Kurt Angle vs. Christopher Daniels

[Guest Coffey]

I have to be honest, despite recently not liking a lot of the WWE product and being a pretty big supporter of both ROH and TNA, I still don't see how Daniels can beat out Angle.

 

Angle is better on the mic. Always was. That was one of Daniels' biggest knocks against him, just like Benoit, that he couldn't talk. Now, I don't think Daniels is as bad as Benoit, however he's had the same gimmick for a decade now. He should be comfortable. I think Angle wins the mic dept. in a landslide. He's had a lot of good promos, skits & vignettes. Daniels' just cuts the same "serious" promo with "that is gospel" and all that.

 

Ring work? I'd say it's a push. Daniels wins in psychology and selling. Angle wins at pacing, timing and bumping. Well, not bumping anymore but we're going for their respective careers, not current states, right?

 

As far as putting "asses into seats" it might differ individually, here, however overall there's not a lot of indy workers that can compete with WWE main eventers.

 

I like Daniels a lot but Angle has entertained me in non-wrestling ways on more than one occasion. So, if we're going overall, I have to go with Angle.

[Copper Feel 0]

Somone pointed out earlier that Angle's best match is better then Daniel's best match, and whilst this is probably true Angle was carried by Steve Austin in his best match.

[Damaramu 0]

The "generic" WWE style lends itself to dramatic matches much better than a more "technical" style ever will, THERE I SAID IT. I'd qualify that statement as my opinion, but, pssh, no one else is bothering to do so.

 

Care to support this opinion? I'd like to hear how the WWE style lends itself to more dramatic matches than the technical King's Road style. Or the technical NJPW Juniors style. Then perhaps you could compare the best matches from each style to show why the WWE matches are more dramatic.

 

Did you read his post? It's his opinion. Everybody else in this thread is presenting opinion as fact so he did the same thing. He doesn't have to support his opinion beyond "that's what entertains me".

[NYU 0]

For example, I don't think I've ever seen Daniels completely drag down a match, like Angle did versus Benoit at Royal Rumble '03.

 

What?

 

Are you just throwing shit at the wall now to see what sticks?

 

You don't get a match that well done if someone is "completely dragging it down" as Angle apparently did.

[Matt Young 0]

Somone pointed out earlier that Angle's best match is better then Daniel's best match, and whilst this is probably true Angle was carried by Steve Austin in his best match.

 

*cough*WrestleMania 21*cough*

[Copper Feel 0]

Somone pointed out earlier that Angle's best match is better then Daniel's best match, and whilst this is probably true Angle was carried by Steve Austin in his best match.

 

*cough*WrestleMania 21*cough*

 

 

Personally im not a big fan of finishers being taken from the top rope and kicked out of, but if thats your thing then i suppose that was his best match.

[Guest JoeJoe]

If you're talking now, at THIS point, I'd say Daniels is better to me. And without going thru the trouble of a presenting over-smaky analysis, I'll simply say he's more entertaining to watch, and more versatile.

 

Of course, give Kurt his health back and take off the "restrictions" and that could all change.

Edited December 25, 2005 by JoeJoe

[World's Worst Man 0]

For example, I don't think I've ever seen Daniels completely drag down a match, like Angle did versus Benoit at Royal Rumble '03.

 

What?

 

Are you just throwing shit at the wall now to see what sticks?

 

You don't get a match that well done if someone is "completely dragging it down" as Angle apparently did.

 

Oh yea, sorry. I guess I was just imaging the bad timing, bad selling and convoluted mat work. My bad.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I did always think Benoit was carrying that match, regardless of what either man said.

[Angle-plex 0]

Daniels.

 

That awful no psychology, random move-2 count-random move-2 count dissapointing match vs Michaels sealed the deal on Angle with me earlier this year. I've been watching a lot of Daniels RoH work lately and while I'm not a huge fan, at least he seems to be able to put matches together properly.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Heh, oddly enough I thought the WMXXI match was pretty good, while their Vengeance match was a masturbatory piece of crap. Maybe I should give the WM match another whirl, see if I pick up anything different. Also, Chris Cooey wrote a pretty good review of Angle vs. Benoit at RR 2003, which pretty much covers a lot of the problems I had with it. http://www.airraidcrash.com/review/crunch054.html#wwe

[Enigma 0]

Why/how did Kurt Angle forget how to cut a compelling promo? I mean, for a while there, he was one of the best mic workers in the WWF. Now, all he does is YELL. HE YELLS THE WHOLE TIME. HE DOES NOT CHANGE THE VOLUME OR INFLECTION OF HIS VOICE AT ANY POINT IN A SPEECH. IT IS ONE MONOTONOUS SHOUT THAT GOES ON FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO FURTHER DEMONSTRATE MY POINT. ARE YOU SICK OF THIS. YES YOU ARE.

