Worst BIG name wrestler ever

[IrishCanadian25]

No offense, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Sure I can! Watch me!

Wait a second...

Seriously, glad you're back, I was getting bored @ work. Here goes.

Sid Vicious was FAR better than people give him credit for. Yes, he did some dumb things (such as the "half the man you are"....hilarious), but the man played his character better than anyone this side of Jake Roberts. When you watch Sid Vicious, you know you're watching one bad ass dude. He was believable and he was real.

I am not disputing that. Of course, that has nothing to do with the thread, making this the 2nd time you've gone off topic. That aside, since I don't really mind developing this debate further, I did say in my original post that Sid had the best pure look, maybe ever. And you're right, he played his character extremely well - huge, intimidating, bad ass.

But he still screwed shit up left and right. And his in ring product was pedestrian. He's far from the worst pro wrestler ever, but as a main eventer and a "big name," he tops my list.

I am not debating that Sid wasn't believable or real. But the point of this thread is to discuss in-ring product from big-name guys.

Which is why he is far ahead of RVD, whose working style made a mockery of pro wrestling many times.

I personally would not go THIS far. RVD is pro wrestling's version of Hot Topic - went from edgy and creative to stale and formulaic in just a few years. But mockery? His lack of ring psychology is documented (and I agree for the most part) but he did his due diligence playing up the involvement of martial arts in professional wrestling. So I'll credit him with that.

Oh, and as far as the broken leg thing goes, how is that even his fault? His knee just gave way. Has nothing to do with Sid. Not only that, he didn't even want to do the move, he was FORCED to by management. That's been well documented.

A botch is a botch is a botch. But you make a fair point. I'd have still refused to do it if I didn't feel safe. I mean, it's just plain stupid for a man his size to attempt to land on his foot while delivering that kick. Both parties get faulted for that.

But what about the powerbomb? Or injuring Michaels? Those aren't part of his "character." It was a good example of sacrificing the opponent's well being for the look of the move. Hogan never did that. Hart sure as hell never did that.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am not disputing that. Of course, that has nothing to do with the thread, making this the 2nd time you've gone off topic.

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with this thread, and being a good in-ring worker.

But he still screwed shit up left and right.

So did RVD...which is my counter point.

And his in ring product was pedestrian.

His in-ring work was believable, and it was realistic.

Not everything has to be about a million arm bars and a bunch of flippys IC. I expected better out of you.

He's far from the worst pro wrestler ever, but as a main eventer and a "big name," he tops my list.

Which is why you couldn't be more wrong.

I am not debating that Sid wasn't believable or real. But the point of this thread is to discuss in-ring product from big-name guys.

Do you not understand that believability and realism is one of the BIGGEST ingredients to in-ring quality?

I personally would not go THIS far. RVD is pro wrestling's version of Hot Topic - went from edgy and creative to stale and formulaic in just a few years. But mockery? His lack of ring psychology is documented (and I agree for the most part) but he did his due diligence playing up the involvement of martial arts in professional wrestling. So I'll credit him with that.

It was a mockery. It was completely unrealistic. Have you ever watched a Van Dam match? Would you EVER see something so ridiculous in MMA, where REAL fighting happens? Of course not.

Professional wrestling is 100% about imitating a real life struggle. And doing rolling flips doesn't begin to make for realism.

A botch is a botch is a botch.

How is an injury a botch? That makes no sense. He didn't botch it, his knee just blew out. Using that line of thinking, clearly Tom Brady botched his QB spot when he got his knee blown out. It's ridiculous.

But you make a fair point. I'd have still refused to do it if I didn't feel safe. I mean, it's just plain stupid for a man his size to attempt to land on his foot while delivering that kick. Both parties get faulted for that.

I don't blame Sid at all. He was being a good employee (for a change) and doing what he was asked, even after lodging numerous complaints about it.

But what about the powerbomb?

What about it? Things happen in wrestling. Is Owen Hart a terrible wrestler now because he botched a pile driver on Steve Austin?

Those aren't part of his "character."

Actually...if you want to get technical about it...

It was a good example of sacrificing the opponent's well being for the look of the move.

In Pillman's case it wasn't. In Pillman's case is was simply a case of not being aware that Pillman couldn't protect himself.

Hogan never did that. Hart sure as hell never did that.

Owen Hart did. Chris Benoit did.

Accidents happen. There's a difference between a botch and an accident.

 

[Big Sexy]

He wasn't putting him in a Tree of Woe, he was body slamming him against the turnbuckle.

If he wasn't trying to put him in a tree of woe then after slamming him into the turnbuckle he just dropped him on his head which is worse then screwing up an actual move.

So, not only have you not proved you position about botches, you've also proven you don't really understand that much about pro wrestling. Congratulations.

Anyone who thinks the Warrior was a great wrestler is the one who doesn't understand pro wrestling. He was a great performer not wrestler.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with this thread, and being a good in-ring worker.

Wrong. Go back and read CCS's original post in the thread. It's a question of actual wrestling. I agree with you that Sid had a terrific look and strong charisma, especially as a heel, but that's where it ends. Other than that, the guy was a lummox, a laborious powerhouse who will go down in history known for two things- snapping his leg and stabbing Arn Anderson.

So did RVD...which is my counter point.

Ok, let me make this clear. I am not going on with you about RVD. I don't care to. I am ambivalent to your point about Van Dam. I am merely defending my choice that the answer is Sid. You won't have much trouble trying to convince me that RVD should be high on the list as well.

His in-ring work was believable, and it was realistic.

Ok, that's fine.

Not everything has to be about a million arm bars and a bunch of flippys IC. I expected better out of you.

Who the hell do you think you're speaking to? When have I EVER said that "armbars and flippies" have to be the formula for a match? Talk about let downs in expectations, I think we've debated enough times on these boards for you to be able to remember who I am and what drives me when I watch wrestling. You and I shockingly agree more often than not about good in-ring product based on what makes a good, overall professional wrestler.

Which is why you couldn't be more wrong.

This made no sense in context. None whatsoever. Not sure what you wanted to accomplish, so I assume you just threw this in here to try to negate my argument without directing it anywhere.

Do you not understand that believability and realism is one of the BIGGEST ingredients to in-ring quality?

Yes, Sly, I get that part.

It was a mockery. It was completely unrealistic. Have you ever watched a Van Dam match?

Yes, I have. Why?

Would you EVER see something so ridiculous in MMA, where REAL fighting happens? Of course not.

Ok, let me make this clear. I am not going on with you about RVD. I don't care to. I am ambivalent to your point about Van Dam. I am merely defending my choice that the answer is Sid. You won't have much trouble trying to convince me that RVD should be high on the list as well.

Professional wrestling is 100% about imitating a real life struggle. And doing rolling flips doesn't begin to make for realism.

