|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on May 20, 2006 14:03:26 GMT -5
It looks like you're baiting a fellow board member, Tommy. That is coming dangerously close to being a personal attack. This thread is less a personal attack than one against the premise behind Swarm's "Umaga is tougher than Joe" theory. Here are all of the points Swarm brought up in that thread on the subject: Until that last bit, the only piece of evidence that Swarm -- or anyone else --introduced to support this theory of "Umaga tougher than Joe" was the injury. Let's look at that last bit, then: "Bigger" -- I don't think is in question; that's just a simple matter of comparing numbers, but it doesn't necessarily apply to "toughness". Kevin Nash is bigger than Benoit, but I don't think anyone would call him the tougher of the two. Not anyone wanting to be taken seriously, anyway. "Stronger" -- Debateable, but ultimately irrelevant; strength does not indicate toughness. "Faster" -- if strength doesn't apply to toughness, than faster has no chance. If it did, Rey Mysterio would be one of the toughest guys ever to set foot in a ring. "Never been injured" -- physical resilliancy. That actually sounds like a criteria for toughness. So, using the "if Wrestler A has never been injured and Wrestler B has" "logic" -- which is what Tommy was doing when he made this thread, and said so right up front -- Jeff Jarrett is clearly tougher than Kurt Angle. But wait! Swarm introduced two new topics of discussion in this thread a few posts ago: Jarrett has been wrestling professionally for around 20 years, without serious injury. Angle only has 7 years of being a professional under his belt, and has been forced to undergo major surgery on more than one occasion during that time. Training/experience advantage: Jarrett. It's not Tommy's fault that Swarm's logic had holes in it large enough for Umaga himself to butt-charge through. I have stated on numerous occasions that the rest of the mod team and myself are not considered "above" the rest of the community here; we're fans just like everyone else, and entitled to our own opinions every bit as much as you are. Tommy's opinion was that Swarm was talking out of his rear and this thread is simply a demonstration thereof. As far as Umaga v. Joe goes (or really any WWE guy v. TNA guy not previously in WWE/WCW), I am impartial; I do not watch TNA, so I cannot accurately and farily defend (nor attack) anyone on that side. But I know crap-logic when I see it, and that's all Swarm has brought to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 20, 2006 14:16:03 GMT -5
Chris-
I agree that the mods should not be held to a higher standard of behavior. I would have no reason to be critical of you if you started a thread like this because you are more than willing to call an idiot an idiot( see madacapa/lefar situations) and do not get upset when someone else does.
While you have definitely attempted to keep peace on the board, you do not mind when people discect another's opinion and state why they disagree with it.
Tommy on the other hand has been known to throw his moderator weight around telling others how to express themselves. He even takes such school-marm type attitudes as to tell people to "cut it out, NOW," when he feels they are being too critical of someone else's opinion.
My whole point was to express that he shouldn't tell people not to disagreeable (after all, Tommy expressed to me that I was "personally attacking" someone because I quoted their post and disagreed with) and then start a thread just to do the same thing, especially in this manner.
Hell, we all know Kurt Angle is a tough sonofabitch. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out, so this whole thread was basically an attempt at trolling, which he questioned Swarm about in this very thread.
-Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on May 20, 2006 15:42:06 GMT -5
It looks like you're baiting a fellow board member, Tommy. That is coming dangerously close to being a personal attack. This thread is less a personal attack than one against the premise behind Swarm's "Umaga is tougher than Joe" theory. Here are all of the points Swarm brought up in that thread on the subject: Until that last bit, the only piece of evidence that Swarm -- or anyone else --introduced to support this theory of "Umaga tougher than Joe" was the injury. Let's look at that last bit, then: "Bigger" -- I don't think is in question; that's just a simple matter of comparing numbers, but it doesn't necessarily apply to "toughness". Kevin Nash is bigger than Benoit, but I don't think anyone would call him the tougher of the two. Not anyone wanting to be taken seriously, anyway. "Stronger" -- Debateable, but ultimately irrelevant; strength does not indicate toughness. "Faster" -- if strength doesn't apply to toughness, than faster has no chance. If it did, Rey Mysterio would be one of the toughest guys ever to set foot in a ring. "Never been injured" -- physical resilliancy. That actually sounds like a criteria for toughness. So, using the "if Wrestler A has never been injured and Wrestler B has" "logic" -- which is what Tommy was doing when he made this thread, and said so right up front -- Jeff Jarrett is clearly tougher than Kurt Angle. But wait! Swarm introduced two new topics of discussion in this thread a few posts ago: Jarrett has been wrestling professionally for around 20 years, without serious injury. Angle only has 7 years of being a professional under his belt, and has been forced to undergo major surgery on more than one occasion during that time. Training/experience advantage: Jarrett. It's not Tommy's fault that Swarm's logic had holes in it large enough for Umaga himself to butt-charge through. I have stated on numerous occasions that the rest of the mod team and myself are not considered "above" the rest of the community here; we're fans just like everyone else, and entitled to our own opinions every bit as much as you are. Tommy's opinion was that Swarm was talking out of his rear and this thread is simply a demonstration thereof. As far as Umaga v. Joe goes (or really any WWE guy v. TNA guy not previously in WWE/WCW), I am impartial; I do not watch TNA, so I cannot accurately and farily defend (nor attack) anyone on that side. But I know crap-logic when I see it, and that's all Swarm has brought to the discussion. Chris, that was one fine post. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderbite on May 21, 2006 4:09:30 GMT -5
I have one word for you: HeWonaGoldMedalWithABrokenFrickinNeck. Enough said. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark 138 on May 21, 2006 7:34:03 GMT -5
I'm going to respond to the original question and ignore the reason why it's here to begin with. Jarrett is a much SMARTER wrestler in that he can and has performed at or near the top of the card for a long time now and done so with a style that has kept him failry injury-free. Angle brings that "no guts, no glory" amatuer wrestling attitude (mat wrestlers are the toughest of all amatuer athletes, bar none, btw) that is great for winning Olympic medals but stupid in a pro wrestling ring. The result is that Jarrett could be doing his thing a decade from now while Angle is on borrowed time.
But, going by the criteria for determining toughness laid out in the topic message, I voted for Jarrett.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on May 21, 2006 20:51:29 GMT -5
It looks like you're baiting a fellow board member, Tommy. That is coming dangerously close to being a personal attack. This thread is less a personal attack than one against the premise behind Swarm's "Umaga is tougher than Joe" theory. Here are all of the points Swarm brought up in that thread on the subject: Until that last bit, the only piece of evidence that Swarm -- or anyone else --introduced to support this theory of "Umaga tougher than Joe" was the injury. Let's look at that last bit, then: "Bigger" -- I don't think is in question; that's just a simple matter of comparing numbers, but it doesn't necessarily apply to "toughness". Kevin Nash is bigger than Benoit, but I don't think anyone would call him the tougher of the two. Not anyone wanting to be taken seriously, anyway. "Stronger" -- Debateable, but ultimately irrelevant; strength does not indicate toughness. "Faster" -- if strength doesn't apply to toughness, than faster has no chance. If it did, Rey Mysterio would be one of the toughest guys ever to set foot in a ring. "Never been injured" -- physical resilliancy. That actually sounds like a criteria for toughness. So, using the "if Wrestler A has never been injured