chaosrage

That wasn't sarcasm, I was only messing with you. I just found the idea of someone not believing in evolution and talking about research kind of funny. That's all. I don't care when you respond, or even if you do. It's not a big deal. Working on it? You make it sound like it's a school assignment.

Or, reasons why the selling isn't poor. They sell as much as they need to. Only the first 20 minutes is filled with "restholds". About 10 minutes in the middle of Rock/HHH is nothing but actual restholds. HHH is literally trying to put Rock to sleep for 10 minutes. In HBK/Hart, they're using wear down holds in the beginning because they're telling the story of them wrestling cautious and trying not to make a mistake. They're building momentum through the match. Rock/HHH has no momentum. It just drags and then stalls. Actually, you can't, heh. I explained so many more times than I ever should have to that it wasn't about you or me. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what he does. However that IS *really* what you've been saying all along about the ironman. All your arguments amount to is that you don't like it. If you don't understand what the match is trying to do, then of course. They'll explain it to you and walk you through it. I had some before I came in this thread. When did I say they sucked? I don't think so. See, once again, this is funny, you can go on and on about how being entertaining isn't a legitamate reason for something being good, and look at this. You're saying that being boring is a legitamate reason for it being bad. Can you see the contradiction there? It's not an opinion that his sharpshooter is shitty. He doesn't do it right. It doesn't look like it hurts or that they can't get out of it. It's the same thing with the figure four. Yes it was. I didn't. I quoted Downhome. He said he really loved his match with Benoit. It was great. What's the problem? He's a mark for Bret. Wasn't Bret a great wrestler? 99% of the board is a mark for Bret. Your analogy doesn't work because it couldn't happen. So your argument there is meaningless to me, or anyone with half a mind reading this. Because you say so, right? This proves you're a complete idiot. Here's the line right below it, "That doesn't make what he says true" My logic is Shawn/Bret was entertaining. Rock/HHH was just a long brawl with some sleepers and chinlocks. Yep. Because putting words in my mouth is the best way to win any argument.

I believe what I said was not that it didn't count, but hardly anyone here had probably seen them. Yeah, you seem real observant and bright.

Were you like asleep for most of the match? You know, the sleeper went from being a nice wear down move to a REAL time waster about the fifth time it was used in ten minutes.

You must be blind if you think that match had good selling. Did you miss the no-sell of all the arm work Shawn did? Bret shakes it off and ignores it for the rest of the match. Did you miss that Shawn doesn't attack the arm for the rest of the match? Well, whaddaya know, that just might be a sign that the match isn't about Bret having a weak arm. Shawn tried to brutally attack his arm and it failed. Bret recovered. You're supposed to see this as Shawn having no chance at all. But as it turns out, his best strategy was to keep a ground attack which Bret wasn't expecting going into the ironman, and to preserve his energy. To hold back on flying around the ring UNTIL bret was tired out. Bret may have had better wrestling skills or maybe not but Shawn had more stamina and was able to outsmart him to win. A lot of people, you for one, miss the psychology of the match or you're not paying close enough attention. I don't know why. It's pretty obvious. Just listen to what the announcers are saying and open your eyes. God, I think you're killing brain cells. It's a US board. The title is World Wrestling Entertainment. We're in America. I think it goes without saying. Stick to US. Pulling matches out probably 4 or 5 people here have seen isn't helping anything. Rock and HHH were able to able to have a normal match, mix it with 30 minutes of brawling, add a LOT of sleepers, throw in a shitty looking sharpshooter and a shitty looking figure four, and a few armbars, and trick a few people into thinking it was a good match. That's about it. Kurt Angle is a great wrestler (well you don't think so, but I wasn't responding to you) so it makes sense that he would have an appreciation for great wrestling. He wouldn't say Nash vs Mable was the best match ever. That doesn't make what he says true, but it does make you look retarded when you say things like "durrr HBK/Bret clearly was an inferior match".

That's cool man. I was just saying why I thought it was good. Not trying to change your opinion.

