. But, Shawn was tired too.

How do we know how long the matches go and how tired people get? Apparently, by the percentage of votes they get. But then, that would make no sense, considering HBK got more than double of the votes of his two opponents combined. So, how exactly was Shawn tired again?

And, then we go to Savage who apparently was worn out after a GRUELING match with HHH that went 30-40 minutes, which is astounding considering I can probably count on one hand the number of televised matches both guys have combined which have gone 30-40 minutes. But, apparently Savage is REALLY tired after this match...never mind the fact that he won 70% of the match, he's much more tired than Undertaker was after winning his ECW rules match with The Big Show.

Then, apparently simply because Vader supporters said so, Savage was really beat up after his match, which means that an incredibly fresh Undertaker (you know, after his ECW rules match with Big Show, and his 45 minute match with Shawn Michaels) can easily put away a wrestler who is apparently so much more tired and injured than he is, despite not really have ANY evidence to support that, not to mention Savage is a much better wrestler all the way around.



It's stupid logic like that which gets current wrestlers in. People don't look logically at who would win the match, they just make up their own criteria and justifications to support what they were going to vote anyways.

That is why you people completely suck.

 

[justinsayne]

Alright everybody you heard Sly, next time there's a tournament you can't vote for anybody who is still an active wrestler, cause all the best wrestler came before 1997, and anyone who votes for a wrestler who still is active after '97 sucks

Christ Sly, grow the fuck up, your throwing a temper tantrum cause the wrestler you picked didn't win, dude seriously, it's just meant to be something for fun and yet you take it as if it were serious or some shit

 

[Slyfox696]

Alright everybody you heard Sly, next time there's a tournament you can't vote for anybody who is still an active wrestler, cause all the best wrestler came before 1997, and anyone who votes for a wrestler who still is active after '97 sucks

Yeah, way to completely miss the point Justinsayne. Of course, if I were to use the same logic for picking wrestlers as you do, I might want to ignore what I posted too.

Christ Sly, grow the fuck up, your throwing a temper tantrum cause the wrestler you picked didn't win,

Nobody's throwing a temper tantrum, but I do appreciate the flame-bait, mod.

edude seriously, it's just meant to be something for fun and yet you take it as if it were serious or some shit

I'm sorry. I just figured logic, and rationality would play a part in terms of who people picked.

 

[HBK-aholic]

For what inevitably appears to have happened for the third straight tournament, you people have voted for active workers to be champions of the tournament. First, it was Shawn Michaels in the "Original" Wrestlezone Tournament, then it was Edge & Christian in the tag tournament, and now it's Undertaker in the current tournament.

And Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, and Edge and Christian are all awful are they?

Are you people aware that wrestling actually took place before 1997? I mean, it's like if they don't wrestle today, they must be boring workers and terrible to watch. But that wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't for some of the justifications to support these ridiculous results.

Slyfox, look at who was in the final. Your pick didn't win, just get over it. Mine didn't either, but I can still appreciate why The Undertaker did win.
But sorry, I forgot, if a wrestler is still wrestling now they can't be good Both the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels were wrestling before 1997, so it's not like some completely new wrestler with no experience.

E&C went over The Outsiders, The Hart Foundation and The Steiner Brothers because they are "sneaky". Seriously.

I wasn't around for this tournament, so I can't exactly justify any of this. E&C are good though, I don't think they're the best, and IMO shouldn't have gone over the Hart Foundation. But that's all it is at the end of the day. Our opinions. Because we can't prove, E&C would have won/lost. So as much as I agree about this one, nothing you can do about it.

Triple H went over Hogan because "Hogan doesn't need to hide behind gimmick. Therefore he has less experience. HHH also excels in gimmick matches. It's all he has to offer.". So basically because HHH is an inferior worker, he deserves to advance ahead of Hogan.

Triple H isn't inferior to Hogan. Hogan was and is a bigger draw. But in a match between the 2, it could have gone either way.

Chris Benoit went over Sting, because apparently climbing a ladder requires years worth of experience to do. Nevermind the fact, Sting probably climbs a ladder every spring to paint his shed, climbing a ladder is still way out of his element.

Sly it's about experience! Benoit was a great wrestler, as was Sting. Pretty even match if you ask me. The thing that separates them is experience. If it was a non-gimmick match who knows? But people needed to use experience. And how are you telling me experience means nothing in wrestling? Especially a match like this? It's not only about climbing a ladder. It's about using everything available to you to your advanatage. Benoit can use these things more than Sting could.
Oh, and finally, tell me how Benoit is still wrestling now?