and Wrestler B has" "logic" -- which is what Tommy was doing when he made this thread, and said so right up front -- Jeff Jarrett is clearly tougher than Kurt Angle. But wait! Swarm introduced two new topics of discussion in this thread a few posts ago: Jarrett has been wrestling professionally for around 20 years, without serious injury. Angle only has 7 years of being a professional under his belt, and has been forced to undergo major surgery on more than one occasion during that time. Training/experience advantage: Jarrett. It's not Tommy's fault that Swarm's logic had holes in it large enough for Umaga himself to butt-charge through. I have stated on numerous occasions that the rest of the mod team and myself are not considered "above" the rest of the community here; we're fans just like everyone else, and entitled to our own opinions every bit as much as you are. Tommy's opinion was that Swarm was talking out of his rear and this thread is simply a demonstration thereof. As far as Umaga v. Joe goes (or really any WWE guy v. TNA guy not previously in WWE/WCW), I am impartial; I do not watch TNA, so I cannot accurately and farily defend (nor attack) anyone on that side. But I know crap-logic when I see it, and that's all Swarm has brought to the discussion. Look, all I'm saying is that Umaga is way tougher than Joe. That's it. Is it really this big of a deal? |
|
|
|
Post by theace4ever on May 21, 2006 21:18:22 GMT -5
I dont see Jarrett competing with a broken neck... hell I wouldnt see Jarrett competing with a hang nail... JUCK FARRETT
|
|
|
|
Post by BrianU on May 21, 2006 21:51:15 GMT -5
Tommy, I hate to say it, but you are way off. Yes, Angle has been hurt ALOT, but he has wrestled some intense, incredible matches. With the exception of a few snack bar matches in Memphis, no one would put a Jarrett match in that category.
Angle gives his all and puts on a heck of a show and fights thru the pain, and I am by no means an Angle fan. Jarrett is WCW tough, a sore muscle earns you a few weeks off.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on May 21, 2006 22:47:11 GMT -5
That's the thing, Brian...no one can seem to recall when Jarrett ever too "a few weeks off" for a "sore muscle".
|
|
|
|
Post by ThePunisher on May 22, 2006 0:25:45 GMT -5
Oh dear
It would appear
As if I have missed something big
The lawman says your logic's flawed, bug
Shame for picking on TNA, you big bad thug
But wait there's another side
A group that cries of a moderator's breach
Oh Tommy please practice what you preach
I think that's all we've got
Ok sorry for going all Jester, I admit it's kind of stupid
So is this even Joe Vs. Umaga
or Jarrett Vs Angle
No no
Its the
Masters of the Six-sided Forum
Vs.
The "Losing Market Share and Going Bankrupt" City Posse
(American made cars suck)
My apologies, professional wrestling (which is all fake and all of it {whether TNA or WWE} is all a grown up boys' soap opera)
isn't the number one reason for me to argue. So continue on with your little war of electronic words. I figured I could spare my two pennies. Then again, I should have melted them down for the copper. Damn it!
Oh yeah, madacapa is an idiot so he deserved it
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on May 22, 2006 10:27:54 GMT -5
Look, all I'm saying is that Umaga is way tougher than Joe. That's it. Is it really this big of a deal? In and of itself? No. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it the same as everyone else. The way you express that opinion, however, leaves much to be desired. Don't pretend to use logic to back up your claim, or that "logic" can -- and will -- be turned against you like this. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on May 22, 2006 11:27:43 GMT -5
Look, all I'm saying is that Umaga is way tougher than Joe. That's it. Is it really this big of a deal? In and of itself? No. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it the same as everyone else. The way you express that opinion, however, leaves much to be desired. Don't pretend to use logic to back up your claim, or that "logic" can -- and will -- be turned against you like this. fair enough...I think he's tougher for a lot of reasons...from the knee to his size, to the way he keeps himself in 10 times better shape than Joe, to the fact that he has proved tough enough to make it in the greatest wrestling fed in all the world while Joe has only proved to be tough enough to make it as a big fish in a few small ponds. Didn't mean for Tommy to get all upset and start dragging Jeff Jarrett into it, which is ridiculous, but hey, it's cool. |
|
|
|
Post by cakejedi on May 22, 2006 12:45:53 GMT -5
In and of itself? No. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it the same as everyone else. The way you express that opinion, however, leaves much to be desired. Don't pretend to use logic to back up your claim, or that "logic" can -- and will -- be turned against you like this. fair enough...I think he's tougher for a lot of reasons...from the knee to his size, to the way he keeps himself in 10 times better shape than Joe, to the fact that he has proved tough enough to make it in the greatest wrestling fed in all the world while Joe has only proved to be tough enough to make it as a big fish in a few small ponds. Didn't mean for Tommy to get all upset and start dragging Jeff Jarrett into it, which is ridiculous, but hey, it's cool. This debate raises an interesting question. Is it better to be a big fish in a small pond (Joe) or a small fish in a big pond (Umaga)? Now I will admit that I have not seen a lot of Umaga's matches. But from what I have seen, he does not impress me as more than a mid-card talent right now. He could grow to accomplish more. But if he stays a mid-carder and Joe stays in TNA, is it better to be a Champion in a small fed or a mid-carder in the biggest wrestling organization in the U.S. ? I don't know thew answer to that question. But I do know that if I had to pay to see either Joe or Umaga wrestle, I find Joe 's matches a lot more interesting (for example, Joe vs. Daniels on TNA's Thursday debut was a very entertaining match). |
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on May 22, 2006 13:07:29 GMT -5
WWE seems bent on reverting to 80s style matches. They even brought back an 80s style show - Saturday Night's Main Event. The Samoan Thumb-to-the-throat is an 80s style finisher. If Umaga catches on with all of his weekly squashes night in and night out, should we begin to fear that WWE will start turning Raw into Saturday morning's Superstars of Wrestling?
But then, Joe squashes a bunch of nobodies too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2006 14:42:51 GMT -5
With the television climate the way it is, there is no way RAW will ever become a beat-up-the-jobber show.
When people complain about the poor state of pro wrestling shows and clamor for a return to the ways of yesteryear, one really has to wonder how much they remember about pro wrestling pre-1996.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on May 22, 2006 16:00:07 GMT -5
fair enough...I think he's tougher for a lot of reasons...from the knee to his size, to the way he keeps himself in 10 times better shape than Joe, to the fact that he has proved tough enough to make it in the greatest wrestling fed in all the world while Joe has only proved to be tough enough to make it as a big fish in a few small ponds.10 times better shape!?!? Just because someone isn't in the WWE doesn't mean they're not a top wrestler! There are guys in Japan that would blow most guys in the WWE away. Plus, I'm willing to bet many of the top guys in TNA make a lot more than many of those on the downside now. Plus, you work a couple times a month in Orlando and get to pick your indy dates, maybe a tour of Japan leaving you time to spend with your family, or always on the road, rarely seeing your family. Truth be told, if the pay was any where near similar...I'd take the TNA route esp if I wanted to spend more time with my family. What makes you think they wouldn't want Samoa Joe? Maybe he likes it so he can pick his spots...where in the WWE...that would be out the window. Sometimes that takes a priority over the WWE. By that logic, when the GWF/CPC split occured in 2109, everyone that went to the CPC sucks. I wouldn't say that about guys like Raven at all. |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on May 22, 2006 16:20:10 GMT -5
Raven pointed out after his WWE release that if he realized the money was so good on the indies he would have asked for his release way before.
I brought up the point a few days ago that some guys with families want to wrestle and still have families...and most guys that travel 300 days or more a year wind up missing their kids growing up and going through a divorce or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2006 18:39:53 GMT -5
It has also been said by Raven himself that he is the exception to the rule in how much he can make on the indy circuit, not the rule itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on May 23, 2006 21:10:36 GMT -5
It has also been said by Raven himself that he is the exception to the rule in how much he can make on the indy circuit, not the rule itself. Because he owns the rights to his gimmick? |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on May 24, 2006 1:45:05 GMT -5
I'm sure that does make a huge difference, actually. Which is also a big part of the reason Vince likes to "brand" wrestlers...render them virtually worthless, or at least far less valuable, elsewhere. Some guys managed to transcend it...others don't.
|
|