Because WWE doesn't let people actually cut promos anymore. They make them memorize their lame ass scripts.

[Guest Coffey]

Angle/Benoit is the best Angle match I've ever seen. For the most part, Angle is regarded as a good wrestler. When picked at, you can find faults. However, he's still way above average. For anyone to give that match only ***, I'll never respect their opinion on anything wrestling regarded. If the match gets a standing ovation on a PPV where the main event is a 30 man battle royal, then it deserves the praise that it gets.

 

People like the clown that reviewed that match will never be happy with a WWE match.

 

That's all I'll say about that.

[naiwf 0]

Someone explain how an adrenaline rush lasts almost as long as the average beatdown segment in your typical Angle or Michaels match? While I didn't enjoy seeing it in every match, Hogan was the only guy who ever did this properly in that the "hulk up" to match finish never took very long, while there are times where Michaels and Angle go an extra 5 to 10 minutes or more before ending the match with a bad neck/back/leg etc, which either makes them superhuman or horrific sellers. I tend to go with the latter on this.

[Guest JoeJoe]

http://www.airraidcrash.com/review/crunch054.html#wwe

I'll say this much. That guy has no business rating WWE matches. He's restricted himself to a particular style and preference so much, that he completely fails to come across as non-biased, multi-style encompassing (??) "rater". However, I would gladly allow him to shoot me down if he can prove to me how theres always been a universally standard way of selling and pyschology.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Angle/Benoit is the best Angle match I've ever seen. For the most part, Angle is regarded as a good wrestler. When picked at, you can find faults. However, he's still way above average. For anyone to give that match only ***, I'll never respect their opinion on anything wrestling regarded. If the match gets a standing ovation on a PPV where the main event is a 30 man battle royal, then it deserves the praise that it gets.

 

People like the clown that reviewed that match will never be happy with a WWE match.

 

That's all I'll say about that.

 

Opinions aren't usually right or wrong, so the only way to determine which opinions are worthwhile and which are worthless is to base it on the strength of the argument. That review brings up many good points, so to dismiss it without thought would cause me to doubt whether one can actually support their own opinion. If one has a problem with the points being made, the best course of action would be to present a counter-argument that explains why those points were erroneous. Until that happens, I'd tend to believe that the negative feelings towards the match are more justified than the positive feelings. And if he's so biased towards the WWE, how does that explain the relatively fair ratings of other WWE matches, such as Rock vs. Hogan or the WMXX triple threat?

 

Oh yes, you could also read some of his reviews of recent Japanese matches, where he absolutely tears some of those "highly regarded" matches to shreds. Seems like it's a fairly consistent approach to reviewing wrestling.

[Guest Coffey]

It seems to me like he's looking for reasons to hate matches instead of looking for reasons to like them. Obviously he didn't see the match until after he'd heard all the praise of it, so he went in with an even more negative approach since the match was already on a pedestal to him.

 

The majority of wrestling fans, even those that tend to favor promotions other than WWE, still think that match was good, if not great. In my opinion, he just wanted to be different. He was looking for shit that he could pick apart and that's exactly what he did. You could do that for any match...ever.

[EricMM 0]

I've seen this one go back and forth.

 

I gave my vote to Daniels for one reason and one reason only:

 

from everything I've seen from Kurt and Everything I've seen from Christopher, Daniels can just DO MORE.

 

Maybe it's because he's in the WWE ring. I don't *care* why. Angle's such a fixture of the E, and he was Vince's boy for a while, he should have been able to push for more varied matches. As it is, Angle cannot surprise me anymore. The only new things they seem to insert in their matches in the E is new ways to cheat. Compare that to Daniels who, while he can work repetitative matches if he has to, has busted so much varied shit off in ROH I almost always saw something I hadn't seen before, or was surprised by.

 

Angle stop surprising me years ago.

 

That's where my vote lies. I don't appreciate stagnated 4 year old wrestling. Angle hasn't changed for the better in a long ass time.

[Hoff 0]

The "generic" WWE style lends itself to dramatic matches much better than a more "technical" style ever will, THERE I SAID IT. I'd qualify that statement as my opinion, but, pssh, no one else is bothering to do so.

 

Care to support this opinion? I'd like to hear how the WWE style lends itself to more dramatic matches than the technical King's Road style. Or the technical NJPW Juniors style. Then perhaps you could compare the best matches from each style to show why the WWE matches are more dramatic.