It's also about protecting your opponent in the pursuit of that realism.

How is an injury a botch? That makes no sense. He didn't botch it, his knee just blew out. Using that line of thinking, clearly Tom Brady botched his QB spot when he got his knee blown out. It's ridiculous.

It's the age old debate. And his knee didn't give at all. He came down wrong on his foot, and snapped his ankle like a twig. His knee didn't "give out." He landed awkwardly on the side of his foot, and his weight and momentum shattered it.

I don't blame Sid at all. He was being a good employee (for a change) and doing what he was asked, even after lodging numerous complaints about it.

I still give him some blame, but I sure as hell don't hold WCW harmless here.

What about it? Things happen in wrestling. Is Owen Hart a terrible wrestler now because he botched a pile driver on Steve Austin?

Owen botched the shit out of that move, and he never should have attempted it. Let me take a page out of your book, Sly - what business did Owen have doing a Tombstone to Austin in the first place? It wasn't just a piledriver, Sly, it was a Tombstone, a move that MADE SO SENSE for his character. Was Owen a bad pro wrestler? No, when he stuck to his character's style he was very good. But he had no business trying this move to begin with. Sid botched a move that WAS in his character's style, and botched it consistently.

Actually...if you want to get technical about it...

No, no, no. Legitimately injuring others with botched moves doesn't belong in ANYONE's character. If the injuries are kayfabe, ok, cool. Randy Orton is a prime example. But no guy should get over by being the one who injures his opponents and puts them out of action.

In Pillman's case it wasn't. In Pillman's case is was simply a case of not being aware that Pillman couldn't protect himself.

So you blame that neck-plant power bomb on Pillman? Are you kidding? Pillman is in such a prone position in the Power Bomb that he has to be able to trust that Sid will do what it takes to land him safely. Sid just straight up gives up on the move and drops him on his neck, nearly paralyzing him. And Pillman wasn't a big dude, so there's no excuse.

Owen Hart did. Chris Benoit did.

I addressed Owen. Not sure where you are coming from on Benoit.

Accidents happen. There's a difference between a botch and an accident.

When accidents happen consistently as a result of negligence, that's botching. You're claiming Sid makes mistakes and RVD botches moves - why that double standard? I'm curious...

 

[Father:_Polley]

I'm still going for Warrior. Even taking out his average and mundane, if not sloppy ring work, the man was incomprehensible on the mic. All he had was the in ring energy, which anyone can do. Goldberg, Batista, Hogan...all could do it. Even Kofi freaking Kingston has the in ring energy down.

Bottom line, for making his name, he didn't do much in the ring to merit it for me. He was over but that was all

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm curious about something?

How is RVD's deviation from the styles of the other guys on this list an "unrealistic mockery" of professional wrestling, but the deviation that the guys on this list made from the works of people from the Thesz era not?

I think if you wound time back to when the Hulkster was starting up, you'll find a great many people echoing your sentiments but when a name change you would by mighty unconformable with.

Both guys use a more showy, lass realistic style to entertain people. Explain to me where the distinction lies.

 

[Slyfox696]

If he wasn't trying to put him in a tree of woe then after slamming him into the turnbuckle he just dropped him on his head which is worse then screwing up an actual move.

No, he bodyslammed him on the turnbuckle, and Savage didn't brace himself for the fall. Not Warrior's fault.

Anyone who thinks the Warrior was a great wrestler is the one who doesn't understand pro wrestling. He was a great performer not wrestler.

That's stupid. Professional wrestling is not about moves, it's bout the character you play and the story you tell. Trying to define a difference between "performer" and "wrestler" is pointless, because there is none.

Wrong. Go back and read CCS's original post in the thread. It's a question of actual wrestling.

Yes, and "actual wrestling" has EVERYTHING to do with the character you play.

Take, for example, Sid Vicious. If he were to go in there, and start doing hurricaranas and arm bars, is that going to make you think he was a vicious man? Of course not. Hell, you're a big fan of Vader, and Vader was very similar in what he did compared to Vicious. He played a huge monster of a character who was supposed to be (and was) intimidating.

I agree with you that Sid had a terrific look and strong charisma, especially as a heel, but that's where it ends. Other than that, the guy was a lummox, a laborious powerhouse who will go down in history known for two things- snapping his leg and stabbing Arn Anderson.

Which is why I said earlier he was completely overrated. The man was over AND believable EVERYWHERE he worked. Name one place Vicious was where he wasn't main-event material. You can't. Why? Because the man was SO good in the ring at playing his character in the ring. He was so good at working a match that made you think he was a legitimate bad-ass, which is what he was supposed to be doing. He wasn't going to give you a five star match, but he would never ruin a match either.

Ok, let me make this clear. I am not going on with you about RVD. I don't care to. I am ambivalent to your point about Van Dam. I am merely defending my choice that the answer is Sid. You won't have much trouble trying to convince me that RVD should be high on the list as well.

To prove that Sid is not number 1 on the list, I present RVD, who was a much worse wrestler. And that's why I brought him up.

Please stay up with the discussion IC.

Ok, that's fine.

Then, what else needs to be said?

Who the hell do you think you're speaking to?

Someone with a foolish notion that Sid Vicious was the worst big name worker ever.

When have I EVER said that "armbars and flippies" have to be the formula for a match? Talk about let downs in expectations, I think we've debated enough times on these boards for you to be able to remember who I am and what drives me when I watch wrestling. You and I shockingly agree more often than not about good in-ring product based on what makes a good, overall professional wrestler.

Then what could you possibly base your opinion on of Vicious? How can you possibly say he was the worst ever, if you understand wrestling the way you say you do?

I mean, dare I say it, have you not actually watched several of Sid Vicious matches.

This made no sense in context. None whatsoever. Not sure what you wanted to accomplish, so I assume you just threw this in here to try to negate my argument without directing it anywhere.

If you have the ability to follow a discussion for more than 2 posts, then it should make complete sense.

Yes, I have. Why?

Because I'm astounded how you don't see the mockery that RVD makes of wrestling.

It's also about protecting your opponent in the pursuit of that realism.

If I'm not mistaken, he's injured as many people as Chris Benoit did.

Well, aside from that whole murder/suicide thing. In wrestling, I mean.

Owen botched the shit out of that move, and he never should have attempted it. Let me take a page out of your book, Sly - what business did Owen have doing a Tombstone to Austin in the first place? It wasn't just a piledriver, Sly, it was a Tombstone, a move that MADE SO SENSE for his character. Was Owen a bad pro wrestler? No, when he stuck to his character's style he was very good. But he had no business trying this move to begin with.

Sure he did. That's silly. I'd rather not get in this argument, but why wouldn't Owen Hart attempt that move? Why wouldn't that move make sense for his character?

That's ridiculous.

Sid botched a move that WAS in his character's style, and botched it consistently.

