First off, sorry it took so long to respond to this. I have been really busy the last few days and when I did get a chance to come on the computer, I was much to tired to give a decent response to this.
What do you define as "wrestler"?
A wrestler is someone hired by a promoter to put on a staged performance for an audience, with the intent of entertaining that audience to the point where they will turn over their money to watch the show again.
Lugar was a bigger star and had a more successful career that Hart, but how does that prove anything more than he was a bigger draw?
Since both Luger and Hart were hired with the sole purpose of making their promoter money, it proves that Luger was better at his job.
Alot more encompasses "wrestler" than just draw and position on the card.
The more you can draw, the better wrestler you are. It’s fairly simple really. The only way to measure a wrestler’s talent is by how well they can connect with the audience, and if they are a good draw then clearly they are good at what they do. Position on the card doesn’t always dictate who is better between two wrestlers. For example take a look at CM Punk and Chris Jericho. Punk is the world champion but Jericho is far more over with the audience than Punk is. But, more often than not the guys on the top of the card are in fact the most over, as it only makes sense to put the people the audience wants to see at the top of the card.
I don't Think Swagger is green, all he needs is experience within the ring.
Exactly my point. He is still green. Like I mentioned, go watch his matches with Matt Hardy and Fit Finlay from the Royal Rumble and No Way Out. Swagger’s ring work is clearly a work in progress.
Plus Swagger has made a name of himself on ECW TV, i don't think Cena really help him out on that decent match, but hey atleast they didn't do a Swagger Vs batista. (while Swagger Best Match is with Christian from Backlash)
On ECW he was wrestling in front of about a third of the audience as he was on Raw, and he looked awful in his two PPV matches before this match. Look at the guys he was making his name against on ECW. None of them even come close to having the same star power as John Cena. His match against Cena was easily the most significant of his career. It was in front of the biggest audience and against the biggest star in the company, and he looked like a legit threat in that match.
Probably the best TV match On WWE 2009 would be: Evan bourne Vs John Morrison ***1/2. Cena/Y2j was doing good in that match, but That ending was crap, I'm not sure why they had make it a "no contest", since in the last 4-5 encounters of Y2J/cena, Cena has won. (i wuld rather like to see a 1-2-3 or submission ending). rather than a DQ/C-out/No contest ending
I have a few questions for you. Why do you keep pulling these ratings out of your ass like they actually mean something? Where are you getting them anyways? Also, why do you continue to hold the finish of the Cena/Jericho match against them? The no finish was not their choice. They only thing they could control was what happened for the 15-20 minutes they were given before the WWE decided they would put an end to the match with Edge’s interference. They did a fantastic job with what they were given, despite the no finish. That’s what you should be rating the match on.
But if you don’t want to call this match the best TV match of the year because of the finish, then think back to January and Cena’s match with HBK that did have a finish. I actually overlooked that match as well while discussing this, but that has to be the best TV match all year.
well You were saying how good were cena/Show,
You misunderstood then. Never have I once said how good Cena/Show was, because it was far from being great. What my point has been is that it’s not as bad as you have made it out to be. You have been crapping on the matches by saying things like how lame they have been. My point is while they were far from being classic matches, they also weren’t awful and did what they were supposed to do, and that’s entertain the audience.
Maybe it has come off like that, but it hasn’t been my intention. I’m not trying to put down Triple H, I’m just trying to prove that he hasn’t been as good as John Cena this year.
while I pointed out that HHH/SHow click better than what cena/show does.
Cena/Orton click far better than Triple H/Orton. Is it relevant though? No. Cena/Orton haven’t wrestled this year and that is what this thread is about. Performance in 2009. Big Show and Triple H haven’t wrestled each other this year so it’s an absolutely irrelevant point in this discussion.
I never call John Cena Overrated, I put him in the Poll, but 2009 hasn't been a good year in my opinion.( I voted for Batista)
Well you’re wrong because Cena has had a very solid year so far. A big part of being overrated should include position on the card and how much camera time someone gets. While Cena still has had a good spot on the card, he hasn’t been the focal point of the WWE this year, even when he has been champion and since April he has been out of the title picture. Triple H on the other hand has done nothing but main event despite the fact that this hasn’t been a great year for him. When you main event the biggest show of the year, and perhaps what should have been the biggest show ever or at least close to it, and you go on to bore the audience for 20 minutes there is no reason that you shouldn’t at least be an option for most overrated of the year. The guy on the other side of the ring from him that night, Randy Orton made the list as an option, so Triple H should have as well.