The selling sucked. Plain and simple. ::hands you a prize:: Bret sold fine while Shawn was working on him. After he was in control for 5 minutes, he stopped selling it simply because his arm wasn't worked on for awhile. Just like how Bret worked on HBK's neck for the first 20 minutes, but when he took the huge back bump to the floor, he changed to his back for the rest of the match.

It was a contest to see who was an ironman, who had the stamina to last for 60 minutes. They both went the distance proving that they were both ironmen, that's the whole reason behind no falls and overtime. Although Bret probably only went in with the idea to stay alive, so he didn't think he had to beat him. Which is why he lost. However both looked great after it. Compare that to something like Rock/HHH where they were falling asleep in sleepers and getting pinned with DDTs half way through. If it wasn't for the ironman gimmick, they wouldn't have a reason to not go full speed in the beginning instead of playing it cautious and trying to wear each other down. It's different from other matches, as it tries to be more real, that's why so many people love it. That's why Bret and Shawn say it's one of their greatest matches ever. And that's why Angle says it's the greatest match he's ever seen.

One last time, it's not me, it's MOST people. That *means* he's doing his job of entertaining people. Since the only thing people bitched about was RVD doing a cartwheel, any of Rey/Juvi from WCW. Just pick one. Why does Vince McMahon draw in more ratings than anyone else in the company? He's got the most focus, and RVD never has any focus. He may main event a couple shows, but he's FAR from a main eventer. Most of the people on the board were expecting the ladder match to be 5 minutes with a run in. Can you tell me with a straight face that if they did stuff with him, you don't think he would be a huge draw? People cheer for for Hogan's matches because of his character.

A filmmaker's goal isn't to get the loudest reaction. Or even put together the most entertaining film. It's to make the story believable and make the audience connect with the characters. Although in a comedy, I'd say the goal is to get the most laughs and giant holes in the plot, lack of logic, and terrible editing doesn't matter one bit. I don't think THIS is subjective. I'm saying it doesn't matter if you don't like him. Objectively, he's a good wrestler. Rey/Juvi, any of them in WCW. Dude, it's a SPOTFEST. Because you personally don't like them doesn't make them bad. It's a different type of match going for totally different things. Once again, did you like TLC? For the second time, I've never said the word "me" or "I". Try to keep up. How does a wrestler draw money? Oh, by doing his job and being entertaining you say? That's what I thought. Sports Entertainment... and no Vince McMahon didn't invent it. If he wasn't GOOD at doing his job, you wouldn't want to keep him. Maybe the problem is you don't understand what the job is... I showed I did with Hogan. People are a draw either because of their character or their ringwork. Or in some cases both. And unless you're going to defend RVD's character and his mic skills, you better quit before this gets ugly. That's why I explained it in the line right below it. This was all supposed to be one point. Stop splitting everything up. According to me, if he entertains people with ringwork, he's a good wrestler. People cheer for Hogan because they're entertained by his gimmick. There's a bit of a difference. Hell, you can't even turn RVD heel. Because his gimmick is irrelevant. Which is your opinion and doesn't mean shit to me.

This board really needs as many different people as it can get. Everybody's starting to blend in together. I'm not doing it on purpose but I kinda find myself not paying attention to names that much anymore. It wasn't like that months ago.

You still don't get it. No, you don't get it. Great argument by the way. He didn't sell and people still called him a good wrestler in case you missed that point. They're reacting because it is a good match. Um, Hitler's job was to lead, a wrestler's job is to entertain people. Nice try though. Answer the question. Would you fire him? If you wouldn't, then he's a good wrestler. If you would, then you're just an idiot, heh. And I know something to do with Hogan is coming up, so I'll say Hogan is a good character. People cheer for him because of his personality. RVD doesn't really have a personality. All he has is what he does in the ring.

