Anyone save Vinnie Mac wouldn't have made much sense. People were throwing out names like The Rock, and Triple H. At least Bryan had some semblance of history with more than one of the parties involved.
Wrestling Spam Zone Heated Debate (Currently serving up WWE Hall of Fame)
- Thread starter The Doctor
- Start date
No, I said you were an idiot because you said the whole Nexus angle was going to lead up to a Daniel Bryan return at Summerslam. I called you an idiot because the WWE wasn't going to have the biggest angle of the year just to put over Daniel Bryan.
I was right. As usual. Bryan came back, and it was a surprise, but Bryan wasn't the point of the angle, like you said it was. Your thread title was something to the effect of "In a perfect world, this would all lead to a Bryan Danielson return". He returned, but that's not what they were building towards.
So, I was perfectly justified, and I was right. As usual.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
He never said that, all he said was that it would be perfect if Daniel Bryan returned.
His thread title was "In a perfect world, this would all lead to a Daniel Bryan return"
Do you ever get tired of me embarrassing you?
I did not say the whole Nexus angle would lead to it. I listed factors that put together would all lead to the return in a perfect world.
Sorry you misunderstood me, but I NEVER meant to even imply that the whole Nexus angle's point was to bring back Bryan.
Sorry you misunderstood me, but I NEVER meant to even imply that the whole Nexus angle's point was to bring back Bryan.
Then you "speak" poorly. Because when you say "it would all lead", you make it appear as if you're talking about the angle.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
You've never once embarrased me, in fact I laugh at your attempts to sound so superior to everyone else.
I've done it twice in this thread alone.
Like when you try to give quality based upon your subjective opinion. You do realize that just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean it's not good, right?
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
I've done it twice in this thread alone.
Just because you think you've embarrased me, doesn't mean you have.
You do the same thing. Matter of fact, you do that more than anyone else on these forums.
If you TRULY think that, you don't pay attention very well.
You do the same thing. Matter of fact, you do that more than anyone else on these forums.
I've said on multiple occasions there is a difference between liking something and thinking something is good. The example I always give is that I LIKE Shelton Benjamin, but I don't think he's good.
The fact of the matter is you're basically talking out of your ass at this point, about stuff you have ZERO idea about. For example, other than "you didn't like it", do you have ANY objective criteria to criticize the Hogan vs. Andre match? Do you even know what the word "objective" means?
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
Then why do you always fuck with people for liking certain wrestlers? And you often say "so and so is shit" without giving a reason for it, and that's ok, but don't call someone else out for doing it.
It was slow paced, boring, and neither men are very good workers. I wasn'
t entertained Sly, do you understand that? Just because I'm not a super smark who breaks down every aspect of every match, angle, and storyline doesn't mean my opinion is invalid.
Yes, I do know what the word means. And to answer your question from earlier, I also know the difference between objective, and subjective.
It depends on the reason they say they like someone. If they say they like someone because he's a good wrestler, then I fuck with them if they're not.
And as far as me talking down about a wrestler, if anyone ever asks me why I say that, I can actually give them a good reason. You can't. You prove it in your next part.
You made one objective comment, one subjective comment, and one false comment.
Was it slow paced? By today's standards, yes, but not really by the standards of the time. And considering it's a matchup of two heavyweights, this really isn't a good reason to call a match bad.
As far as boring goes? That's a subjective comment, and has no place in this conversation. 93,000 people thought it was exciting, but since it's subjective, neither side can prove a point.
As far as "good workers" go, this is complete bullshit. Both men were fantastic workers, as evidenced by the fact they were two of the biggest draws in history. If you can't "work", then people aren't going to believe your character, and they don't pay to see you. Both Hogan and Andre were fantastic workers.
However, let's say for a moment, they WEREN'T good workers. How does that have ANY effect on the match they had? It doesn't. HBK and Mr. Perfect were both good workers, and they had matches that were disappointing to everyone, including HBK. HBK said so.
