|
|
Post by fallenhero on Feb 23, 2008 19:59:03 GMT -5
How do you figure Cena/Orton from SummerSlam had an unclean finish? Or any of Edge's title wins? Do you even KNOW what the  a clean win is? Benoit's title reign was significant because he'd never won the big one, and he did at MSG that night. And how Orton cheat to beat HHH to win the title at No Mercy? It was a LAST MAN STANDING match, there was no cheating involved. Batista never had a dirty finish to any of his title wins, either. Your logic is completely baffling, you make JSWO look intelligent. Oh, I just noticed you said Benoit was a midcarder for six years. I think your memory is bad, because he was almost always upper midcard-main event from 1998-2004 Actually Batista retained the title in HIAC due to Edge's interference. That wasnt clean. That's not a title win, Showstopper. That's a defense. There's a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Swarm on Feb 23, 2008 20:11:06 GMT -5
Whether you want to admit it or not, the two MITB based Edge title wins were clean victories. No interference, no ref bumps, no cheating. He won the match clean. You lose. He didn't cheat, no interference, no BS. He won the title cleanly. You lose again. Regardless if you want to admit it or not (again), Benoit was almost always at the top of the card from 1998-2004. I'm not glorifying Benoit's position, he was just as I called him. An upper mid-carder. He wasn't in the lower card, or the mid card. You're a complete tool, dude. You've already lost the debate. Give it up. You're obviously too upset/angry to actually continue this debate intelligently, so it's probably best just to let it rest. You've offered no examples or reasons as to why any of the finishes you claim are clean are, in fact, clean. In what way were Edge's MITB Title wins clean? A clean win means it has to be a fair, balanced victory without any disadvantage via outside elements to one of the opponents. In what way is John Cena wrestling a 35 minute match, Edge running out and hitting him with the belt, then beating him with one move a clean win? Are you saying that if the NY Giants were to face The Patriots, win the game, then immediately after have to face the Seahawks who hadn't played a game, it would be fair? Are you saying if Andre Arlovski were to face Tim Sylvia for three rounds, win, then Frank Mir comes out having not had a fight, that would be fair? I mean hell, let's even give you the benefit of the doubt. let's say it was a clean win. Okay, so you're saying the title that's more valuable is the one that Edge wins from the Champion in about nine seconds? Is that really the argument you're trying to make? As for the last man standing match, once again, it's obvious you have no argument and are just fighting for the sake of not wanting to admit you're wrong. Even if you were to consider the LMS match in and of itself fair, it was Triple H's third match of the night. I think my previous analogies covered that. I'm not really sure where you're getting your Benoit opinions from. For one, he wasn't even in the WWE in 1998. Plus, are you really trying to tell me that Benoit in WCW in 1998 was an "upper mid-carder"? The same Benoit who lost to Booker T, Raven, Fit Finlay, and so on. That Chris Benoit? The only main event matches Benoit ever had in WCW were against Bret Hart and a fluke title win that was discounted the next night. But let's get to the root of it here; What is an upper mid-carder exactly? I want to see you define it. Is it by who you feud with, or by who you've beaten? After all, you're arguing WWE is more credible and thereby it should go by who won. I dare you to look up Benoit's win/loss statistics in his time in WWE. All he ever did was job for bigger names and guys they were pushing. Internet smarks want to justify positions on the card so they come up with things like "Upper Mid-Carder" and so on. The truth is, Benoit was a hand. A hand being a guy who could work a good match with almost anybody but didn't have the star power or charisma to be a star on his own. That was his job, his position in the company. But you know what, truthfully, I'm just reiterating points I've already made, points that you have yet to disprove or discount in any way. Hell, I'll write your next post for you... omg lol u r so stupid itz clean giv up lol dat wuz clean 2 lol u loze agen! omg lol benwah wun at wm at msg dats SIGNIFIGANT!!!!!11/!!! lol ur so dumm There, now you don't even have to bother replying, because I did it for you. |
|
|
|
Post by timebombversion420 on Feb 23, 2008 20:18:01 GMT -5
I think this brings up some great points, and personally, I think whoever wrote this has a good head on their shoulders for making such valid points, good for them for pointing all this out. |
|
|
|
Post by Heresy on Feb 23, 2008 20:57:07 GMT -5
