CheesalaIsGood Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 I don't think anybody could right out say that either guy flat out sucks. It simply isn't true. Right now both guys are being put in positions on the card to steal the show whenever they want. Since I like both guys this is a nice treat on a pretty consistant basis. So kudos to both guys. That being said I give the edge to Angle overall as he has done alot more with what he has on bigger and better stages than Christopher Daniels (who for some people will always be that guy who did that awful backflip onto his head one night on Nitro). Finally, I would have to say both guys have had a pretty good year wrestling-wise. Since rankings in wrestling have and always will be a game of "what have you done for me lately"... I'd say both guys would rank pretty fucking high.
Hawk 34 Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 There isn't much of an arguement in this, but since Daniels/Angle has died out as a debate... Who is better? Samoa Joe or Brock Lesnar
EricMM Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 Joe, because he's not a whiney bitch who quit. It just feels like Joe loves it WAAAAAAY more than Brock did/does. That will always count for something, and come out in your matches.
Lord of The Curry Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 Joe but if Brock hadn't left WWE he would've surpassed him by now easily.
World's Worst Man Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 Joe kills Brock based on their work itself. The question is, how would Brock do in an unrestricted enviroment? Since he's in New Japan now, we'll find out.
King Cucaracha Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 For the record... 1) Since when has Daniels been 'terrible' on the mic? Especially compared to current Angle. 2) The 'putting butts in seats' arguement is utter shit. How are you supposed to compare Angle working for the number one company against Daniels working for TNA? Give them the exact same push, let them have the exact same matches and see what happens. Until then, get a better arguement please. 3) The whole arguement is apples against oranges. People who don't like the indy style vote for Angle, people who don't like WWE style vote for Daniels. I used to be Angle's biggest fan in his comedy heel days and if we're taking a back catalogue on his most important matches compared to Daniels', Angle would probably shave it. I agree with HTQ though...I'd watch a match purely because Daniels was in it. I wouldn't turn a match off because Kurt's in it, but that doesn't mean I'd go out of my way to watch it. Daniels is more versatile in-ring too. 4) On the amateur wrestling arguement...does Dan Severn count on the 'terrible' list? What does Angle even bring from amateur wrestling anyway? The pointless body-scissors rest-hold? 5) Brock > Joe. And I'm a Joe mark.
Si82 Posted December 28, 2005 Report Posted December 28, 2005 Who is better? Samoa Joe or Brock Lesnar Samoa Joe. I don't think there's a better worker in wrestling today than Joe.
Team Angle Pusher Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Samoa Joe can do stuff a normal fat guy can't do. He's so unique is many ways. He's better then Brock Lesnar but Lesnar has a better look. Lesnar was/is a great wrestler but Joe is better then him, let's be honest here.
Guest wildpegasus Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 I've seen Joe vs Punk, Kobashi, Aeris, a squash or two and Noble. None of those matches were as good as Lesnar vs Mysterio, Benoit, Undertaker or the Eddie match for me. Or the Big Show matches now that I think about it. I gotta go with Lesnar.
Lord of The Curry Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Yeah, even with the Goldberg run-in I'd put Brock/Eddy up against Joe's best any day of the week.
World's Worst Man Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Joe's best matches annihilate Lesnar's best, it's not even close. Lesnar's best individual performance was close to being as good as Joe's best individual performance though, thats why I think Lesnar has a chance to be as good as Joe if he wrestles in a less restrictive enviroment, with better workers (NJ).
Guest wildpegasus Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Joe's best matches annihilate Lesnar's best, it's not even close. Lesnar's best individual performance was close to being as good as Joe's best individual performance though, thats why I think Lesnar has a chance to be as good as Joe if he wrestles in a less restrictive enviroment, with better workers (NJ). Lesnar's best matches annihilate Joe's best, it's not even close.
Lord of The Curry Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 I've seen Joe live and suffice to say the man didn't live up to the hype. If he's not facing somebody who can bump like a freak and/or take stiff shots then he's definetly less entertaining to watch. I had to see him struggle through a mostly garbage match with Raven. Joe/Liger would rank up as one of the more dissapointing matches that got hyped to shit.
World's Worst Man Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 I've seen Joe live and suffice to say the man didn't live up to the hype. If he's not facing somebody who can bump like a freak and/or take stiff shots then he's definetly less entertaining to watch. I had to see him struggle through a mostly garbage match with Raven. Joe/Liger would rank up as one of the more dissapointing matches that got hyped to shit. Who was hyping Joe vs. Liger? It was a 7 minute match, which had to be cut down due to time constraints. That match has as much relevance to Joe's ability as Lesnar vs. Goldberg has to Lesnar's ability. Just bringing up the spots and stiffness is failing to see why Joe is actually good in the first place. Anyone can throw stiff strikes, or use lots of suplexes. Lots of guys do, but they aren't regarded very highly. Joe is good because he works his spots in well, puts over the story well and he sells well. If spots and stiffness mattered, Low Ki is the best worker ever, and most guys who wrestled before 1990 sucked.
RavishingRickRudo Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 4) On the amateur wrestling arguement...does Dan Severn count on the 'terrible' list? What does Angle even bring from amateur wrestling anyway? The pointless body-scissors rest-hold? I dunno if you're talking about a terrible amateur wrestler in general, or a terrible job translating amateur wrestling in pro wrestling, but Dan Severn kicked ass in UWF-i. Angle couldn't touch that stuff. And Severn is one of the most decorated wrestlers I've heard of, the dude was legit.
CheesalaIsGood Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Say what you want (Brock/Joe) but it would be a mark out moment if they ever wrestled each other.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now