Again being a freak show doesn't make a good wrestler. I know that's a hard concept for you to understand but please try.
Someone that lacks obvious reading comprehension skills is in no position to lecture someone else.
They keep a guy like Hornswoggle around so that must mean he's a good wrestler too then right?
Does Hornswoggle still generate a reaction? Then he serves a purpose. But I suppose WWE just loves signing paychecks to those that do absolutely nothing.
Again freak show. Novelty act. Whatever you want to call it. The Undertaker is a big guy but he's also a good wrestler. He didn't have to get by on size alone.
A fair amount amount of Taker's success is absolutely contributed to the fact that he is a big, intimidating man. Do you think the gimmick would have worked if he was the size of Daniel or Punk?
no. Try and use some logic when you post please.
I'm not the one who makes a case based on this. Obviously comprehension is not your strong suit.
Then why did you bring it up to make a redundant point about late 90's Andre? If you know that moves don't matter, then why would Khali being limited in ring even matter? It doesn't.
Maybe you should read the forums sometime.
Ah yes because the forum regulars are a clear representation of what EVERYONE wants to see. It's obvious that no one wants to see Khali perform, and he receives zero reaction for his efforts. No, wait that isn't true in the slightest.
In the year that I've been here people have debated this. Anyone who thinks Andre was good by the time the 90s rolled around is an idiot.
Based on what criteria exactly? The subjective "it's my opinion so I think therefore it must be?" That isn't an objective argument. It's a terrible one.
People that knew him from the indies and from seeing him in NXT were very high on him. People knew he was a good wrestler. The biggest complaint I saw about him was his gimmick.
Ah yes Teh Indies. The smallest percentage of wrestling fans watch the Indy's compared to the big leagues. The vast majority of casuals will not notice a worker until they debut for the WWE; that's just common sense. And the majority of that majority only pays attention to RAW. Cesaro didn't start getting noticed until he developed his "I'm small but strong" gimmick. He was able to go to the next level because of that, and who does he have to thank? Guys like Khali for putting him over and making him look good.
I highly doubt people are paying money to see Khali. I'm also sure a guy like Giant Gonzalez was a draw and wasn't a bad wrestler at all.
When he was in his prime they were, at least in the way a heel puts over a face, but Khali is physically limited now. But does that automatically make him bad? No, because the fans still react to him. Same with 90's Andre. WWE knows this and they keep him around. Even if he's just a novelty that relies on his size he's still serving a purpose that gets a reaction, and thus can't be the worst at something that specifically requires not getting any reaction. Your argument is massively flawed.
You probably didn't even see his last match.
I did. And it was entertaining.
Because the WWE can do no wrong right? And judging by this thread more people seem to agree with me than they do with you.
The only people that share that opinion are Bear Hug and Killam. And even then Killam was willing to put one of the divas first. You are in the minority with your opinion as others have clearly expressed different views.
And again reading comprehension. I picked Camacho. I stated that Khali would probably win though and that I wouldn't argue against it because there isn't a good argument against it. You've yet to make one.
So by your own merit Khali isn't even the worst wrestler, and with it any traction you had is gone. And I read fine, thanks. You on the other hand have to result to generalizations that clearly don't exist. Keep up, because it's working great
I stated he doesn't put on good matches, he has a shit character and the only redeemable thing about him is his size. Your whole argument supports that. He's big therefore he stays employed.
But his matches aren't so terrible they don't get a reaction. He's a novelty that serves a purpose. WWE puts him on television and gives him more screen time than many others in the lower card. And people still respond to him. That doesn't describe someone worthy of being the "worst wrestler of the year."
Also again I'm clearly not alone in my opinion that he isn't good.
That's a subjective opinion, and one that clearly isn't unanimous even by looking at this thread.
Maybe you should read the whole thread. Then you'd know the person above you picked Truth as their worst and also complained about both me and someone else mentioning Khali. So I replied to both of you at the same time.
So you generalized both of us at the same time. You seem to be quite good at that, like how you generalized that Khali was chosen to be the worst when only a small portion had actually done so.
Way to back up your statement. If you think Swagger and Truth can't out wrestle Khali then you're pretty stupid.
I've given my reason's why Swagger is a poorer performer than Khali, and while I do like Truth he hasn't exactly been stellar recently. At least Khali has remained consistent to how WWE has marketed him.
Again. Way to back up your statement.
I did when I first posted in the thread. Go back and reread it.
Mic work = entertainment. That's a key factor in today's wrestling.
Khali doesn't speak much and yet he still manages to keep a consistent reaction. Hmm, weird. He must be the lone exception.
Why would I need to read anyone's mind? I can read posts on forums and clearly see that Khali is widely hated by a lot of people.
The forums don't represent the majority. If you were around in 2007 the consensus of everyone was that Cena was shit and was the worst wrestler on the roster. Was the true? Nope. Even though times have changed and people have gotten wiser we still aren't right all the time. You want to say Khali is the worst? Based on what? That he can barely move? He can still put on matches that look good. That he doesn't garner reactions? Not true in the slightest. That he's only still around because he's big? See the answer to the last question.
Again your whole argument is based on how big he is. So once again that's all he has to offer.
And he still gets a reaction. He's still over. The people still respond to the fact that he's a giant. Because he serves that purpose and does what he's suppose to do he can't possibly be the worst. And yes that does make him a good wrestler because he performs well and WWE aren't losing money on him.
If you can't see that then you need to reexamine your definition of "wrestler."
If Khali didn't have a guy that was strong enough to pick him up then he would be even more useless than he already is.
Now that is just so pitifully weak an argument that it speaks volumes of just how ignorant you really are. If Khali was deemed unslammable then it would really peak the fans interest into watching his matches, and they'd go ape shit for the person that finally did it.
LJL was right. There aren't any good arguments to justify Khali being the worst on the roster.