what makes a title useful? really. Agreed... a title is just a promotional tool that helps promote a match between two or more guys. If you're measuring the level of importance from one promotion's world title to another, you might as well be measuring their overall financial success. In that respect, ROH's title is the third most important, and the third most 'useful' in the country. The author of the article, and evidently the thread starter, just wants to pick a fight and get a rise out of ROH diehards. So who cares if the ROH title is useless? As long as it is booked to look strong in the context of the promotion it's under, and people are entertained with the product, it doesn't matter how many millions Vince is currently making. |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Feb 23, 2008 21:07:45 GMT -5
Whether you want to admit it or not, the two MITB based Edge title wins were clean victories. No interference, no ref bumps, no cheating. He won the match clean. You lose. He didn't cheat, no interference, no BS. He won the title cleanly. You lose again. Regardless if you want to admit it or not (again), Benoit was almost always at the top of the card from 1998-2004. I'm not glorifying Benoit's position, he was just as I called him. An upper mid-carder. He wasn't in the lower card, or the mid card. You're a complete tool, dude. You've already lost the debate. Give it up. You're obviously too upset/angry to actually continue this debate intelligently, so it's probably best just to let it rest. You've offered no examples or reasons as to why any of the finishes you claim are clean are, in fact, clean. In what way were Edge's MITB Title wins clean? A clean win means it has to be a fair, balanced victory without any disadvantage via outside elements to one of the opponents. In what way is John Cena wrestling a 35 minute match, Edge running out and hitting him with the belt, then beating him with one move a clean win? Are you saying that if the NY Giants were to face The Patriots, win the game, then immediately after have to face the Seahawks who hadn't played a game, it would be fair? Are you saying if Andre Arlovski were to face Tim Sylvia for three rounds, win, then Frank Mir comes out having not had a fight, that would be fair? I mean hell, let's even give you the benefit of the doubt. let's say it was a clean win. Okay, so you're saying the title that's more valuable is the one that Edge wins from the Champion in about nine seconds? Is that really the argument you're trying to make? As for the last man standing match, once again, it's obvious you have no argument and are just fighting for the sake of not wanting to admit you're wrong. Even if you were to consider the LMS match in and of itself fair, it was Triple H's third match of the night. I think my previous analogies covered that. I'm not really sure where you're getting your Benoit opinions from. For one, he wasn't even in the WWE in 1998. Plus, are you really trying to tell me that Benoit in WCW in 1998 was an "upper mid-carder"? The same Benoit who lost to Booker T, Raven, Fit Finlay, and so on. That Chris Benoit? The only main event matches Benoit ever had in WCW were against Bret Hart and a fluke title win that was discounted the next night. But let's get to the root of it here; What is an upper mid-carder exactly? I want to see you define it. Is it by who you feud with, or by who you've beaten? After all, you're arguing WWE is more credible and thereby it should go by who won. I dare you to look up Benoit's win/loss statistics in his time in WWE. All he ever did was job for bigger names and guys they were pushing. Internet smarks want to justify positions on the card so they come up with things like "Upper Mid-Carder" and so on. The truth is, Benoit was a hand. A hand being a guy who could work a good match with almost anybody but didn't have the star power or charisma to be a star on his own. That was his job, his position in the company. But you know what, truthfully, I'm just reiterating points I've already made, points that you have yet to disprove or discount in any way. Hell, I'll write your next post for you... omg lol u r so stupid itz clean giv up lol dat wuz clean 2 lol u loze agen! omg lol benwah wun at wm at msg dats SIGNIFIGANT!!!!!11/!!! lol ur so dumm There, now you don't even have to bother replying, because I did it for you. First off, there is no need to turn a nice discussion into an all out war, just because you dont agree with Ricky. Thats first and foremost. Please do not do that again. Secondly, I have to agree with most of what you said. None of the matches he mentioned were clean finishes. Alex, you are 100% right here. But the E has had some clean finishes in their title matches, but I dont know that that makes that much of a difference in the whole scheme of things. Heels are heels b/c they are willing to do underhanded things. When the E puts a heel over a babyface, they want the heel to look more dastardly. They want the babyface to look strong, heroic in defeat. ROH doesnt book that way. It isnt necessary to tell the story that way. In fact, ROH isnt based on story telling. Its based on work rate. Yes, they have some subtle storylines and some decent angles that they work. But the most important thing in ROH is having a good match. The most important thing in the E is to tell a story. |
|
|
|
Post by j2dacversion3 on Feb 23, 2008 21:15:23 GMT -5
Showstopper > All of you.