The quality of the two guys in the ring does NOT determine the quality of the match. You can speculate on how good a match MIGHT be based upon who is in it, but you can't use who is in it to determine quality.
Like I said, poor form here. Unlike me, you are unable to back up your opinion.
Of course I do, that's not what I had a problem with. What I had a problem with was you applying an objective assessment of a match based purely upon subjective criteria.
Yes, it can. That's the STUPIDEST myth out there. Opinions can be wrong, and uninformed opinions are more likely to be wrong. If you don't understand what is supposed to be happening in a match, how can you assess it?
If you don't know how wrestling is supposed to work, your opinion IS invalid, if we're discussing QUALITY.
You've yet to prove it.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
Lol, "opinions can be wrong". That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard. And I do understand how wrestling works, and I do understand that this match is one of the defining matches in WWE history, and some consider it to be a classic. But it's just so fucking boring, if two men without any build up had that match, it would've gotten shat on. And my definition of "worker" is different from yours. Both Andre and Hogan are HUGE draws, but they also are veeery sloppy in the ring. A "great worker" to me is someone who can not only get the crowd behind or againest him, but also display some decent in ring skills.
And yet, it's true.
The fact you don't understand that saddens me. When I finish my supper, I'll make a thread and dedicate it to you.
No, I don't think you do.
Again, you make ANOTHER subjective statement. Are you SURE you know what objective means?
That's true of most matches though. But the story of the match built upon the story of the feud. For example, the "bodyslam" set the stage for the match, with Hogan trying to do what had never been done (well, according the story) and his inability to do so gave Andre the edge and from there, Andre continued to work on Hogan's back, weakening him. Thus, when Hogan finally was able to slam Andre, it was even MORE incredible and made Hogan look even more superhuman, because the adrenaline rush he got from the fans gave him the extra energy to slam Hogan.
The match story was basic, but solid and entertaining.
Then yours is probably wrong. But, let's find out.
Sloppy? How so? Can you please give evidence where either man was sloppy over the long term in their prime?
And how do you define "decent in ring skills"? I would LOVE to hear.
I never said "it" would all lead, I said "this". "This" referred to the factors I listed in my opening post.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
My own thread?? Made by our wonderful (if kinda douchey) admin??? Good golly, I don't know if I'll be able to control myself.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
I don't want to respond to that shit, I don't even want to read all of it. Their really shouldn't have been a debate at all, the match was boring, and my opinions not gonna change, no matter how much some ultra-smark asshole proves me "wrong".
And yet, you responded to everything else I wrote, including my last post. So, it's not REALLY that you don't want to read/respond to it, it's you CAN'T respond to it, because you don't know what you're talking about.
But hey, your thread is up in the Cigar Lounge.
So I went back and watched Hogan vs Andre again. I didn't think it was a great match, but my opinion of it has changed. It got the job done, decent match. I thought about some of the points in this thread and I didn't judge it on the same scale as... I dunno, TLC 2. It was a good match for what needed to be conveyed by it. So, I take back my statement, the match was not shit.
I did indeed re-watch the match Sly, twice. It still isn't a good match. At all. Story is great, hype is great, crowd is great, problem is Andre is nothing but a walking tin can in the ring at that point and they worked the same Hogan formula match they did on every main event of a house show. It isn't entertaining, it isn't competitive, there's nothing particularly special about the in-ring work, storytelling or psychology to separate it from a million different matches.
You're never going to change my mind on that one. Not a good match, at all.
So what is this thread serving up now? People bitching about Daniel Bryan's return at Summerslam? Yeah I hate it too when things work out perfectly and are a rousing success, immediately creating a new midcard star with a good amount of crowd support. I hate it when that happens.
You're never going to change my mind on that one. Not a good match, at all.
So what is this thread serving up now? People bitching about Daniel Bryan's return at Summerslam? Yeah I hate it too when things work out perfectly and are a rousing success, immediately creating a new midcard star with a good amount of crowd support. I hate it when that happens.
