Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Steroid Abuse? Proof please. Sure he got big, but I really doubt he is on steroids. I think he is like Lex Luger: A body builder stuck in a wrestlers body. Just look at his back pimples, protruding forehead, and his balding hair. Also his lack of cardio (gets blown up now quickly, breathes heavily). He couldn't travel and spend enough time in the gym while with WWE. It is obvious that he does steroids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 29, 2002 hmm...okay valid points there. Weres your valid proof on the prime debate? Why is it 28-33 and not 20-65 or 6-12? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >HHH has hit a decline though because of an injury, more than a few bad storylines, bad booking in general (that affected EVERYONE, not just HHH), and being over-muscled not because he's 33 HHH will decline more now that he is 33, but as I said many times before, HHH did not start to decline yesterday when he turned 33, he started to decline when he was 32 due to steroid abuse. Drugs are one of the few exceptions (major injuries and a major disease are the others) of the 28-32 prime rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 29, 2002 please stop with the steroid abuse shit. really, you have no proof. Everyone in wrestling looks and seems like they take steroids, but they dont always. Jeff Hardy was rumured to have taken steroids last year. And if he is taking them, how do you know he is abusing them? Does he have a violent temper? Basically, does he look and or act like scott steiner? Nope, nada zip. He declined because of his injury. He has always had a protruding forehead and have you ever heard of male pattern baldness? Yeah...stasiak was going bald until he got hair implants...was he taking steroids? and you still aint answered me: why is it 28-33? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Gamengiri2002 Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Though I do feel it a little silly that this topic has become so heated, I feel some freak obligation to BUTT in however unwelcome. I think yomama is very astute in his determination that people, on average, are at their physical/mental peak between the ages of 28 and 32. BUT, I would have to say that your average professional wrestler isn't sheltered beneath the umbrella term "average". There are too many factors to look at when judging the "prime" of any given wrestler. Age is a factor, but one of many. Size is a factor, as is experience, technique, medical problems, fatigue, dedication to the job, etc... It's pretty silly to subject such a demanding lifestyle to such a mediocre criterion. I, personally, would more closely agree that a wrestler's "prime" comes during the era in which his output is at it's best. Flair, as Brian said, hit that in 1984 (though I feel that it ended in 1992, with mere hints of his prime carrying over into the next two years) Steve Austin might have had his best run in 2001, but I don't feel that it was his prime, as Austin struck as a bit tired of the lifestyle by then and, as I have priorly stated, fatigue and dedication to the job are factors in determining a wrestlers prime. I would say that Austin peaked in and around the summer of 1996 and his prime lasted up until his neck injury. Mick Foley is confusing for me to figure out. As his career had many physical ups and downs. I could say that his peak was in ECW but I feel that is a little foolish. Maybe it was in 1996 when his attitude seemed most positive toward the business and also when he had arguably his best match (vs. Michaels). I could even believe that 1998 was his prime, as it heralded much of his breakout success and he proved the most consistent performer in the federation that year. This is really too complicated to sit here and talk about when you could just as easily spend this time watching your brand new copy of the Bret Hart/Ric Flair Iron Man match from 1993, which is what I'm about to do. Hope I helped, if nothing else, arouse guttural hatred for me in the hearts of each of you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >have you even seen any of Ric Flair's work in the late 70's? He hardly shows shades of being that great; let alone in the early eighties where he still had alot of ground to make up on his matches in the later eighties. I would go out as far and say that had Flair not done what he had done going off to Puerto Rico and Japan during that time period, where he was a DECENT to good tag wrestler and a comparable singles man during the time, he would have never had a single five star match in his career I just hear that Flair was better in the late 70s and early 80s, for a minute I thought I saw some of his work then, but I made a mistake, it was from the late 80s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >What about Tommy Dreamer? He hit his prime during this last year of his indy run where he was consistently working good matches, mopreso than any point in his career despite not working with the best of opponents. Dreamer is in his prime at the age of 31 >Hart showed nothing in a tag team format, nothing than gives anyone an idea that he would be that good. Hart showed enough in tag team format to convince Vince that he should be pushed as a singles wrestler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >As long as you're still good enough at moving around in the ring, the amount of wrestling knowledge can carry you for a long amount of time. 33+ you decline in everything except general knowledge and experience. All the aspects of prime are better than just having more general knowledge and experience Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >how did you come up with 28-33? I could say your prime is 30-40 or 22-78, how can you prove me wrong? How can you prove yourself right? It's 28-32, and it's from common sense. Just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >please stop with the steroid abuse shit. really, you have no proof. It's just super obvious that HHH is on roids, especially that he couldn't travel and spend enough time in the gym while with WWE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Human Fly Report post Posted July 29, 2002 please stop with the steroid abuse shit. really, you have no proof. Everyone in wrestling looks and seems like they take steroids, but they dont always. Jeff Hardy was rumured to have taken steroids last year. And if he is taking them, how do you know he is abusing them? Does he have a violent temper? Basically, does he look and or act like scott steiner? Nope, nada zip. He declined because of his injury. He has always had a protruding forehead and have you ever heard of male pattern baldness? Yeah...stasiak was going bald until he got hair implants...was he taking steroids? I agree, whenever someone starts talking about steroids on this board they almost always prove they know little or nothing about the topic. When there are some serious signs of steroid abuse by wrestlers none of the roids "experts" on this board even pick up on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Mighty Damaramu Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Your common sense? It's apparent you have none. You're just saying "Hey take my word for it." I could come to you and say "Hey if you run fast enough you'll travel through time. It's common sense. Take my word for it." and then when someone says "That's absurd" I'd say "No it's common sense" Now I don't have any facts do I? Nope. And neither do you. So why should we believe you? Oh that's right nobody believes you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Your common sense? It's apparent you have none. As I said before, just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Your common sense? It's apparent you have none. As I said before, just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs We are looking at everyone Like DDP, and Flair, and Hart, and Austin, whom all hit their prime outside of your "common sense" region. Seeing as we're looking at everyone, and finding you're wrong.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Your common sense? It's apparent you have none. As I said before, just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs Infact, while I'm at it, find me wrestlers who actually hit their prime IN your time period. How many are there? We have HHH, who if he ever has any more good matches KILLS your example... who else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>As I said before, just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs >We are looking at everyone Like DDP, and Flair, and Hart, and Austin, whom all hit their prime outside of your "common sense" region. I talked about each of these wrestlers already in this topic. All of their wrestling primes were 28-32, except DDP, because DDP didn't start at the usual age, he started to wrestle at 35. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>As I said before, just look at everyone, their prime is 28-32 with exceptions due to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs >We are looking at everyone Like DDP, and Flair, and Hart, and Austin, whom all hit their prime outside of your "common sense" region. I talked about each of these wrestlers already in this topic. All of their wrestling primes were 28-32, except DDP, because DDP didn't start at the usual age, he started to wrestle at 35. Yes but I can talk about hot girls, that doesnt mean what I say is true. Their wrestling peaks were outside your region. You told me to look at the wrestlers. So I did. And you're wrong See thats the beauty part, no matter what you say, you're still wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >find me wrestlers who actually hit their prime IN your time period. How many are there? We have HHH, who if he ever has any more good matches KILLS your example Nearly all of the wrestlers fall into 28-32 prime period with exceptions to those who had major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs. In 2000 and 2001, HHH had plenty of great matches, now past his prime, it's possible that on a rare occassion HHH can pull out a good match. It does not kill my example because people past their prime can still peform well, just not as well as in their prime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Their wrestling peaks were outside your region. You told me to look at the wrestlers. So I did. And you're wrong I'm not wrong. Austin peaked from 1993-1997 (from 28-32), Bret Hart peaked from 28-32, Flair peaked from 28-32, DDP as a person peaked 28-32, but as a wrestler he peaked afterwards because he never wrestled in his prime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >find me wrestlers who actually hit their prime IN your time period. How many are there? We have HHH, who if he ever has any more good matches KILLS your example Nearly all of the wrestlers fall into 28-32 prime period with exceptions to those who had major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs. In 2000 and 2001, HHH had plenty of great matches, now past his prime, it's possible that on a rare occassion HHH can pull out a good match. It does not kill my example because people past their prime can still peform well, just not as well as in their prime. If HHH has a string of matches better than any in his "prime," then it DOES kill your argument, because he'd be peaking PAST his prime, therefore his prime is later on. While I doubt it would happen with HHH, if it does, you're wrong. Its done it with Hart, its done it with Austin, its done it with Flair. You're already wrong on all three of those. I'd like to see HHH go on a tear just to show you you're even MORE wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >Their wrestling peaks were outside your region. You told me to look at the wrestlers. So I