No need to argue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swarm on Feb 23, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5
You're obviously too upset/angry to actually continue this debate intelligently, so it's probably best just to let it rest. You've offered no examples or reasons as to why any of the finishes you claim are clean are, in fact, clean. In what way were Edge's MITB Title wins clean? A clean win means it has to be a fair, balanced victory without any disadvantage via outside elements to one of the opponents. In what way is John Cena wrestling a 35 minute match, Edge running out and hitting him with the belt, then beating him with one move a clean win? Are you saying that if the NY Giants were to face The Patriots, win the game, then immediately after have to face the Seahawks who hadn't played a game, it would be fair? Are you saying if Andre Arlovski were to face Tim Sylvia for three rounds, win, then Frank Mir comes out having not had a fight, that would be fair? I mean hell, let's even give you the benefit of the doubt. let's say it was a clean win. Okay, so you're saying the title that's more valuable is the one that Edge wins from the Champion in about nine seconds? Is that really the argument you're trying to make? As for the last man standing match, once again, it's obvious you have no argument and are just fighting for the sake of not wanting to admit you're wrong. Even if you were to consider the LMS match in and of itself fair, it was Triple H's third match of the night. I think my previous analogies covered that. I'm not really sure where you're getting your Benoit opinions from. For one, he wasn't even in the WWE in 1998. Plus, are you really trying to tell me that Benoit in WCW in 1998 was an "upper mid-carder"? The same Benoit who lost to Booker T, Raven, Fit Finlay, and so on. That Chris Benoit? The only main event matches Benoit ever had in WCW were against Bret Hart and a fluke title win that was discounted the next night. But let's get to the root of it here; What is an upper mid-carder exactly? I want to see you define it. Is it by who you feud with, or by who you've beaten? After all, you're arguing WWE is more credible and thereby it should go by who won. I dare you to look up Benoit's win/loss statistics in his time in WWE. All he ever did was job for bigger names and guys they were pushing. Internet smarks want to justify positions on the card so they come up with things like "Upper Mid-Carder" and so on. The truth is, Benoit was a hand. A hand being a guy who could work a good match with almost anybody but didn't have the star power or charisma to be a star on his own. That was his job, his position in the company. But you know what, truthfully, I'm just reiterating points I've already made, points that you have yet to disprove or discount in any way. Hell, I'll write your next post for you... omg lol u r so stupid itz clean giv up lol dat wuz clean 2 lol u loze agen! omg lol benwah wun at wm at msg dats SIGNIFIGANT!!!!!11/!!! lol ur so dumm There, now you don't even have to bother replying, because I did it for you. First off, there is no need to turn a nice discussion into an all out war, just because you dont agree with Ricky. Thats first and foremost. Please do not do that again. Secondly, I have to agree with most of what you said. None of the matches he mentioned were clean finishes. Alex, you are 100% right here. But the E has had some clean finishes in their title matches, but I dont know that that makes that much of a difference in the whole scheme of things. Heels are heels b/c they are willing to do underhanded things. When the E puts a heel over a babyface, they want the heel to look more dastardly. They want the babyface to look strong, heroic in defeat. ROH doesnt book that way. It isnt necessary to tell the story that way. In fact, ROH isnt based on story telling. Its based on work rate. Yes, they have some subtle storylines and some decent angles that they work. But the most important thing in ROH is having a good match. The most important thing in the E is to tell a story. hahaha... I gotcha. You know it's all in good fun. (for me, anyway) |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Feb 24, 2008 0:16:14 GMT -5
