Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 But there are six pages worth of you saying "prime is 28-32. It's common sense". And people HAVE thrown names in your face, but you just ignore them because they follow your half assed rule, when in fact the dictionary states that prime is 'the state of greatest perfection'. Notice how it DOESN'T say it's between the years of 28 and 32. It's becuase it VARIES with each and every person. You have an average of what the 'prime' period is in a modern day professional wrester's life. Good for you. But that's all you've got. It doesn't mean it won't change in 30 or so years. With that, I hope this pointless thread is deleted before another 6 pages is wasted on a 'discussion' that doesn't go anywhere.
Guest SlowChemical6 Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 It's so easy to pick apart your argument that it isn't even funny. First, you claim that a wrestler is past his prime when he turns 33...no matter what. You claim that it is a physical change, and that nothing can stop it. Not wrestling experience, not training, nothing. Then you say that the rules don't apply to DDP since he started wrestling later in life tha most wrestlers. You just contradicted your entire argument. Does DDP's body somehow sense that he started wrestling later in life and cut him some slack? You are a moron and should be banned from this message board for life. Quite frankly, it scares me that people like you walk among the rest of us. Also, the careers of Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Steve Austin, etc. completely blow your argument out of the water. They all had their best matches after they turned 33. You tend to have your best matches when you are in the prime of your career. This is not hard to figure out. Please, go back to the AOL chat rooms.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>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 That is what you thought but I proved you wrong and explained how they peaked 28-32 >YOU need to come up with examples that prove your rule to be true You guys only mentioned 6 or 7 or so examples of people who you thought peaked at times other than 28-32. I then proved you wrong. There is only a group of people you guys keep on mentioning of wrestlers like Bret Hart, Austin, Flair, etc. Thus you guys don't think anybody else has a different prime than 28-32, therefore there is no need to mention all the people whose prime is 28-32.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>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 That is what you thought but I proved you wrong and explained how they peaked 28-32 No you didnt, you explained its true because of the rule. But you never proved the rule.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >You have an average of what the 'prime' period is in a modern day professional wrester's life. It's not an average, and it applies to everything (not just wrestling) for a person. Prime is 28-32 for everything (except general knowledge and experience which increases as you get older) for a person
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >YOU need to come up with examples that prove your rule to be true You guys only mentioned 6 or 7 or so examples of people who you thought peaked at times other than 28-32. I then proved you wrong. There is only a group of people you guys keep on mentioning of wrestlers like Bret Hart, Austin, Flair, etc. Thus you guys don't think anybody else has a different prime than 28-32, therefore there is no need to mention all the people whose prime is 28-32. All I need is ONE example to prove you're wrong, I dont need more than 10. You say all peak from 28-32. If ONE person didnt, then you're wrong And Hart, Flair, Fuck even HOGAN peaked at times other than from ages 28-32. Because of how their CAREER went, NOT by age. Prove it without saying "the prime rule says so" and you're in the clear, but you havent done that, because you cant, because you cannot prove your point without asserting a false preminition
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >You have an average of what the 'prime' period is in a modern day professional wrester's life. It's not an average, and it applies to everything (not just wrestling) for a person. Prime is 28-32 for everything (except general knowledge and experience which increases as you get older) for a person No its not. You have no proof it is. Get me some medical reports, expert testimony, and still, all I need is ONE person who's life didnt peak from 28 to 32, and you're wrong. and I have about 50 examples I could bust out You're wrong.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >It's so easy to pick apart your argument that it isn't even funny. First, you claim that a wrestler is past his prime when he turns 33...no matter what. You claim that it is a physical change, and that nothing can stop it. Not wrestling experience, not training, nothing. Then you say that the rules don't apply to DDP since he started wrestling later in life tha most wrestlers. You just contradicted your entire argument. I said DDP's prime was 28-32 for everything EXCEPT wrestling, since he didn't start to wrestle until 35 >the careers of Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Steve Austin, etc. completely blow your argument out of the water. Bret Hart was a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you didn't get to see his true greatness. Kurt Angle is in his prime right now at 32. Ric Flair was mostly a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you also didn't get to see his true greatness. Randy Savage peaked from 1981-1985. Steve Austin was at his best from 1993-1997
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >It's so easy to pick apart your argument that it isn't even funny. First, you claim that a wrestler is past his prime when he turns 33...no matter what. You claim that it is a physical change, and that nothing can stop it. Not wrestling experience, not training, nothing. Then you say that the rules don't apply to DDP since he started wrestling later in life tha most wrestlers. You just contradicted your entire argument. I said DDP's prime was 28-32 for everything EXCEPT wrestling, since he didn't start to wrestle until 35 No, its not a valid rule if you can just randomly make fucking exceptions for it Period. Its true or its not, it cant be selectively true.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >It's so easy to pick apart your argument that it isn't even funny. First, you claim that a wrestler is past his prime when >the careers of Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Steve Austin, etc. completely blow your argument out of the water. Bret Hart was a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you didn't get to see his true greatness. Kurt Angle is in his prime right now at 32. Ric Flair was mostly a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you also didn't get to see his true greatness. Randy Savage peaked from 1981-1985. Steve Austin was at his best from 1993-1997 No. You didnt get to see his true greatness BECAUSE HE DIDNT HAVE ANY WHEN HE WAS 28 YEARS OLD, OR 32 FOR THAT MATTER. He didnt achieve greatness until later, when he BECAME A BETTER WRESTLER, and when you're wrestling at your best, THAT is your peak Nothing to do with age.
Guest jester Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 And the scary thing? This thread is longer than some Smackdown threads. Ok, I'll weigh in, although my brain is telling me not to. Yomama, identify ONE outside source that states this mystical prime rule. Don't say "it's common sense" or "everyone knows." If everyone knows, it's written down somewhere in a rebutable, authorative source like a medical journal, or the handbook of the world renown International Prime Institute or something like that. Don't quote your cousin Morty or whatever. I'll bet, if anything, it says that the average male's physical prime is usually 28-32. That's average male, not all males, and and usual, not always. The prime of a person's career is not measured in such a narrow frame. It's measured by when they do their best work, which in wrestling, since stats aren't "real" as they are in baseball, is often a relative judgement. Why do I feel like I just wrote a lengthy post to a brick wall?
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>That is what you thought but I proved you wrong and explained how they peaked 28-32 >No you didnt, you explained its true because of the rule. But you never proved the rule. I proved everyone wrong so far when they gave a person in which they thought their prime was not 28-32. They only mentioned a group of people so the people they didn't mention prime is 28-32 (or else they would have mentioned them). If no one can dispute the rule, and the rule applies to everyone (which it does), then the rule is proven. >Hart, Flair, Fuck even HOGAN peaked at times other than from ages 28-32. I already talked about Hart and Flair. Hogan peaked from 1982-1986 (from 28-32). He was a better worker then >>It's not an average, and it applies to everything (not just wrestling) for a person. Prime is 28-32 for everything (except general knowledge and experience which increases as you get older) for a person >all I need is ONE person who's life didnt peak from 28 to 32, and you're wrong. and I have about 50 examples I could bust out Bust out some new examples so I can prove them wrong
Guest jester Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 Way to no sell my post! Could this thread please be moved to NHB? I sense people are dying to unload on this guy.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >I said DDP's prime was 28-32 for everything EXCEPT wrestling, since he didn't start to wrestle until 35 No, its not a valid rule if you can just randomly make fucking exceptions for it DDP's prime in wrestling couldn't be 28-32 because he never wrestled then, if DDP did, it would be his wrestling prime >>Bret Hart was a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you didn't get to see his true greatness. Kurt Angle is in his prime right now at 32. Ric Flair was mostly a tag team wrestler in his prime, so you also didn't get to see his true greatness. Randy Savage peaked from 1981-1985. Steve Austin was at his best from 1993-1997 >No. You didnt get to see his true greatness BECAUSE HE DIDNT HAVE ANY WHEN HE WAS 28 YEARS OLD, OR 32 FOR THAT MATTER. How do you know he didn't have any true greatness when he was 28-32? He wrestled in mostly tag matches so you couldn't see the best possible Ric Flair ever (the prime Ric Flair of 28-32)
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >identify ONE outside source that states this mystical prime rule. I don't need to because it's common sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (exceptions to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs). Until that is proven wrong, it is the prime rule
Guest Incandenza Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 I don't know why you people bother....
Guest jester Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >identify ONE outside source that states this mystical prime rule. I don't need to because it's common sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (exceptions to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs). Until that is proven wrong, it is the prime rule Translation: "I don't have any proof, but I don't need any since I am not conducting a logical argument based on fact anyway. I am just trying to see how long I can keep these guys riled up." For me, it was three posts. Bye
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>That is what you thought but I proved you wrong and explained how they peaked 28-32 >No you didnt, you explained its true because of the rule. But you never proved the rule. I proved everyone wrong so far when they gave a person in which they thought their prime was not 28-32. They only mentioned a group of people so the people they didn't mention prime is 28-32 (or else they would have mentioned them). If no one can dispute the rule, and the rule applies to everyone (which it does), then the rule is proven. No you havent proven anyone wrong. ANd I dont need more than a group of people. You're claiming your rule is absolute, if theres ONE false example, your point is not a trusism, and is therefore not evidence for anything, especially all your arguments. I mentioned a group of people, but you've ignored them because of your rule. Well if we're CHALLENGING your rule, you need to prove they are in their prime with something OTHER than your rule and "common sense," because if it WERE common sense, everyone would see it, but nobody does, just you Sometimes when everyone is saying you're wrong, its not the world thats wrong, its you
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >identify ONE outside source that states this mystical prime rule. I don't need to because it's common sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (exceptions to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs). Until that is proven wrong, it is the prime rule Its not common sense I hope you try this logic on someone at a bar, because they'll just drop you in a fucking heartbeat.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>I don't need to because it's common sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (exceptions to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs). Until that is proven wrong, it is the prime rule >Translation: "I don't have any proof, but I don't need any since I am not conducting a logical argument based on fact anyway. I am just trying to see how long I can keep these guys riled up." I am conducting a logical argument, 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline, until it is proven wrong it is true. I am not doing this for people to get riled up, I am doing this to inform them about the simple concept of prime
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 I don't know why you people bother.... I agree. Can we delete this thread? This is like those tiresome Montreal threads that spring up from time to time and don't go anywhere.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>I don't need to because it's common sense. 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (exceptions to major injuries, a major disease, or drugs). Until that is proven wrong, it is the prime rule >Translation: "I don't have any proof, but I don't need any since I am not conducting a logical argument based on fact anyway. I am just trying to see how long I can keep these guys riled up." I am conducting a logical argument, 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline, until it is proven wrong it is true. I am not doing this for people to get riled up, I am doing this to inform them about the simple concept of prime No. Its false until you prove it true And you havent. Have a good life, I hope someone leaves you bleeding from the fucking ears.
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>I proved everyone wrong so far when they gave a person in which they thought their prime was not 28-32. They only mentioned a group of people so the people they didn't mention prime is 28-32 (or else they would have mentioned them). If no one can dispute the rule, and the rule applies to everyone (which it does), then the rule is proven. >No you havent proven anyone wrong. I proved all the baseball players that were mentioned wrong. I proved all the wrestlers that were mentioned wrong (except for Bret Hart and Ric Flair, who were hard to prove they were better workers from 28-32, because they wrestled in mostly tag matches, but you can't prove that they were worse from 28-32). >I mentioned a group of people, but you've ignored them because of your rule. I didn't ignore anything >Well if we're CHALLENGING your rule, you need to prove they are in their prime with something OTHER than your rule and "common sense," because if it WERE common sense, everyone would see it, but nobody does, just you Maybe it's because none of you have common sense. If you did you would understand the simple concept of prime (28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline). The 28-32 prime rule has yet to be disproved (and nobody has mentioned any new wrestlers out of the usual group who they think their prime is not 28-32), therefore it is a legit rule
Guest yomama Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 >>I am conducting a logical argument, 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline, until it is proven wrong it is true. I am not doing this for people to get riled up, I am doing this to inform them about the simple concept of prime >Its false until you prove it true 28-32 is prime, 33+ you decline (except in general knowledge and experience), this applies to everyone and is a true rule
Guest Nezbyte Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 BPS, Dames, SOMEONE - Delete this thread, bam this fucking idiot. You're wrong, by the way.
Guest Incandenza Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 Say, who's the next wrestler to turn 33? That's the next time we can expect yomama to pop up after this stupid shit dies down.
Guest Shaved Bear Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 Angle will always be in his prime, sorta like Benoit
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 30, 2002 Report Posted July 30, 2002 Thank God. May this thread die, and have its ashes pissed on.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now