I mean, seriously, the excuses people give to vote one guy over another is ridiculous, and they only do it to justify the fact they only have the mental capacity and experience to vote for guys who have competed in the last 3 years.

Excuses? So experience is a 'ridiculous' excuse is it?

I think I'd die if someone who has competed within the last 5 years were to win one of these tournament, simply out of shock.

Here's to hoping then. Who said, the only good wrestlers have retired? In 10 years, when both Shawn and Taker have retired, will it be okay for them to then go over the people they did and win?

This is why you people completely suck.

Nice flame there. Oh, thanks Jonny

Now, so to have discussion in this thread, feel free to explain to me your theories on why a current worker must win the tournament, or why it is you refuse to put over a worker that does not compete anymore as a champion.

Just because a current wrestler won doesn't mean thats the reason! Do you have a hatred for HBK and Undertaker, because they still wrestle? You're undermining their wins because of this. And at the end of the day, it's a fake tournament! Oh, and because you're seeming incapable of doing this. Top 4 left - 50% of those were not wrestling today. Top 2 left - 50% not wrestling today. That's half. So it was evenly split.

 

[Slyfox696]

And Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, and Edge and Christian are all awful are they?

Inferior to some of the workers they beat, without a doubt.

Slyfox, look at who was in the final. Your pick didn't win, just get over it. Mine didn't either, but I can still appreciate why The Undertaker did win.
But sorry, I forgot, if a wrestler is still wrestling now they can't be good Both the Undertaker and Shawn Michaels were wrestling before 1997, so it's not like some completely new wrestler with no experience.

Did you even read what i wrote?

Triple H isn't inferior to Hogan. Hogan was and is a bigger draw. But in a match between the 2, it could have gone either way.

Again, did you read what I posted? At all?

THAT WASN'T MY CRITERIA! Go back, and read it again. That is what, in this case Jake, said. He said that Triple H always hid behind gimmick matches because it's all he was good at. Which basically says that because HHH is the inferior worker, he wins the match.

Sly it's about experience!

How much experience do you need to climb a ladder? Honestly, it's not that hard if you've never done it.

Benoit was a great wrestler, as was Sting. Pretty even match if you ask me. The thing that separates them is experience. If it was a non-gimmick match who knows? But people needed to use experience. And how are you telling me experience means nothing in wrestling? Especially a match like this? It's not only about climbing a ladder. It's about using everything available to you to your advanatage. Benoit can use these things more than Sting could.

I very much stated Sting's history in hardcore matches, meaning that he very much has experience, as evidenced by his wars with Vampiro, and his wars with Abyss. So, obviously, Sting is no novice to hardcore matches.

That just leaves two things. Who knows how to climb a ladder, and who is better. Well, to answer the first one, EVERYBODY knows how to climb a ladder. And, in my opinion, Sting was better.

I can understand if people were to say "I think Benoit was the more skilled combatant"...but that's not what they said. EVERY SINGLE POST before mine in that thread talked about how Benoit would win, simply because Sting apparently can't climb a ladder.

And, if you would actually take the time to read my post, you would see that I said..."But that wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't for some of the justifications to support these ridiculous results."

The results are one thing. I can understand Benoit getting voted ahead of Sting, if it were simply down to skill. I would disagree, but I could understand. It's the logic that is used to justify these votes that simply amazes me.

Oh, and finally, tell me how Benoit is still wrestling now?

Don't be coy. You can clearly see that I said "wrestles within the last three years".

Here's to hoping then.

I find this statement ironic, considering what you post just after this...

Nice flame there. Oh, thanks Jonny

Who said, the only good wrestlers have retired? In 10 years, when both Shawn and Taker have retired, will it be okay for them to then go over the people they did and win?

In 10 years, Shawn and Taker will not win this thing.

That's my point.

Just because a current wrestler won doesn't mean thats the reason! Do you have a hatred for HBK and Undertaker, because they still wrestle?

See above.

You're undermining their wins because of this. And at the end of the day, it's a fake tournament! Oh, and because you're seeming incapable of doing this. Top 4 left - 50% of those were not wrestling today. Top 2 left - 50% not wrestling today. That's half. So it was evenly split.

And yet, the winner has ALWAYS come out as a current wrestler, and I'll wager whatever you want that the next tournament winner will be a current worker too, assuming the format doesn't change (which it might do).

 

[HBK-aholic]

Inferior to some of the workers they beat, without a doubt.

Well you didn't seem to mention anything about Shawn Michaels going over someone he shouldn't have in your original post. These wrestlers, at least HBk and Taker, are inferior to very few.

Did you even read what i wrote?

Again, did you read what I posted? At all?