Cena vs JBL Parking lot brawl was decent at best, **1/2 i must say it was never special. (JBL has never work good in his career, except for his feud with Eddie Guerrero in 2004, but nothing was **** in there feud). Lol That Big show vs John Cena match on last week's raw wasn't good at all. I do like slow wrestlers, but they needs to utelizes there ability properely. (i wouldnt say Orton is the top heel, Y2J is that.)
You started to ramble on here, so I’ll just take this time to ask where you get these ratings again since I see you used them twice in this paragraph.
I don't care what fans in attendance may think, Because tbh they are only mainsteam fans, they will come and go, while i have been watching wrestling for years. (so of those WWE fans enjoy Cryme Tyme wrestling and they aren't that special or enjoy R-truth What's Up, 2006 should call R-truth and tell him to write a new song)
Your personal enjoyment of a match in no way has to be affected by what the fans in attendance think. But if you are going to be rating matches and calling matches crap, you have to include how the overall audience felt about the match, not just if it entertained you or not.
I just want to clear one thing up in case you bring this up or someone else does. You might be thinking that the fans in attendance aren’t the only ones watching, there are also people at home watching. But at things like PPV’s especially where there are almost always at least 20,000 fans in attendance, it gives you a general feel of how the overall audience felt about the match. The fans in the audience are the same general fans as the ones watching at home.
Cena vs edge LMS was ****, while HHH Vs orton 1st LMS was a **** at No Mercy 2007.
A 2009 match is being compared to a 2007 match. How does this help your argument? And more star ratings? *sigh*
LOL Luger could only really have good Matches with Flair in the late 80's/early 90's, Vince made him marketable in the mid 90's(i'll give him that, but he wasn't anything unless he wrestled flair),
He wasn’t anything unless he wrestling Flair? Bullshit. He was over EVERYWHERE he went. And yes Vince pushed Luger hard and made him marketable, but are you going to tell me that Vince didn’t try like hell to get Owen over as a top heel? He beat Bret Hart on the same night that Bret went on to win the world title. That to me seems like Vince was pushing Owen pretty damn hard.
then when he went back to WCW he was worthless.
There are two possibilities here. You are either making shit up, or you never actually seen Luger in WCW. Luger made a HUGE splash by appearing at the first Nirto. That doesn’t seem “worthlessâ€. Lets also take a second to remember something. Eric Bischoff has gone on record as saying he never liked Lex Luger, but he brought him in anyways because he knew it was a good business move. So despite Bischoff’s personal dislike for Luger, he clearly didn’t see him as being “worthlessâ€. During 1997 when WCW was on top of the wrestling world, he was as popular of a star as you were going to find. Aside from Sting he was probably the most popular guy in WCW, except he actually wrestled on a weekly basis unlike Sting who had 1 match that year. To say that a guy who was incredibly popular in the top company in the U.S. at the time was worthless is beyond ridiculous.
While Owen hart was a top heel in 94/95
Thanks to Vince McMahon trying like hell to make him a star. The reason his big push only lasted two years was because the audience didn’t accept him as a top heel.
and he was a dude that was used to Put wrestler overs or tag with wrestlers to be put over
Because he failed as a main eventer so he was put into mid card tag teams with guys like Yokozuna.
(in 1997 Owen/Austin feud was great and it took austin to a newer level), I think owen Hart did a really good job of it.
It was great because Owen broke Austin’s neck and someone came up with the great t-shirt “Owen 3:16 says I just broke your neckâ€. I really don’t think Austin would have gotten a lot out of that feud had the accident not occurred. When they met at Summerslam where this accident took place, Austin was already a bigger star than Owen had EVER been in his career. Bret Hart was a great help in getting Austin over. His feud with Owen was basically just a carry over from his feud with Bret.
While Luger wasn't a good wrestler after the late 80's/early 90's.
He was mega over in both the WWF and WCW, as both a face and as a heel. So how the fuck wasn’t he any good?
i would rather see Owen Hart than Lex Luger.
So because YOU would rather watch Owen Hart over Lex Luger, that makes him a better wrestler? That’s kind of arrogant, don’t you think? The simple fact of the matter is that the masses wanted to see Lex Luger perform more than they wanted to see Owen Hart, meaning Luger was better at his job.
In fact the "Owen Hart Tribute show" scored a 7.2 rating in 1999. So it would tell you alot that people loved owen
Your point? Not once have I said that Owen Hart wasn’t over. I was merely responding to hometown kid asking me if I think Luger is better than Owen Hart. Hart wasn’t a bad wrestler and he was over with the audience, he just wasn’t as good as Lex Luger. Giving me the rating of the tribute show that took place one night after Owen’s death does NOTHING to help your argument that Owen is better than Lex Luger.