Consistently? What is this "consistently" you speak of?

No, no, no. Legitimately injuring others with botched moves doesn't belong in ANYONE's character. If the injuries are kayfabe, ok, cool. Randy Orton is a prime example. But no guy should get over by being the one who injures his opponents and puts them out of action.

But, if you want to get technical about it, injuring people WAS his character.

Now, I'm not saying injuring people is OK, but you said it wasn't part of his character, and I was just pointing out that isn't exactly true, in a technical sense.

So you blame that neck-plant power bomb on Pillman?

Is that what I said IC? No, it isn't even close. Pay attention.

Are you kidding? Pillman is in such a prone position in the Power Bomb that he has to be able to trust that Sid will do what it takes to land him safely. Sid just straight up gives up on the move and drops him on his neck, nearly paralyzing him. And Pillman wasn't a big dude, so there's no excuse.

Read what I said again IC, and comprehend it. Then apologize, and re-do your reply.

I addressed Owen. Not sure where you are coming from on Benoit.

Have you never heard of "The Canadian Crippler"? I figured your wrestling knowledge would be greater.

When accidents happen consistently as a result of negligence, that's botching.

Again with the consistently. I think you've mentioned three things, one of which happened to Sid himself, despite his protests.

You're claiming Sid makes mistakes and RVD botches moves - why that double standard? I'm curious...

There's a difference between accidents and botches. It's not a double standard.

An accident is an unfortunate circumstance, which protects the realism of wrestling. Accidents happen in wrestling all the time. Unfortunate, but true.

A botch is something which completely exposes the fakeness of the business, and/or ruins the flow of the match. Even taking Pillman's powerbomb, while it was awful, yes, it still fit into the flow of the match and still further the realism of wrestling. But, RVD's numerous botches do nothing more than make a mockery of the realism in wrestling and ruin the flow of a match.

I'm still going for Warrior. Even taking out his average and mundane, if not sloppy ring work, the man was incomprehensible on the mic.

You do realize that was intentional, correct? That he was playing his mythical character, speaking of that which most people wouldn't understand, just like his character would do. Right?

I'm curious about something?

How is RVD's deviation from the styles of the other guys on this list an "unrealistic mockery" of professional wrestling, but the deviation that the guys on this list made from the works of people from the Thesz era not?

I think if you wound time back to when the Hulkster was starting up, you'll find a great many people echoing your sentiments but when a name change you would by mighty unconformable with.

Both guys use a more showy, lass realistic style to entertain people. Explain to me where the distinction lies.

It's not the deviation of styles that makes it a mockery, it's the consistent mistakes he makes while doing it.

Compare RVD to someone like Rey Mysterio. Rey is a high flyer as well, and he occasionally misses spots, but no where near as many as RVD does. And not only that, Rey's matches incorporate an element of storytelling and psychology that an RVD match can't even begin to touch. Finally, the REALISM in what Rey does is so much greater than that which RVD can do.

THAT'S the difference lies. It's not the style, it's the execution of the style...or in RVD's case, the lack of execution.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I chortle at this thread. NONE of them were bad wrestlers, becuase they were all big names who drew money. Which is what wrestlers are supposed to do. period. If they werent good at what they were doing, then why did people pay money to see them?? To the point were they became "BIG" names? Becuase they werent terrible, and played the hell out of their characters. So the thread is silly. I shall allow the facade to continue though, so as to watch Sly continue taking everyone to class.

 

[Big Sexy]

NONE of them were bad wrestlers, becuase they were all big names who drew money.

That's stupid. Professional wrestling is not about moves, it's bout the character you play and the story you tell. Trying to define a difference between "performer" and "wrestler" is pointless, because there is none.

The person who made the thread said it was about in-ring wrestling ability. Not cutting promos, not being over with the crowd, not how they were as performers. I already said that the Warrior was one of the best performers ever, but his in-ring wrestling skills were bad.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Im in no way an RVD fan I never really cared for him but Im just gonna come to his defense a bit. Alot of people say that the main thing for a wrestler is to connect to the crowd but didnt RVD routinely draw the loudest pops wherever he went so wouldnt that mean he made a connection with the crowd and that people wanted to see him so how could he be the worst? He rarely came out to silence. Also Sly you said one of the reasons he had poor psychology is because the crowd cheered him when he was supposed to be a heel, by that philosophy wouldnt that mean that Cena is a bad wrestler with poor psychology because people routinely booed him and drew mix reactions despite his role being the biggest face? With the role he is playing he should NEVER draw any boos. Or when Austin was supposed to be a heel in 96 and 97 people started to cheer him, can you blame him for that? The point is sometimes you cant control what the crowd does but I think the key is that they atleast do something and people always did something with RVD. One things for sure though and that is I dont ever remember RVD drawing boos when he was supposed to be a face which he was majority of the time he was in the WWE, I think that is the ultimate insult when it comes to a wrestler.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The person who made the thread said it was about in-ring wrestling ability. Not cutting promos, not being over with the crowd, not how they were as performers. I already said that the Warrior was one of the best performers ever, but his in-ring wrestling skills were bad.

In ring wrestling ability is what I am talking about. There is NO such division between "preforming" a character, and this so called, elusive, impossible to define "in ring ability". In ring wrestling ability is EXACTLY what I was talking about, and The Ultimate Warrior was one of the best ever at it.

 

[Big Sexy]

There is NO such division between "preforming" a character, and this so called, elusive, impossible to define "in ring ability".

Impossible to define? Either you perform moves well or you don't. There is definitely a difference between how a guy performs a character and how a guy performs wrestling moves.

 

[jmt225]

Not at all.

They just suck. No false logic there, they're just terrible.

Well, the people in attendance every night would disagree. And the fact of matter is that a professional wrestler's ultimate job is to make sure the fans get their money's worth with their performance. And RVD certainly did that every night in ECW (and in WWE). That's fine if you thought his ECW matches sucked, but he wasn't catering to a fan such as yourself. He was catering to people he knew would appreciate his style at that time.

You can say they are, but that doesn't change the fact they are not.

Not a fact.

Sure he could. How hard is it to have a bad match?

Well, you're one of the very few who view those as bad matches.

And if all those matches were so horrible, then WWE wouldn't have continued to push RVD and would've fired his ass long ago.

However, let's presume, merely for arguments sake, those were all decent matches. Would you not agree though, that none of them compare to Warrior vs. Hogan or Warrior vs. Savage?

I would say RVD vs. Cena from ONS deserves to be up there with the greatest WWE Title matches of all time. Cena could quite possibly end up being one of the greatest wrestlers ever, and that match will always be one of his most remembered.

Furthermore, would you not agree that RVD had MANY more opportunities to put on PPV matches than Warrior did, considering Warrior basically had Wrestlemania or Summerslam to put on those matches, whereas RVD had a weekly TV show and a PPV every month to do it?