THAT WASN'T MY CRITERIA! Go back, and read it again. That is what, in this case Jake, said. He said that Triple H always hid behind gimmick matches because it's all he was good at. Which basically says that because HHH is the inferior worker, he wins the match.

Yet you seem in utter shock HHH did go over Hogan, therefore leading me to believe you also think Hogan is so much better. Which I don't think is true.

How much experience do you need to climb a ladder? Honestly, it's not that hard if you've never done it.

A ladder match isn't about only climbing a ladder.

I very much stated Sting's history in hardcore matches, meaning that he very much has experience, as evidenced by his wars with Vampiro, and his wars with Abyss. So, obviously, Sting is no novice to hardcore matches.

I didn't know of Stings previous Hardcore background, so that may have changed my voting depending on the match. I don't think I voted in this match actually. But still, Benoit's background is a lot more familiar to people, so they are bound to vote for what they have seen

That just leaves two things. Who knows how to climb a ladder, and who is better. Well, to answer the first one, EVERYBODY knows how to climb a ladder. And, in my opinion, Sting was better.

I can understand if people were to say "I think Benoit was the more skilled combatant"...but that's not what they said. EVERY SINGLE POST before mine in that thread talked about how Benoit would win, simply because Sting apparently can't climb a ladder.

Well if the actual reason people gave was he can't climb a ladder, then I'll agree with you that it does seem slightly idiotic as the only reason. Whereas they should have said Benoit has more experence in the matter.

The results are one thing. I can understand Benoit getting voted ahead of Sting, if it were simply down to skill. I would disagree, but I could understand. It's the logic that is used to justify these votes that simply amazes me.

Well as I said, if they actually used the 'Sting can't climb a ladder' I agree with you.

Don't be coy. You can clearly see that I said "wrestles within the last three years".

Well when is the right cut off time then? Becase it's just confusing.

I find this statement ironic, considering what you post just after this...

I'm not trying to tell any mod how to do their job, to play mod, or anything like that,

Really? It seems that way.

but if she is given an infraction for this clear flame-bait, then I will take my flaming infraction that I feel is unjustified, and do it with a smile and never mention another word about it again

Clear flame bait? I think it's justfiable for me to have an opinion on someone who says we suck for basically having different opinions actually. And no mod has yet said to me that I shouldn't have said what I did. I didn't come up to you and fully flame you did I?

However, is it just me or is Sly trying to get the mods to give me an infraction just so he shuts up about his? I think there's a word for that..

In 10 years, Shawn and Taker will not win this thing.

That's my point.

See above.

You don't know that though.

And yet, the winner has ALWAYS come out as a current wrestler, and I'll wager whatever you want that the next tournament winner will be a current worker too, assuming the format doesn't change (which it might do).

You say always as if there has been hundreds of these tournaments. There has been 2. And a tag team one.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well you didn't seem to mention anything about Shawn Michaels going over someone he shouldn't have in your original post.

Michaels went over both Austin and Flair in the first tourny. Flair I can understand, but Austin? Not a chance.

These wrestlers, at least HBk and Taker, are inferior to very few.

Taker is inferior to several wrestlers in this tournament.

Yet you seem in utter shock HHH did go over Hogan, therefore leading me to believe you also think Hogan is so much better. Which I don't think is true.

1) Hogan IS much better. 2) I'm talking about some of the logic used to justify.

A ladder match isn't about only climbing a ladder. I didn't know of Stings previous Hardcore background, so that may have changed my voting depending on the match. I don't think I voted in this match actually. But still, Benoit's background is a lot more familiar to people, so they are bound to vote for what they have seen

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

Well if the actual reason people gave was he can't climb a ladder, then I'll agree with you that it does seem slightly idiotic as the only reason. Well as I said, if they actually used the 'Sting can't climb a ladder' I agree with you.

Thank you.

Well when is the right cut off time then? Becase it's just confusing.

The point is that many people are not voting in the championship matches based upon anything other than what they have seen within the last few years.

Clear flame bait? I think it's justfiable for me to have an opinion on someone who says we suck for basically having different opinions actually. And no mod has yet said to me that I shouldn't have said what I did. I didn't come up to you and fully flame you did I?

You told me you hoped I died.

But, I'm not going to say anything else about it.

You don't know that though.

If you had held this tournament 9 or 10 years ago, do you honestly think anyone other than Austin or Rock would have won?

You say always as if there has been hundreds of these tournaments. There has been 2. And a tag team one.

Actually, I believe this was the third individual one, if I understood Shocky correctly.

 

[Jonny B]

Yeah I'm closing this up.... Getting a bit out of hand.