|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 11:26:57 GMT -5
Someone just stated this to me...
Can someone please explain to me how the most authentic/realistic wrestler of the 40s, 50s, & 60s could be equated to trash?
The whole point of wrestling back then was realism & authenticity. The John Wayne "Strong, Silent type." was the archetype of a hero, & no one in wrestling did it better than Thesz.
So I ask again...
To keep it colloquial,
what gives?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 11:31:26 GMT -5
I'm guessing much like myself they can't get into wrestling that old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Mar 23, 2014 11:34:10 GMT -5
Wait, so we have to explain someone else's point of view? Why don't you ask the person who said it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 11:39:49 GMT -5
Wait, so we have to explain someone else's point of view? Why don't you ask the person who said it? Their viewpoint is stupid, that's painfully obvious. I'm asking how they could say such a thing & expect to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Mar 23, 2014 11:41:31 GMT -5
Wait, so we have to explain someone else's point of view? Why don't you ask the person who said it? Their viewpoint is stupid, that's painfully obvious. I'm asking how they could say such a thing & expect to be taken seriously. ....I got nothing. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 11:56:01 GMT -5
I'm guessing much like myself they can't get into wrestling that old. Yeah I'd have to say this. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 12:03:50 GMT -5
I'm guessing much like myself they can't get into wrestling that old. Yeah I'd have to say this. Does someone's inability to understand something automatically make that thing bad in all forms? Does the fact that the Catholic Church didn't like that Galileo Gallilei claimed Heliocretrism to be true, somehow make the earth flat? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 12:22:57 GMT -5
Yeah I'd have to say this. Does someone's inability to understand something automatically make that thing bad in all forms? Does the fact that the Catholic Church didn't like that Galileo Gallilei claimed Heliocretrism to be true, somehow make the earth flat? If someone is not entertained by a product that is meant for entertainment, then to that person it would be bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 12:35:21 GMT -5
Does someone's inability to understand something automatically make that thing bad in all forms? Does the fact that the Catholic Church didn't like that Galileo Gallilei claimed Heliocretrism to be true, somehow make the earth flat? If someone is not entertained by a product that is meant for entertainment, then to that person it would be bad. So how does this person prove they are understanding the product honestly & therefore justified in their view? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 12:41:42 GMT -5
If someone is not entertained by a product that is meant for entertainment, then to that person it would be bad. So how does this person prove they are understanding the product honestly & therefore justified in their view? It is there opinion, they need no justification. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 12:45:16 GMT -5
So how does this person prove they are understanding the product honestly & therefore justified in their view? It is there opinion, they need no justification. That's what I can't understand. Why would you want to have an opinion that differs from fact, if the view is outside of pure preference? Secondly, if this person needs no justification, then why does this person get to chastise me for trying to have an honest perspective? I have a point, so humor me. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 13:02:10 GMT -5
It is there opinion, they need no justification. That's what I can't understand. Why would you want to have an opinion that differs from fact, if the view is outside of pure preference? Secondly, if this person needs no justification, then why does this person get to chastise me for trying to have an honest perspective? I have a point, so humor me. Wrestling is subjective, it's not a fact that anyone is good or bad because the qualities that make someone good differ depending on who is answering the question. It's a fact that Lou Thesz was revulutionary, but it's an opinion if you consider him to be great. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 13:04:31 GMT -5
It is there opinion, they need no justification. That's what I can't understand. Why would you want to have an opinion that differs from fact, if the view is outside of pure preference? Secondly, if this person needs no justification, then why does this person get to chastise me for trying to have an honest perspective? I have a point, so humor me. 1. Considering someone is good in wrestling can never be a fact. A fact is 2 + 2 = 4. A fact is a solid true statement, where as saying Lou Thesz is the best is an opinion. So, saying he is trash or saying he is good is an opinion. 2. You have no point to make other than your opinion. The only facts in sport is statistics, the best team, the worst team, all of that is debatable. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 13:08:56 GMT -5
That's what I can't understand. Why would you want to have an opinion that differs from fact, if the view is outside of pure preference? Secondly, if this person needs no justification, then why does this person get to chastise me for trying to have an honest perspective? I have a point, so humor me. 1. Considering someone is good in wrestling can never be a fact. A fact is 2 + 2 = 4. A fact is a solid true statement, where as saying Lou Thesz is the best is an opinion. So, saying he is trash or saying he is good is an opinion. 2. You have no point to make other than your opinion. The only facts in sport is statistics, the best team, the worst team, all of that is debatable. If there is a given goal in a practice & someone achieves that goal more often & more effectively than anyone around them for any significant length of time, does this person or does this person not qualify as being good/great/special ? |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 13:11:05 GMT -5
That's what I can't understand. Why would you want to have an opinion that differs from fact, if the view is outside of pure preference? Secondly, if this person needs no justification, then why does this person get to chastise me for trying to have an honest perspective? I have a point, so humor me. Wrestling is subjective, it's not a fact that anyone is good or bad because the qualities that make someone good differ depending on who is answering the question. It's a fact that Lou Thesz was revulutionary, but it's an opinion if you consider him to be great. This is why I've tried so hard to deduce the foundation of wrestling talent criteria. The objective of the practice. Please read my last quotation of BetterThanYou as I'd appreciate more viewpoints.  |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 13:22:56 GMT -5
Wrestling is subjective, it's not a fact that anyone is good or bad because the qualities that make someone good differ depending on who is answering the question. It's a fact that Lou Thesz was revulutionary, but it's an opinion if you consider him to be great. This is why I've tried so hard to deduce the foundation of wrestling talent criteria. The objective of the practice. Please read my last quotation of BetterThanYou as I'd appreciate more viewpoints. Like I said it's all subjective. Some of the most popular wrestlers of all time have been, in ways god awful. But clearly tick some boxes otherwise they wouldn't be popular. It's 100% down to what each person is looking for out of the wrestler. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 13:43:33 GMT -5
This is why I've tried so hard to deduce the foundation of wrestling talent criteria. The objective of the practice. Please read my last quotation of BetterThanYou as I'd appreciate more viewpoints. Like I said it's all subjective. Some of the most popular wrestlers of all time have been, in ways god awful. But clearly tick some boxes otherwise they wouldn't be popular. It's 100% down to what each person is looking for out of the wrestler. Bingo....well said AF. I was going to post something similar but no need now. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 21:50:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 14:46:01 GMT -5
I can't watch anything that took place before WM 1 and even that's a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Mar 23, 2014 14:48:48 GMT -5
Was it Steve Austin who said Lou Thesz was a piece of trash??
Steve is known to call people that, so it would make sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 23, 2014 15:50:24 GMT -5
Was it Steve Austin who said Lou Thesz was a piece of trash?? Steve is known to call people that, so it would make sense! Steve would never say that out of character. It was a member I was debating. Plain & simple. |
|