I would agree with you there. Good point.

But I must say that if Warrior did have the opportunity to perform that often, I can't picture him putting on the match quality RVD put on on a regular basis.

In what way can RVD be better?

He put on better matches, and I would claim he had charisma that matched Warrior's as well.

He did? What simple moves did he botch? Please give me a match link and point them out. I would love to see them.

Big Sexy already posted one link. Another example would be of him nearly killing Bobby Heenan.

Plus, a lot of Warrior's stuff just looked sloppy. He didn't come off as very crisp or smoothed whenever he wrestled.

You're kidding right? One of the worst botches of all time came when RVD tried to back spin heel kick a chair Angle was holding, and completely missed.

One botch. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't botch often his last few years in the company.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you even understand psychology? Let's take, for example, the ECW/WCW Invasion angle the WWE did. Did you not find it funny how RVD could NEVER get booed? Why do you think that is?[/QUOTE]

So, by this logic, Cena getting booed instead of cheered means he doesn't understand psychology.

It's called "poor psychology". It's about not understanding how to WORK, just knowing how to do a bunch of flips and high jumping.

RVD did know how to work. He did connect with the crowd every single night. He didn't do a bunch of flips and high jumping. He had his own "Five Moves of Doom" just like every other WWE Superstar, he gave a firey comeback, and he sold very well. There's a huge reason why he was the only person to come from ECW and succeed in WWE. He adjusted to the style very well and his success in WWE proves that.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Impossible to define? Either you perform moves well or you don't. There is definitely a difference between how a guy performs a character and how a guy performs wrestling moves.

there is entirely a difference between preforming wrestling moves, and professional wrestling ability. totaly true. then say "preforming moves" not "wrestling ability" becuase they are two different things.

and please, do direct me to all of these botches the warrior supposedly had. dircet me to were he fucks up, and the suspension of reality is lost for the crowd. I think someone has been watching the "self destruction of the ultimate warrior" dvd a little too much. He carried out his moveset exactly in the manner the character he played would have. so your argument is baseless.

 

[Slyfox696]

The person who made the thread said it was about in-ring wrestling ability. Not cutting promos, not being over with the crowd, not how they were as performers. I already said that the Warrior was one of the best performers ever, but his in-ring wrestling skills were bad.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about as well.

And his in-ring skills were very solid. To try and say otherwise is silly.

Also Sly you said one of the reasons he had poor psychology is because the crowd cheered him when he was supposed to be a heel, by that philosophy wouldnt that mean that Cena is a bad wrestler with poor psychology because people routinely booed him and drew mix reactions despite his role being the biggest face? With the role he is playing he should NEVER draw any boos. Or when Austin was supposed to be a heel in 96 and 97 people started to cheer him, can you blame him for that?

*sigh*

I knew people would bring this up, I should have just gone ahead and addressed it earlier.


Allow me to explain the difference, and some basic heel psychology. As a heel, you are not supposed to get cheered. This is understood, right? Okay, good.

Now, as a heel, you're job is to make the other guy look good. Your job is to go in the ring, play the "Evil" character, and give the crowd every reason to cheer the other guy. The WAY you do this will determine how well you do your job. Take someone like Ted DiBiase from late 80s to the early 90s. How many crowd popping moves does DiBiase do? How much high impact offense does he have? The only time he ever even jumps off the ropes is when his opponent is going to counter it. His offense was low impact, and with ZERO crowd popping possibilities, unless it was going to be countered. That's good heel psychology. You have to change your working style to fit your character.

RVD never did that. You can use Kurt Angle in late 05 and 06 as a good example of this as well. Instead of working matches at a slower pace, and doing moves which take the focus off himself and put it on his opponent, RVD did the same damn moves he did his entire career. He still did the aerial wrestling, and still did the crowd popping moves. Which is where he shows poor psychology. Instead of working as a heel, with a slower more deliberate, even boring, pace, he works his fast paced, crowd popping style.

You can't say the same for Steve Austin. Even as he was getting more cheers than boos, it wasn't because his in-ring style demanded it (like RVD's did) it was simply because fans, for whatever reason, enjoyed his personality outside of the ring. They enjoyed the interviews he did, and the complete bad-ass way he presented himself. Finally, I'll submit this as well. Steve Austin wasn't cheered NEAR as much as people want to think he was back in late 96, early 97. The only time he REALLY started to get significant face heat was after WM 13, in the classic double turn. Yes, he would get a smattering of cheers, but it was no where near as impactful as people make it out to be.

And, you can't use the oppose for John Cena. John Cena didn't get booed because of his working style, he got booed mostly people many wrestling fans were idiots. And I think Cena has PROVEN that those critics of his, that said he couldn't wrestle, were idiots. Because ever since he got the title, he's been arguably the best worker in the WWE, in and out of the ring.

So, that's where the difference lies between RVD, Austin, and Cena. Just because you get booed or cheered doesn't mean you use poor psychology. It's WHY you are getting booed or cheered, and in RVD's case, he got cheered as a heel because of shoddy psychology.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Lol, i love this.

No one seems willing to accept the idea that some heels get cheered purely because the fans love that character, regardless of what he or she does. It's always down to the talent's inability to do their job properly, and nothing to do with what the fans want/enjoy and OUR mis-understanding of how things are supposed to work. They tried to force Austin onto us as a heel and it didn't work, then, several years down the line, they tried again, and he still got cheered more then his opponents did.

The Undertaker has chopped and changed from heel to face, as has Kane, and both of them still get cheered even when they're beating guys to a bloody pulp for 10 minutes. Their psychology changes with their allegiances accordingly. Both guys use a lot less power moves when they are heels and spend a lot more time dishing out the strikes than anything else, yet the two wrestlers get cheered every night, even if they are in ******ed angles.

I can think of plenty of times when RVD got booed back in ECW. Barely Legal is a good example, where he didn't get a great number of cheers throughout that match, and then he delivered a promo at the end where he basically said, 'why did i bother with that match?' and everyone booed him. Later when he and Sabu helped the King invade ECW people booed him just for helping Lawler out, it had nothing to do with all the chair shots and pointing at himself. Then later on, everyone loved him regardless, because no matter what he was talking about, he'd always refer back to talking about HIMSELF, and portraying his casual, laid back, stoned off my face, character and people related to it and loved it. Sbtle change in promos, no change in in-ring action, total change in crowd reaction.

Tell me Sly, in your opinion, has Randy Orton forgotten how to use decent psychology? Because he's getting cheered more heavily now than when he was a face! He's still using the slowed down, boring style that i can distinctly remember you praising him for on this forum, and the people soak it up. He punts Batista in the head and the fans cheer even harder! Now, is that Orton's fault? Or is it the fault of the fans who are the blood thirsty and who want to see someone maliciously beat the holy fuck out of everyone they set foot in the ring with?