Check Dama's post earlier in the thread for my feelings, but, since you asked: I feel that while the WWE style is certainly flawed and it doesn't lend itself to longer matches, it does do a lot of things right. The finish of a match is filled with familiar spots that pop the crowd, breathtaking near falls (something Angle does amazingly well, IMO), and a crescendo to a dramatic conclusion. It's very Hollywood, which makes a lot of people complain, but there's a reason that Hollywood does so well, y'know? Just because the WWE style doesn't fit a certain definition of "good wrestling," that doesn't make it inherently bad wrestling, either.

 

In all honesty, I'm very unfamiliar with Japanese wrestling, and I have no clue what King's Road style is. But I've seen a little bit from feds like APW and ROH, in addition to a fair deal of TNA, Daniels' hometown. The average WWE main event "draws me in" much more than the average TNA main event, or even an X-division affair. But, as I've said, that's just me.

[Foshi 0]

Why was Daniels selected as the standard against Angle anyway? I don't even think he's the best in the X-Division. Granted, I can't think of many other than AJ and Joe who are better, but he's still not the best.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Foshi

[DangerousDamon 0]

Why was Daniels selected as the standard against Angle anyway? I don't even think he's the best in the X-Division. Granted, I can't think of many other than AJ and Joe who are better, but he's still not the best.

 

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. Daniels and Angle dont' really have all that much in common for them to be compared,IMO

[EricMM 0]

On the contrary, except Joe, there's no worker more complete in TNA than Daniels. I'm no Styles hater by any stretch of the imagination, but Daniels can just do more.

 

I think Angle was put against him because he's another WWE guy who seemed for a while that he could do anything. He could slam you, he could fly somewhat, he could make you tap.

 

Of course, comparing them now, and possibly even anytime, is just not fair. Daniels kills Angle now, and has always been a better worker, and had a better mind for wrestling.

[Brett Favre 0]

It's tough to have a better mind for wrestling than an Olympic Gold Medalist, so I doubt that.

 

Maybe a better mind for fake wrestling.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Cena's Writer

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

It's tough to have a better mind for wrestling than an Olympic Gold Medalist, so I doubt that.

 

Maybe a better mind for fake wrestling.

 

Well gee, good on you for correcting him, no one else would have gathered what he was talking about.

[Brett Favre 0]

So thats why Kurt's already better.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You don't get a standing ovation at the end of a match for having just a "good match". You have to blow their fucking minds. In the WWE where that sort of thing is so rare I'd even have to give extra props to the match and the guys in it.

[EricMM 0]

No, that's NOT why Kurt is "already better" because Christopher Daniels has been putting on matches FAR FAR longer than Angle has, and he has had a far more varied career than Angle does.

 

Shit, I've loved a good portion of what Angle has done. But it doesn't touch what Danielson has done, and continues to do.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Daniels was chosen to compete with Angle because the two have several of the same strengths and several of the same weaknesses. Both men can go on the mat, there's no denying that (especially with Angle, since he IS an Olympic gold medalist), and both men can take a crowd that's pretty dead and make them give a fuck by some solid timing. But where both men faulter is that Daniels has given up a lot of the psychology he used to use in RoH and some early TNA matches (particularly XXX tag bouts), and Angle has never truly grasped onto it like he could have/should have.

 

Well, it's harder to explain than I thought it would be. But, in my opinion, nobody in TNA is a better match for Angle than Daniels would be. I'd also make an argument that Styles/HBK would be a good competition to talk about the strengths/weaknesses of both workers (both bump terrifically, are considered one of the flagbearers for their respective companies, and can challenge at any time for the top belt and have it be credible).

 

As for why Joe wasn't chosen to compete with Angle, here's why: it'd be a fucking massacre. Joe's work in the last 2 years surpasses EVERYTHING Angle's ever done by itself, and the only strengths that Angle has over Joe is publicity (since Angle's on well-rated national TV every week, and has been for the better part of the last 6 years, whereas Joe debuted on national TV a few months ago when Impact came to SpikeTV) and interviews. A more fair comparison would be Joe/Benoit than Joe/Angle (even if I think Benoit would kill Joe in every possible category for the entire body of work he's had in the last 15 years).

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Angle's not correctly portrayed as an Olympic Gold Medalist so to say just because he is one means he is a great pro wrestler is stupid. Most of the stuff he does in WWE would get him disqualified in Olympic/NCAA meets.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Angle's not correctly portrayed as an Olympic Gold Medalist so to say just because he is one means he is a great pro wrestler is stupid. Most of the stuff he does in WWE would get him disqualified in Olympic/NCAA meets.

 

Not to mention the numerous wrestlers who do better mat-work sequences than him, despite not even being close to as good as he was in the amateur ranks.