did. And you're wrong I'm not wrong. Austin peaked from 1993-1997 (from 28-32), Bret Hart peaked from 28-32, Flair peaked from 28-32, DDP as a person peaked 28-32, but as a wrestler he peaked afterwards because he never wrestled in his prime. You're wrong Austin peaked in '98 Flair peaked in the late 80's Hart peaked in '96/'97 DDP peaked in '97/'98. Peaking, and "prime" all depend on how you've progressed as a wrestler. Besides, age is no definition of even a physical peak. Why else would Nolan Ryan be a better statistical pitcher at age 40? He was still bringing 100MPH heat, so he didnt lose anything on his fastball. On the same note, what about all the one time wonders who did great in their early/mid 20's, then faded away when they approached 30? Simple, they peaked at the top of their ability, not their age. You're wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >If HHH has a string of matches better than any in his "prime," then it DOES kill your argument, because he'd be peaking PAST his prime, therefore his prime is later on. It won't happen though >Austin peaked in '98 As a wrestler he peaked from 1993-1997 >Flair peaked in the late 80's >Hart peaked in '96/'97 Flair was in his prime from 1977-1981. Hart was in his prime from 1986-1990. They were both tag team wrestlers at the time so it was much harder to see their greatness >Why else would Nolan Ryan be a better statistical pitcher at age 40? He wasn't >what about all the one time wonders who did great in their early/mid 20's, then faded away when they approached 30? There aren't any unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or did drugs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 EDIT: I half-posted early. Read the next post for Full Text. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >If HHH has a string of matches better than any in his "prime," then it DOES kill your argument, because he'd be peaking PAST his prime, therefore his prime is later on. It won't happen though >Austin peaked in '98 As a wrestler he peaked from 1993-1997 No. He peaked in '98/'99 You're wrong >Flair peaked in the late 80's >Hart peaked in '96/'97 Flair was in his prime from 1977-1981. Hart was in his prime from 1986-1990. They were both tag team wrestlers at the time so it was much harder to see their greatness No. You're wrong again. They sucked in tag team wrestling. They didnt peak until later in their careers. You're wrong. >Why else would Nolan Ryan be a better statistical pitcher at age 40? He wasn't Okay, I'm pulling out the big guns on this one motherfucker WHIP (walks plus hits per inning pitched) is the best pure judge of how well a pitcher would perform, without how things went with defense, run support, etcetera. Now, Ryans BEST WHIP, were, from best to worst, in the following seasons.... 1991 (Age 44) 1.01 WHIP 1990 (Age 43) 1.03 WHIP 1989 (Age 42) 1.09 WHIP 1981 (Age 34) 1.12 WHIP 1986 (Age 39) 1.13 WHIP 1972 (Age 25) 1.14 WHIP 1987 1984 1983 1982 1973 1988 1968 1979 (Age 32) 1.27 WHIP His THIRTEENTH BEST SEASON was in his prime. He had THIRTEEN SEASONS that were better before, and after his prime, than his BEST year in his prime. Youre DEAD FUCKING WRONG >what about all the one time wonders who did great in their early/mid 20's, then faded away when they approached 30? There aren't any unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or did drugs No moron, their one year wonder seasons WERE their peak, regardless of how fucking old they are. If you only have one good season, THATS YOUR FUCKING PEAK This is a very simple case of, everyone on this board is right, and you're fucking wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >He peaked in '98/'99 Austin's matches were much better from 1993-1997 than from 1998-1999 >>Flair was in his prime from 1977-1981. Hart was in his prime from 1986-1990. They were both tag team wrestlers at the time so it was much harder to see their greatness >They sucked then Bret Hart and Ric Flair certainly didn't suck then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >He peaked in '98/'99 Austin's matches were much better from 1993-1997 than from 1998-1999 No, he still peaked in '98/'99 >>Flair was in his prime from 1977-1981. Hart was in his prime from 1986-1990. They were both tag team wrestlers at the time so it was much harder to see their greatness >They sucked then Bret Hart and Ric Flair certainly didn't suck then Maybe they didnt SUCK, but they certainly couldnt hold a candle to their BEST work. They are examples of wrestlers who did far better after their "so called prime" than they ever did in their "prime" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >WHIP (walks plus hits per inning pitched) is the best pure judge of how well a pitcher would perform No it's not because it isn't how many guys you let on base, it is how many guys you let score >>>what about all the one time wonders who did great in their early/mid 20's, then faded away when they approached 30? >>There aren't any unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or did drugs >No moron, their one year wonder seasons WERE their peak, regardless of how fucking old they are. If you only have one good season, THATS YOUR FUCKING PEAK They don't have only one good season, they continue to improve until they reach their prime Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Would you by chance be the guy in AOL Chat who always is rambling about the "prime" just as you are doing? If so, you are about 17 years old (just for assurance), and you are totally obsessed with this topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AlwaysPissedOff Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Yes, DH, that would be him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Yes, DH, that would be him. Oh Christ, I thought those people stayed on AOL Chats! Isn't that like an unwritten law on the net? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