Fans love who they love. I'll always cheer the heels over the faces anyday, and if it's Kane, Taker, Kennedy, Orton, Jericho, Big Show, Santino or Kendrick i'll cheer them regardless, because i like to support the evil guy. I always have. I may not be supposed to like them, but you can't TELL me who i can and can not enjoy, and before anyone says 'you're wrong to have that mentality, you're just wrong' can shove it because it's not wrong it's simply my opinion and you don't agree.

As for the thread itself, i'd probably have to go with Batista. The guy very rarley leaves an impression on me personally, and i can't see anything different between how he performs now, and how he used to perform back in the Evolution days. As far as i can tell, the only difference is that when he's delivering a beat down, he doesn't have Flair or HHH and Orton in his corner to help him out. He wasn't necessarily a heel character, he was just surrounded by heels and helped the heels out when they told him to. Now he gives his own orders and now suddenly everyone loves the guy. Well not I. As far as i'm concerned, Batista is the worst big name wrestler of the last 2 decades

 

[IrishCanadian25]

This thread has already earned an early nomination for the 2009 Awards. We just need to carry it into 2009.

For those of you keeping score at home, here's a little recap as far as I am concerned:

1. To the question of the worst big name wrestler (in terms of in ring product) in wrestling history, I select Sid Eudy as a result of his stiff and laborious movement, botching of moves as well as interviews, and general lack of in-ring skill. I gladly agree that he had one of the best "looks" in the history of the industry, and for the most part, played his character well and utilized moves that fit his character well. He just didn't execute them well.

2. Sly claims that Rob Van Dam is the worst big name in wrestling history, and I refuse to debate that with him, because RVD is likely in my top 5 worst big names as well. And Sly's points on why RVD was a poor big name wrestler for much of his career are, in my opinion, irrefutable. I just don't feel he should be considered "THE Worst." That is where the debate comes in.

3. NorCal has jumped in to defend all-things SlyFox. Welcome to the party, drinks are in the kitchen. You may see some cool stuff, but since you're hanging back from the action, chances are you aren't getting laid. Sorry old friend.

Now, to respond to a few points:

Take, for example, Sid Vicious. If he were to go in there, and start doing hurricaranas and arm bars, is that going to make you think he was a vicious man? Of course not. Hell, you're a big fan of Vader, and Vader was very similar in what he did compared to Vicious. He played a huge monster of a character who was supposed to be (and was) intimidating.

I don't see the point in your posting this directed towards me. We don't disagree here. I am not voting Sid in this poll because he didn't use scientific wrestling holds or high flying maneuvers. You're confusing me with the other 65% of this board who would complain about such a thing. Sid played his character very well, and when he got in the ring, he used his simple, dominant moveset to often make matches look silly, forced, or even injure his opponent.

And you bring up Vader, which I appreciate. Hell, Vader and Sid were supposed to be a major tag team in WCW, but it didn't materialize. Big Van Vader worked his character better than almost anybody, as the dominant big man who was so athletic and deadly, that he could attack you in the corner with punches, on the mat with high impact slams, or from the air. And as amazing as he was, he always got heat as a heel, even when he hit moonsaults. He hit these "big pop" moves with such deliberate contempt for his opponent that fans hated him, and instead of respecting him, they feared him. But Vader worked his matches seemlessly, and had a far better reputation with his opponents than Sid did, despite his very rough, stiff style.

Vader botched a backbreaker once. He didn't "make a mistake," he botched it. The jobber he was wrestling was doing nothing to protect himself, was underselling, and tried to make himself look good with stiff shots to the big man. Vader went for a backbreaker, the jobber fucked it up, and a stiff Vader snapped the kid's back. Vader botched it. Rare occurance.

It's also worth noting that Sid's 2nd WCW run was ended when a bunch of WCW wrestlers went to WCW management and threatened to walk out or refuse to work unless Sid was fired. This was a combination of three factors - his shit backstage attitude, his attack on Arn Anderson, and his lack of trustworthiness in the ring.

In Pillman's case it wasn't. In Pillman's case is was simply a case of not being aware that Pillman couldn't protect himself.

This is where I gathered that you were blaming Pillman for the botched powerbomb. And you'll get no apology from me, as your statement is unclear. If Pillman is trusting Sid in that ring, it's Sid's job to be aware of whether or not Pillman could protect himself. And besides, the powerbomb was Sid's finishing move - he should know that move above all else, and be able to protect his opponent when executing it.

A botch is something which completely exposes the fakeness of the business, and/or ruins the flow of the match. Even taking Pillman's powerbomb, while it was awful, yes, it still fit into the flow of the match and still further the realism of wrestling.

After botching that powerbomb, Sid very clearly leans down to check on Pillman. He knew he fucked up the move, and saw what happened. So, he "exposed" the fakeness of the business by stopping and leaning down to check. Can't blame him for doing so, he was worried about Pillman - but it was still a botch.

And I don't think an accident and a botch are different things. If it isn't an accident, what is it? Purposeful? No, and accident and a botch do not have to be mutually exclusive. Sid's powerbomb on Pillman was an accident. It was also a botch. RVD's missed spinning heel kick was an accident. It was also a botch. In both cases, the move was performed incorrectly. In only Sid's case, a man's livelihood was put at risk.

Have you never heard of "The Canadian Crippler"? I figured your wrestling knowledge would be greater.

Well, my understanding of this nickname is as far as his methodical submission style goes. If he injured somebody or had a reputation of hurting people with silly moves, then I will gladly discuss that. But in this case, it's something I am not aware of. I will do some research.

I chortle at this thread. NONE of them were bad wrestlers, becuase they were all big names who drew money. Which is what wrestlers are supposed to do. period.

Another country heard from.

Brutha, you did an excellent job repeating SlyFox rhetoric here, and even made some of the capital letters lowercase so it seems like an original. Bravo! But before posting this, you may have neglected to look at the names we are discussing, in which case your "drew money" post is half-on, and half-off.

Yes, Warrior drew money. But that doesn't apply to me, because I support your arguments that the Warrior doesn't belong on this list. I thought he screwed up some small spots because his intensity in the ring was hard for ANYONE to keep up with - himself included - but nothing major, nor anything that would designate him a "worst ever."

But Nash? RVD? Sid? Tell me, when the hell did they draw money?

Kevin Nash's first WWF Title was an unceremonious victory at an MSG House show in roughly 10 seconds. He was a cool wrestler, but I don't think he ever drew money. The only time in WCW he drew money was when he had Hall and Hogan flanking him. And as much as I agree with you that Triple H deserves people to lay off for the "backstage politics" accusations, Nash gets no such pass from me.

Rob Van Dam didn't draw shit. That's why ECW went under. He put on excellent mid card matches as the Hardcore Champ vs The Undertaker and as IC Champ, and even had a decent series with Brock Lesnar. But the only reason RVD was WWE Champ was because of Cena's heat with the ECW fans and to advance the Cena / Edge storyline and to install the WWE's incarnation of the ECW Championship. He had a chance to start an entire brand, and he dropped the ball. If Van Dam could draw good money, ECW may not have failed financially.

And Sid? Really? He didn't draw shit in WCW, he was a terrible Horseman, and he sure as hell didn't draw in WWF/E. He main evented WrestleMania 8 because of Hogan and the prospect of whether Hogan would retire. He main evented WrestleMania 13 in a highly forgettable match against The Undertaker - possibly the worst WrestleMania Main Event ever. Both of his WrestleMania Main Events were totally blown out of the water by another match - Flair / Savage at WrestleMania 8 and Hart / Austin at 13.

Fans love who they love. I'll always cheer the heels over the faces anyday, and if it's Kane, Taker, Kennedy, Orton, Jericho, Big Show, Santino or Kendrick i'll cheer them regardless, because i like to support the evil guy. I always have. I may not be supposed to like them, but you can't TELL me who i can and can not enjoy, and before anyone says 'you're wrong to have that mentality, you're just wrong' can shove it because it's not wrong it's simply my opinion and you don't agree.

Looking forward to Sly's lecture on "You're a Bad Fan Who Thinks He's Above the Business?" Enjoy!

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

*sigh*

I knew people would bring this up, I should have just gone ahead and addressed it earlier.


Allow me to explain the difference, and some basic heel psychology. As a heel, you are not supposed to get cheered. This is understood, right? Okay, good.

Now, as a heel, you're job is to make the other guy look good. Your job is to go in the ring, play the "Evil" character, and give the crowd every reason to cheer the other guy. The WAY you do this will determine how well you do your job. Take someone like Ted DiBiase from late 80s to the early 90s. How many crowd popping moves does DiBiase do? How much high impact offense does he have? The only time he ever even jumps off the ropes is when his opponent is going to counter it. His offense was low impact, and with ZERO crowd popping possibilities, unless it was going to be countered. That's good heel psychology. You have to change your working style to fit your character.

RVD never did that. You can use Kurt Angle in late 05 and 06 as a good example of this as well. Instead of working matches at a slower pace, and doing moves which take the focus off himself and put it on his opponent, RVD did the same damn moves he did his entire career. He still did the aerial wrestling, and still did the crowd popping moves. Which is where he shows poor psychology. Instead of working as a heel, with a slower more deliberate, even boring, pace, he works his fast paced, crowd popping style.

You can't say the same for Steve Austin. Even as he was getting more cheers than boos, it wasn't because his in-ring style demanded it (like RVD's did) it was simply because fans, for whatever reason, enjoyed his personality outside of the ring. They enjoyed the interviews he did, and the complete bad-ass way he presented himself. Finally, I'll submit this as well. Steve Austin wasn't cheered NEAR as much as people want to think he was back in late 96, early 97. The only time he REALLY started to get significant face heat was after WM 13, in the classic double turn. Yes, he would get a smattering of cheers, but it was no where near as impactful as people make it out to be.

And, you can't use the oppose for John Cena. John Cena didn't get booed because of his working style, he got booed mostly people many wrestling fans were idiots. And I think Cena has PROVEN that those critics of his, that said he could wrestle, were idiots. Because ever since he got the title, he's been arguably the best worker in the WWE, in and out of the ring.

So, that's where the difference lies between RVD, Austin, and Cena. Just because you get booed or cheered doesn't mean you use poor psychology. It's WHY you are getting booed or cheered, and in RVD's case, he got cheered as a heel because of shoddy psychology.

I realize that as a heel he should have toned down his aerial assault but that was his moveset so its hard to adjust to that, you can argue that he was too one dimensional then but the heel psychology part I kinda disagree with. If I remember correctly(Im actually not positive on this so correct me if Im wrong) outside of his moveset he did use the typical heel psychology. He would give the cheap shots, he would play the coward in the ring, or use outside interference so if I remember correctly it wasnt like he had absolutely no psychology. Not to mention I think it shows just how over he was as a face, if people didnt like him he would have drawn heat or got no reaction no matter what type of offense he used. Some guys will always get cheered no matter what and I think RVD is one of those guys.

Now on to Sid he himself was actually one of the first wrestlers to be a tweener because he didnt adjust his moveset or his dimeanor so you could say he had poor psychology himself if you're gonna say RVD does. Back in the mid 90s when he was supposed to be a heel he wouldnt act cowardly or use cheap tactics he would still come in and act like a badass which is the perfect recipe to draw pops, because alot of fans have that mentality where if a guy is so bad it makes him cool. Why didnt he roll out of the ring sometimes when the face started mounting offense, or use the ropes illegally to draw heat? You can say that he didnt need to do that because he was a "monster" and was supposed to be dominant but Hogan had no problem doing that when he was a heel and he spent over a decade before that being unstoppable so he had no problem adjusting. Sid even went as far as to give the crowd fist pounds on his way to the ring when he was a heel. Im not saying that he didnt draw any heat because he did but there were times where he didnt and actually got pops because of the reasons I mentioned. And this was a time where hardly any heels drew any sort of positive reaction, ever since Austin, DX and the NWO were heels getting face pops you see more and more face reactions for heels so it is much harder to play that role. Just look at Orton and Y2J they try everything to draw heat yet they still get mixed reactions.

And for the record Im not trying to defend RVD for everything, I dont think he is a great wrestler and as I mentioned in my original post Ive never been a fan of him. He botches plenty of moves, Im not a fan of his style because it doesnt look realistic and is a spotfest I just had to defend him on that point, because there were other wrestlers that are known as solid wrestlers that had the same sorta problem which is that they did or do get cheers as heels. It can be a tough role to play when you are or were so over as a face.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

This is where I gathered that you were blaming Pillman for the botched powerbomb. And you'll get no apology from me, as your statement is unclear. If Pillman is trusting Sid in that ring, it's Sid's job to be aware of whether or not Pillman could protect himself. And besides, the powerbomb was Sid's finishing move - he should know that move above all else, and be able to protect his opponent when executing it.

I'm not taking sides between you and Sly IC, and i'm clearly no expert, but i've always believed that ALL talent share an equal slice of 'responsibility' when it comes to protecting one another. I've never seen this botched powerbomb, but Pillman knew how to land, and Sid knew how to execute the move. If neither man was prepared, then the move shouldn't have happened until they were certain they were. Both are to blame in my book. I wouldn't consider this sort of incident to be similar to Lesnar breaking Holly's neck in '02.

After botching that powerbomb, Sid very clearly leans down to check on Pillman. He knew he fucked up the move, and saw what happened. So, he "exposed" the fakeness of the business by stopping and leaning down to check. Can't blame him for doing so, he was worried about Pillman - but it was still a botch.

Totally agree with that though. When Owen Hart broke Austin's neck he walked around and jeered the crowd. It still looked fake as hell, but at least Owen did his best to maintain the illusion.

And I don't think an accident and a botch are different things. If it isn't an accident, what is it? Purposeful? No, and accident and a botch do not have to be mutually exclusive. Sid's powerbomb on Pillman was an accident. It was also a botch. RVD's missed spinning heel kick was an accident. It was also a botch. In both cases, the move was performed incorrectly. In only Sid's case, a man's livelihood was put at risk.

Again, totally agree. Intended or not, if someone fucks up during a match, it's a botch.

Well, my understanding of this nickname is as far as his methodical submission style goes. If he injured somebody or had a reputation of hurting people with silly moves, then I will gladly discuss that. But in this case, it's something I am not aware of. I will do some research.

Wow IC are you seriously saying you don't know why they called Benoit 'the Crippler'? 20 seconds into a match with Sabu in ECW, Benoit grabbed his leg as if he was going to execute a shinbreaker, but instead threw Sabu over his head like some weird suplex variant, and instead of landing on his back, Sabu landed on the top of his head while his body was at a weird angle and snapped his neck..... 20 seconds is all it took for Sabu to break his neck, and that's where the nickname 'the Crippler' came from, courtesy of Paul Heyman creating a gimmick out of a horrific accident. Sly, if you read this, who exactly was to blame for that in your opinion? Because i for the life of me can't even tell what Benoit was attempting, let alone who made the fuck up in that encounter.

Rob Van Dam didn't draw shit. That's why ECW went under. He put on excellent mid card matches as the Hardcore Champ vs The Undertaker and as IC Champ, and even had a decent series with Brock Lesnar. But the only reason RVD was WWE Champ was because of Cena's heat with the ECW fans and to advance the Cena / Edge storyline and to install the WWE's incarnation of the ECW Championship. He had a chance to start an entire brand, and he dropped the ball. If Van Dam could draw good money, ECW may not have failed financially.

Actually, by the time RVD became the top dog in ECW, he and Tommy Dreamer were the only 2 guys who DID draw. All the other top guys kept leaving and coming back and then leaving again, until the roster consisted of nothing but guys like Simon Diamond, Jack Victory, Lil' Guido and CW Anderson. Back then they had maybe Rhino and Justin Credible as credible talent, but the other guys who were all crucial to what made ECW like Shane Douglas, Taz, the Dudleys, Sandman and Raven all kept disappearing for the other 2 brands because they needed the money that Paul E. couldn't give them, because he'd managed to get in a predicament with TNN where the only way it could be resolved was for TNN to give up on them, which is exactly what happened.

Looking forward to Sly's lecture on "You're a Bad Fan Who Thinks He's Above the Business?" Enjoy!

Yeah, me too.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I wouldn't consider this sort of incident to be similar to Lesnar breaking Holly's neck in '02:

Now, how come this is the first time Lesnar's name is being brought up? How come he doesn't rate consideration for this award. Agent of Chaos brings him up as a comparitive, an aside, but holy hell he's a contender.

Holly's neck is a prime example (poor guy never caught a break) as well as the silly botch of the Shooting Star Press - WrestleMania or not, just don't do it - which nearly left him crippled.

Totally agree with that though. When Owen Hart broke Austin's neck he walked around and jeered the crowd. It still looked fake as hell, but at least Owen did his best to maintain the illusion.

I was at that SummerSlam in good 'ole New Jersey. The crowd knew something was up. I was sitting in the upper level and we saw Owen basically coax Austin into the roll up, and how weak the roll up was. Owen did his best afterwards. But he should have never tried that move.

Wow IC are you seriously saying you don't know why they called Benoit 'the Crippler'? 20 seconds into a match with Sabu in ECW, Benoit grabbed his leg as if he was going to execute a shinbreaker, but instead threw Sabu over his head like some weird suplex variant, and instead of landing on his back, Sabu landed on the top of his head while his body was at a weird angle and snapped his neck..... 20 seconds is all it took for Sabu to break his neck, and that's where the nickname 'the Crippler' came from, courtesy of Paul Heyman creating a gimmick out of a horrific accident. Sly, if you read this, who exactly was to blame for that in your opinion? Because i for the life of me can't even tell what Benoit was attempting, let alone who made the fuck up in that encounter.

Yeah, man, sorry. I am not a hardcore ECW historian. I got into it in the late 90's like many fans did - and I enjoyed the RVD vs Lynn matches just because it was visually impressive what they did - but I never knew that Sabu fact. That's good to know. I will look for the video later, but if it went down as you describe it, then that's a Benoit botch.

Actually, by the time RVD became the top dog in ECW, he and Tommy Dreamer were the only 2 guys who DID draw. All the other top guys kept leaving and coming back and then leaving again, until the roster consisted of nothing but guys like Simon Diamond, Jack Victory, Lil' Guido and CW Anderson. Back then they had maybe Rhino and Justin Credible as credible talent, but the other guys who were all crucial to what made ECW like Shane Douglas, Taz, the Dudleys, Sandman and Raven all kept disappearing for the other 2 brands because they needed the money that Paul E. couldn't give them, because he'd managed to get in a predicament with TNN where the only way it could be resolved was for TNN to give up on them, which is exactly what happened.

No, no, no. Nobody drew in ECW. Sorry bro, but not RVD and not Dreamer. I watched a few matches, but they still put shows on at that glorified bingo hall in Philly. And you even prove my point by reminding us that the guys not named Dreamer or RVD jumped ship because Heyman could barely afford to pay them - a sure sign that nobody was drawing. If you cannot make payroll, then your top dogs are not drawing.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Wow, really IC??? None of those guys drew anything??? I guess thats why all of them, with the exception of GOLDBERG main evented wrestlemania, some of them more than once. I guess becuase they were shit, and didnt draw at all. Actually, what that tells me, is at the time, they were the absolute best the WWE had to offer . And Goldberg is a top 5 all time superstar of WCW, and thats not even arguable. so that was a rather silly thing to say. Not to mention the ousiders, which Nash was a part of. I guess WWE gave Nash the biggest push they have EVER given anyone, becuase he was a terrible wrestler. Lets be serious here.

Pretty sure I never defended RVD anywere in my post. RVD is shit, and couldnt draw anything. How about you stop putting words in my mouth. Oh wait, becuase thats the only way you could have a shadow of a chance in this. Sadly, I am in no way defending him, nor do I think he should EVER be mentioned among the guys up above.