No I mean you're just giving me your own opinion. Which you said doesn't mean anything. I'm not arguing you. If you want to look it at it objectively, the only way to look at it is if they're entertaining or not. Why? Because that's what they're attempting to do. You don't like spotfests, alright, other people do. It's just a different style. Did you hate the TLC matches? It doesn't matter. I hate Bret/Bulldog from Summerslam 92. I have reasons for it, but when it comes down to it, those reasons don't matter to everyone else that loves it. So I couldn't try to call it objectively a bad match and say all of their opinions don't matter unless I was just really arrogant. That's what you're trying to do for RVD. You're somehow stupid enough to think it reflects on everybody else because you don't like him. Well guess what? It doesn't. Because I haven't seen any Japanese wrestling. Mysterio can now but he couldn't when he was in WCW. Did people call him a bad wrestler for it? No. I'm totally not getting in that again though. You'll just have to check a few days ago in the General Wrestling board. Good for you. It doesn't either obviously. Look at the reaction for the ladder match on this board again. How's about majority? I think it does. Would you fire someone who put on matches every week like the ladder match? Matches that entertain the hell out of just about everybody but you personally don't like them?

The thing is it's not only one time. It's every week. It's not as strong of a reaction every week, but if you look at each Raw thread you see most people saying that they're only watching because of RVD or Jericho. You didn't think the ladder match was good? That was just a couple of weeks ago.

What did I just say? You can't prove anyone didn't exist. It's just the evidence seems to be leaning more in that direction. Yes. And he started one of the world's biggest religions. So I'd assume he'd have enough influence for some people to record his name down before the end of the first century. What the hell are you talking about? I forgot to write "after he supposedly died" and just wrote after he died, heh. You should still be able to figure out what I'm saying.

Just you. No, stick to the US. Point is everybody excuses most cruiserweight wrestlers and calls them good. No-selling a few times doesn't destroy a match. More like he entertains EVERYBODY. I didn't use the word me. It does heh. It doesn't make him the best wrestler ever but it makes him worthwhile. It means he's doing his job. It means most people, including this board, want to see him.

I'll agree with you there, I've never understood most of the praise for the man. Maybe it's the girly tights. .. I've never seen him have a bad match. Sid, Undertaker, freakin King Kong Bundy, Mark Henry, the new HHH, against anybody.... It's always at least okay.

Just because he's not good at selling doesn't make him a bad wrestler. He's not even THAT bad at it. He'll just forget every now and then and run around the ring or do a cartwheel on a hurt shoulder. Other wrestlers (like say every cruiserweight there is) get away with a lot worse. It's believable that he's hurt when he's getting attacked. RVD is entertaining. Every week. To normal fans and net fans. What's a wrestler's job? To entertain the crowd with wrestling matches. So if he's doing his job, how could be a bad wrestler? Because you say he isn't? Take a look at this thread. The One and Only WWE Raw Thread (9.29.03) How many other wrestlers can get that kind of response?

I loved that. It sounded so real. Fooled everybody. "Frustrated isn't the goddamn word for it! THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!"

You keep saying that but you don't prove anything. One account 70 years after the supposed event is hardly "very good historical documentation"

You can't prove for a fact anyone doesn't exist. But since there's no historical evidence for Jesus, and the same story with the exact same details had been written before, you can conclude that Jesus was simply a myth, not a real person. Kinda the same way people conclude Zeus, Thor, and Mythra were not real.

Heh?

It's not trustworthy because at best it's based on fourth and fifth hand accounts and that's IF it's genuinely real in the first place. If that counts as evidence, well then there's evidence for Hercules too just because people wrote about him. Along with any other myth. For Alexander the Great, we still have plenty of first-hand records from many different cultures and references from his time, even if we don't have any eyewitness accounts.

Actually, if you had read those links, you would know the only launguage thats widely believed to be inserted is..... everything he said about Christ. Might have something to do with the fact how once again the christians at the time who read him and rewrote his accounts said he NEVER mentioned Jesus. The first was Eusebius who was known to be a liar and a cheat and admit to supressing everything that could hurt Christianity. He wrote propaganda, not history. Some evidence. Go ahead. It'd be nice if you gave me an actual argument instead of listing the guy's credentials. I could do the same thing with Christian bible historians, people who wrote books and dedicated their lives to building credibility for the gospels, yet still are honest enough to admit it's probably fake. Such as Rev Lardner, "I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius."