Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>If the rule is based on common sense then you can use it as justification >But the prime rule is not based on common sense. Infact its not based on anything, aside your personal opinion. Besides, even if it WAS common sense, which it isnt, you can explain common sense. The prime rule is based on common sense. 28-32 is prime (unless you have major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs). That is common sense. This is not my opinion. I do not believe in opinions. Something is either right or wrong, there is no in between with "opinions". . While I realize you're talking out of your ass, I 'm going to continue to explain this to you If its common sense, it can be explained. Look both ways before you cross the street. Common sense, because you might get hit by a car. Take your seatbelt off before you try to get out of the car. Common sense, because you'd be stuck in the car if you had your seatbelt on 28-32 is everyones prime year. Common sense, because some asshole said so. Whats the explanation? Explain it and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you, but you have no explanation. >Explain Bob Hamelin, one year, he's Rookie of the Year, next year, he's not even in the majors? Actually after his rookie of the year season in 1994, he played four more seasons. Rookie of the year isn't that big of an award anyway And never got more than 320 AB in any of those seasons. His Rookie season was his best, and those "prime years" you described, were the worst of his career. Then he was gone. He wasnt in his prime, he wasnt injured, he wasnt taking drugs, and he didnt have any diseases. You're wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest XdojimeX Report post Posted July 29, 2002 "I'm only reacting to this to explain that I don't react to things like vulgar insults." *laugh* You're a trip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>The prime rule is based on common sense. 28-32 is prime (unless you have major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs). That is common sense. This is not my opinion. I do not believe in opinions. Something is either right or wrong, there is no in between with "opinions". >While I realize you're talking out of your ass, I 'm going to continue to explain this to you If its common sense, it can be explained. I did explain it. Everyone peaks from 28-32 unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs. Just look at the ones without major injuries, a major disease, and who don't do drugs, they are at top form 28-32. >His Rookie season was his best, and those "prime years" you described, were the worst of his career. It's clear that this guy need 300+ ABs a year in order to be effective. The other season he got 300+ ABs, he was effective. You need a good amount of ABs to gel as a hitter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted July 29, 2002 First off, one baseball player who should be brought up who's consistently deteriorated since he entered his "prime" is Frank Thomas. Nolan Ryan's full stats: Entered prime in January 31, 1975-1979 1972: 19-16, 2.28 ERA, 39 appearances, 20 CG, 284 IP, 166 H, 157 BB (led league), 329 K (led league), 9 ShO (led league). 1973: 21-16, 2.87 ERA, 41 appearances (2 relief), 26 CG, 326 IP, 238 H, 162 BB (led league), 383 K (led league, 4 ShO. 1974: 22-16, 2.89 ERA, 42 appearances (1 relief), 26 CG, 333 IP (led league), 221 H, 202 BB (led), 367 K (led), 3 ShO. 1975: 14-12, 3.45 ERA, 28 appearances, 10 CG, 198 IP, 152 H, 132 BB, 186 K, 5 ShO. 1976:17-18, 3.36 ERA, 39 appearances, 21 CG, 284 IP, 193 H, 183 BB (led league), 327 K (led league), 7 ShO (led league). 1977: 19-16, 2.77 ERA, 37 appearances, 22 CG (led league), 299 IP, 198 H, 204 BB (led league), 341 K (led), 4 ShO. 1978: 10-13, 3.71 ERA, , 31 appearances, 14 CG, 235 IP, 183 H, 148 BB (led), 260 K (led), 3 ShO. 1979: 16-14, 3.59 ERA, 34 app, 17 CG, 223 IP, 169 H, 114 BB, 223 K (led), 5 ShO (led). 1980: 11-10, 3.35 ERA, 35 app, 4 CG, 234 IP, 205 H, 98 BB (led), 200 K, 2 ShO. 1981: 11-5, 1.69 ERA (led), 21 app, 5 CG, 149 IP, 99 H, 68 BB, 140 K, 3 ShO. 1982: 16-12, 3.16 ERA, 35 app, 10 CG, 250.1 IP, 196 H, 109 BB (led), 245, 3 ShO. 1983: 14-9, 2.98 ERA, 29 app, 5 CG, 196.1 IP, 134 H, 101 BB, 183 K, 2 ShO. 1984: 12-11, 3.04 ERA, 30 app, 5 CG, 183.2 IP, 143 H, 69 BB, 197 K, 2 ShO. 1987: 8-16, 2.76 ERA (led), 34 app, 0 CG, 211.2 IP, 154 H, 87 BB, 207 K (led). 