And the Chris Benoit was named the canadian crippler becuase of a botched german suplex that broke Sabu(?) neck. just to get that out of the way. Damn IC 0-3 so far I guess.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Wow, really IC??? None of those guys drew anything??? I guess thats why all of them, with the exception of GOLDBERG main evented wrestlemania, some of them more than once. I guess becuase they were shit, and didnt draw at all. Actually, what that tells me, is at the time, they were the absolute best the WWE had to offer . And Goldberg is a top 5 all time superstar of WCW, and thats not even arguable. so that was a rather silly thing to say. Not to mention the ousiders, which Nash was a part of. I guess WWE gave Nash the biggest push they have EVER given anyone, becuase he was a terrible wrestler. Lets be serious here.

Pretty sure I never defended RVD anywere in my post. RVD is shit, and couldnt draw anything. How about you stop putting words in my mouth. Oh wait, becuase thats the only way you could have a shadow of a chance in this. Sadly, I am in no way defending him, nor do I think he should EVER be mentioned among the guys up above.

And the Chris Benoit was named the canadian crippler becuase of a botched german suplex that broke Sabu(?) neck. just to get that out of the way. Damn IC 0-3 so far I guess.

1. Show we where I ever mentioned Goldberg. Please. Because if I ever mentioned anyone other than Sid, RVD, Nash, or Warrior, then I am heading to the doctors to check for alsheimers.

2. You made a blanket statement. We were discussing RVD, Sid, Warrior, and Nash, and you said this:

NONE of them were bad wrestlers, becuase they were all big names who drew money. Which is what wrestlers are supposed to do. period.

Wen you said that without specifying, you included RVD. I don't make the rules of the English language, I just follow them. And I'd have figured you didn't want to include RVD in that very obvious all-encompassing statement, but I left my crystal ball in my other pants.

3. The Benoit thing was covered already, thank you for chiming in though. Never knew about that incident. Sue me.

0-3? How do you figure?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

It appears we have had some kind of misunderstanding.


*glances up at the wrestlers listed in the poll this thread is based around*


thats what I was talking about IC. RVD isnt in there. Im fairly sure you are the only person who didnt get it. Since I didnt directly quote anything anyone said, I merely made a post of my own, giving my thoughts on the subject. In your rush to gain the OH so elusive victory over me, you Wilt Chamberlan slam dunked words into my mouth.

RVD is rubbish, this I can say. I did make a blanket statement. about the wrestler listed in the poll, not about any wrestler anyone was talking about, which I felt was fairly obvious since I didnt quote anyone, or throw out any inscidences. Control your emotions IC, you may win more often


0-3 becuase of.....accusing me of doing an insane thing like defending RVD....telling me the guys who I WAS defending werent draws....and the misunderstandiing of benoit.

It must be foggy in northern NJ tonight. Becuase you have a huge fog of confusion around you right now IC.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

It appears we have had some kind of misunderstanding.


*glances up at the wrestlers listed in the poll this thread is based around*


thats what I was talking about IC.

Whoops! I guess those of us who actually debate are more concerned with following the discussion than the results of some poll. Especially since it was your master, Mr. SlyFox, who truly brought RVD into this so vehemently.

RVD isnt in there. Im fairly sure you are the only person who didnt get it. Since I didnt directly quote anything anyone said, I merely made a post of my own, giving my thoughts on the subject. In your rush to gain the OH so elusive victory over me, you Wilt Chamberlan slam dunked words into my mouth.

Again, I errantly gave you to much credit, thinking you'd followed along with the discussion. Maybe more pretty colors in the text will keep your interest tuned in long enough.

Half of this thread has become a conversation about Rob Van Dam, and with the ruthless aggression with which Sly has teed off on RVD, he's as good as part of the poll.

RVD is rubbish, this I can say. I did make a blanket statement. about the wrestler listed in the poll, not about any wrestler anyone was talking about, which I felt was fairly obvious since I didnt quote anyone, or throw out any inscidences. Control your emotions IC, you may win more often .

Ok, well, I present to you exhibit A:

I chortle at this thread. NONE of them were bad wrestlers, becuase they were all big names who drew money. Which is what wrestlers are supposed to do. period. If they werent good at what they were doing, then why did people pay money to see them?? To the point were they became "BIG" names? Becuase they werent terrible, and played the hell out of their characters. So the thread is silly. I shall allow the facade to continue though, so as to watch Sly continue taking everyone to class.

1. The thread is what you "chortled" at. Not the poll. Says it right there, clear as crystal. Since you are a g-mod, I assumed you knew the difference between a "thread" in which "posts" occur, and a poll. Hence why anyone with half a brain would see your blanket response, listed immediately after your word of the week, clearly pertained to those wrestlers listed in the - wait for it - thread.

2. The thread is silly? Not the poll?

3. If you were watching Sly, then one would figured you'd have read the posts that moved the conversation very largely onto Rob Van Dam. So, on one hand you claim to be watching Sly, but on the other hand you claim to be watching the poll. Which is it? Or do you have that neat Perry Saturn eye, allowing you to watch both?

0-3 becuase of.....accusing me of doing an insane thing like defending RVD....

You brought that on yourself. But since you are now recanting your post and claiming you did not defend RVD as a draw, then that is fine, I forgive you. Seeing as I am not looking to defend him either, we're actually on the same page.

telling me the guys who I WAS defending werent draws....

I maintain that Nash wasn't a draw unto himself, Sid was the purpatrator of two of the worst WrestleMania Main Event matches in 24 years and never drew dick...and we always agreed on the Warrior. So your hostility is just childish. We agreed on two out of the four guys (RVD and Warrior.) Shall I put that in blue so it attracts your attention better?

and the misunderstandiing of benoit.

What misunderstanding? I didn't know the story of Benoit and Sabu. But I also never brought up Benoit at all - your keeper did. I don't claim to know every detail about every incident in wrestling history - don't see what the big deal is there, killah.

It must be foggy in northern NJ tonight. Becuase you have a huge fog of confusion around you right now IC.

Clear skies, temperatures in the lower 20's with windchill in the upper single digits. Not a scrap of fog as far as the eye can see.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Just keep digging IC.

Yes the thread is silly. As in, I see the title saying "which BIG name wrestler was the worst" to which I chortle. For reasons I indicate in my post, being it was my first post in the thread and all. You seem to be the only one to confuse my intentions there. I then open it, to see the poll, to which, again, I chortle. So I then defend the people contained within the poll. In which case once again, no on else seemed to be confused as to what my intention was. Just you. You misunderstood, and put your foot in your mouth IC. Admit it, accept it, and lets move on maybe??

And im not sure how many ways I can break down to you. I guess Nash was such rubbish that ME'd WM, was one of the very VERY small list to retain at WM at the time, and was given a year long title reighn. Sid ME'd TWO, and had some beliving HE would be the man to kill Hulkamania. He was also more over than HBK when he took the title off of him. There were few, if any, hotter than Sid was in 1996.