1988: 12-11, 3.52 ERA, 33 app, 4 CG, 220 IP, 186 H, 87 BB, 228 K (led), 1 ShO. 1989: 16-10, 3.20 ERA, 32 app, 6 CG, 239.1 IP, 162 H,98 BB, 301 K (led), 2 ShO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted July 29, 2002 You still haven't refuted the Ric Flair point. Without seeing enough of his work, you have no clear case. His tag work during that time, and you're jaded if you think that it even made up the majority of his work, was nothing special. His singles work, while great was still far from what he became capable of, let alone what he was able to do with Luger, Funk, Steamboat, and Windham in the late 1980's. In fact, he dealt with Steamboat during the early years and even in 1984 when Flair was just out of his peak and steamboat was entering they couldn't pull off tha same kind of match as they did in 1989. In fact, Flair's prime starts in 1983, his mic skills catch up around 1986, and he finally pulls together everything that he has worked for, everything he's picked up over the years, and puts together the year we know as 1989. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rabbi_wilson13 Report post Posted July 29, 2002 God, this guy is so fucking stupid. I love it. His points make no sense, and his whole point is just retarded. RicFlairGlory, thanks for lighting him up, though its a lost cause he's obviously a moron or a troll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SuperTonyJaymz Report post Posted July 29, 2002 You know this is probaly the first time that 99.9% of the board has agreed on something. Scary... Anyways, like I said, you have no proof that Triple H is on steroids. He's a jerk abckstage, but not roid jerk, its more cocky jerk. He cut his hair to the way it is now, to look like aheel. He really isn't balding. If anyone has been balding, its Kurt Angle, and I dont think he is on the roids.. He has always had a protruding forehead, its more noticable now that he has less hair. And noone with his amount of muscle has great acrdio. In fact, he is one of the better guys when it comes to cardio. My favorite wrestler of all time, Jericho, has blown up more times than Triple H. Go read a medical journal or,(though unlikely) goto a gym and read the many posters they have on the subject. Another example of someone peaking after their prime is Lance Armstrong. He has won 4 Tour De France's in a row now, and he has overcame cancer. This guy is the pinnacle of reaching your prime. If you say "oh he was better way back in so-so" then your wrong. He has never ever been on the streak has been on, and to my knowledge he has been doing the bike thing for a while. He improved with age and training, overcame cancer, and became the greatest competior ever to enter the Tour De France. Or what about acting? Anthony Hopkins has been on an great run of movies, since 1990. Way after his prime, yet you ask anyone, his best movies have been from then up to recently, and he still has more coming. And what about Einstein? To your theory, hsi prime was 28-33 and yet he became a widely known genius way after that. But maybe your more concerned about wrestling. We have given you so many examples that its not even funny but heres another one: Terry Funk. What was the greatest angle, match, whatever? Thats right...with the other "Over The Hill" Ric Flair/ Remeber, by your theory, Funk was way over his prime, yet could you, in your prime, have the same match? I think not. So shut up, leave, and dont let the door slam ya on the ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>The prime rule is based on common sense. 28-32 is prime (unless you have major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs). That is common sense. This is not my opinion. I do not believe in opinions. Something is either right or wrong, there is no in between with "opinions". >While I realize you're talking out of your ass, I 'm going to continue to explain this to you If its common sense, it can be explained. I did explain it. Everyone peaks from 28-32 unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs. Just look at the ones without major injuries, a major disease, and who don't do drugs, they are at top form 28-32. Okay. Last time. You didnt explain it. You re-stated the rule. There is no proof for it. We have looked at people without major injuries, diesease, and drug use, who were at their top form in years OTHER than 28-32. You cannot explain a rule using the rule. You cant explain something by using your supposition as evidence. >His Rookie season was his best, and those "prime years" you described, were the worst of his career. It's clear that this guy need 300+ ABs a year in order to be effective. The other season he got 300+ ABs, he was effective. You need a good amount of ABs to gel as a hitter. He was never as effective in his prime as he was BEFORE his prime, even with his 300 at bats, he WAS NOT BETTER IN HIS PRIME, HE WAS WORSE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Oh and on a side note. I'd like to add that from now on I am always right. Thats the rule. Want me to explain it? I'm right because me being right is the rule. Its true because I'm right. Always. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Mighty Damaramu Report post Posted July 29, 2002 It's common sense that RicFlairGlory is always right. No facts....just common sense....so you have to believe it. You know what's scary guys? I actually think yomomma believes what he is saying? Scary that one kid could be so dumb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rabbi_wilson13 Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Tony's right, because I think the entire board has actually united on something. We should harness this, and use if for the common good!!! ..... Screw that. Flaming's too much fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >one baseball player who should be brought up who's consistently deteriorated since he entered his "prime" is Frank Thomas. In Frank Thomas's prime (1996-2000), he has not deteriorated at all. In fact from 1991-1995 he had 564 RBIs and 830 hits compared to 588 RBIs and 862 hits from 1996-2000. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >You still haven't refuted the Ric Flair point. Without seeing enough of his work, you have no clear case. While I haven't seen his work from back then, I know that he wrestled in mostly tag matches then. Prime rule states he was at his best 28-32, while he has great matches past his prime, he didn't break out during his prime because he wrestled in mostly tag matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Big McLargeHuge Report post Posted July 29, 2002 You are discussing Physical Peak here, AND averaging on top of that. Not 'Prime'. Your Prime if when you are at your peak, regardless of age. It's common sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >this guy is so fucking stupid. I love it. His points make no sense My points make perfect sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline, what don't you get? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >this guy is so fucking stupid. I love it. His points make no sense My points make perfect sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline, what don't you get? No your points make NO sense, because 28-32 is NOT everybodys prime Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >You still haven't refuted the Ric Flair point. Without seeing enough of his work, you have no clear case. While I haven't seen his work from back then, I know that he wrestled in mostly tag matches then. Prime rule states he was at his best 28-32, while he has great matches past his prime, he didn't break out during his prime because he wrestled in mostly tag matches. Yes the prime rule says that, but THE PRIME RULE IS NOT VALID You want to make it valid, PROVE IT, without saying "its common sense," because you explain that by saying "the prime rule is true" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted July 29, 2002 I found my nomination for worst thread ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Big McLargeHuge Report post Posted July 29, 2002 Again: You are discussing Physical Peak here, AND averaging on top of that. Not 'Prime'. Your Prime if when you are at your peak, regardless of age. It's common sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 29, 2002 I found my nomination for worst thread ever. *raises hand* I very sadly agree w ith you, bps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >you have no proof that Triple H is on steroids It may not be 100% proof, but what I listed before makes it almost certain that HHH is on steroids >He really isn't balding He is balding, it just isn't that noticeable >he is one of the better guys when it comes to cardio HHH is below average when it comes to cardio for a wrestler in WWE >My favorite wrestler of all time, Jericho, has blown up more times than Triple H. Actually HHH has blown up more times than Jericho >Another example of someone peaking after their prime is Lance Armstrong. He has won 4 Tour De France's in a row now, and he has overcame cancer. This guy is the pinnacle of reaching your prime. If you say "oh he was better way back in so-so" then your wrong. He has never ever been on the streak has been on, and to my knowledge he has been doing the bike thing for a while. He improved with age and training, overcame cancer, and became the greatest competior ever to enter the Tour De France. A major disease can affect your prime. It doesn't always. Cancer apparently has not affected Lance Armstrong's performance. Lance Armstrong is 30 years old and in his prime >Anthony Hopkins has been on an great run of movies, since 1990. Way after his prime, yet you ask anyone, his best movies have been from then up to recently, and he still has more coming. Hopkins is far past his prime, he was better in more films before 1990 >And what about Einstein? To your theory, hsi prime was 28-33 and yet he became a widely known genius way after that. His prime was 28-32 >What was the greatest angle, match, whatever? Thats right...with the other "Over The Hill" Ric Flair/ Remeber, by your theory, Funk was way over his prime I think Flair and Funk had better matches together in the late 70s Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >>I did explain it. Everyone peaks from 28-32 unless they had major injuries, a major disease, or do drugs. Just look at the ones without major injuries, a major disease, and who don't do drugs, they are at top form 28-32. >We have looked at people without major injuries, diesease, and drug use, who were at their top form in years OTHER than 28-32. There are NONE. That's the point. My rule is correct, 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Amazing Rando Report post Posted July 29, 2002 I'm with BPS on this one.... ......yomama knows less about logic than WWE... and remember...I'm always right because it's true...and it's true because I'm always right...and when I hit my prime.....I'm gonna be 33 years old....just to piss you off... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Big McLargeHuge Report post Posted July 29, 2002 There are NONE. That's the point. My rule is correct, 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline. Nope. Your prime is when you peak, regardless of age. Nice try though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 29, 2002 >He was never as effective in his prime as he was BEFORE his prime Eye Surgery by Antonen, Mel Article in USA Today December 9, 1996 (Vol. 15, Issue 60) -- p. 22C, 1 page(s) Stats: n Photos/Illustrations: n Named people: Bob Hamelin Topics: Profiles; Surgery; Eyes His eyes got worse in 1995 and 1996, so he got surgery, then next season he became a solid player again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 30, 2002 >Your prime is when you peak, regardless of age. You peak 28-32. If you think I'm wrong then disprove me (which no one has done so far) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Big McLargeHuge Report post Posted July 30, 2002 You have yet to disprove me. I win, you don't. End of discussion. Bye. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest yomama Report post Posted July 30, 2002 >You have yet to disprove me All you have said was "your prime is when you peak, regardless of age". I said no it isn't (28-32 is prime). If you want, list some people who you think their prime isn't 28-32 that haven't already been discussed on here and I'll show you that their prime is 28-32 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 30, 2002 >You have yet to disprove me All you have said was "your prime is when you peak, regardless of age". I said no it isn't (28-32 is prime). If you want, list some people who you think their prime isn't 28-32 that haven't already been discussed on here and I'll show you that their prime is 28-32 But the people we already mention peaked at times OTHER than 28-32 You're fucking wrong Tell me why 28-32 is prime and I'll believe you. YOU have made a stament you havent proven. Therefore you CANT be right. You havent proven shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RicFlairGlory Report post Posted July 30, 2002 >You have yet to disprove me All you have said was "your prime is when you peak, regardless of age". I said no it isn't (28-32 is prime). If you want, list some people who you think their prime isn't 28-32 that haven't already been discussed on here and I'll show you that their prime is 28-32 And just to prove your logic wrong, AGAIN You said "no it isnt" but didnt prove anything. So you HAVENT disproven him. And WE dont need to come up with examples why we're right, we already have. YOU'RE making the outrageous statement, YOU need to come up with examples that prove your rule to be true, and your examples are lacking, because if you cant prove your examples true WITHOUT using the rule you are asserting, then you havent proven anything 1 is equal to 0 Why? Because my rules says 1 is equal to 0. Obviously! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