First off, there is no need to turn a nice discussion into an all out war, just because you dont agree with Ricky. Thats first and foremost. Please do not do that again. Secondly, I have to agree with most of what you said. None of the matches he mentioned were clean finishes. Alex, you are 100% right here. But the E has had some clean finishes in their title matches, but I dont know that that makes that much of a difference in the whole scheme of things. Heels are heels b/c they are willing to do underhanded things. When the E puts a heel over a babyface, they want the heel to look more dastardly. They want the babyface to look strong, heroic in defeat. ROH doesnt book that way. It isnt necessary to tell the story that way. In fact, ROH isnt based on story telling. Its based on work rate. Yes, they have some subtle storylines and some decent angles that they work. But the most important thing in ROH is having a good match. The most important thing in the E is to tell a story. hahaha... I gotcha. You know it's all in good fun. (for me, anyway) I might have jumped to a conclusion then. I just didnt want to have to lock a good thread. But if alls cool.....then I'm cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Feb 24, 2008 0:24:41 GMT -5
Actually, Randy Orton's title win over Triple H was clean. Randy Orton won the title without outside interference and without cheating, everything he did was inside the rules of the match and he was the better man on the night.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Feb 24, 2008 0:38:09 GMT -5
Actually, Randy Orton's title win over Triple H was clean. Randy Orton won the title without outside interference and without cheating, everything he did was inside the rules of the match and he was the better man on the night. Yeah, but HHH had to wrestle 3 times that night. In fact, earlier in the night he had already beaten Orton. |
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Feb 24, 2008 0:42:56 GMT -5
Actually, Randy Orton's title win over Triple H was clean. Randy Orton won the title without outside interference and without cheating, everything he did was inside the rules of the match and he was the better man on the night. Yeah, but HHH had to wrestle 3 times that night. In fact, earlier in the night he had already beaten Orton. I still don't think it can be considered an unclean win. Yeah, it was a factor that contributed to Triple H losing, but I consider an unclean win to be cheating. Randy Orton didn't cheat, and like I said, there was no outside interference and everything he did was insde the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Feb 24, 2008 1:05:54 GMT -5
Yeah, but HHH had to wrestle 3 times that night. In fact, earlier in the night he had already beaten Orton. I still don't think it can be considered an unclean win. Yeah, it was a factor that contributed to Triple H losing, but I consider an unclean win to be cheating. Randy Orton didn't cheat, and like I said, there was no outside interference and everything he did was insde the rules. A clean win would be HBK beating Bret Hart at WM 12.There are very few times that heels get pure clean wins. |
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Feb 24, 2008 1:34:56 GMT -5
I guess there are just subjective opinions as to what a clean win is. I consider it to be a win that is within the rules, with no outside interference or illegal factors coming into play.
Regarding the original post, I don't consider it a useless title. Some of the best workers in the US have held the belt, and I believe that you get a rub from holding the belt - for example, McGuinness winning the belt shows he is in the same league as Danielson, Aries, Joe, ect. However, I don't agree with the whole idea that long title reigns add prestige. I believe good matches and good champions add prestige, or value, to a belt, and I would like to see it switch more. The long titles reigns mean that 95% of title matches are predictable, it'd be good to see a few shocks happen along the way.
It's definately more valuable than the TNA title, but I'd still say the WWE title has more value for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by fallenhero on Feb 24, 2008 13:10:01 GMT -5
I guess there are just subjective opinions as to what a clean win is. I consider it to be a win that is within the rules, with no outside interference or illegal factors coming into play. Regarding the original post, I don't consider it a useless title. Some of the best workers in the US have held the belt, and I believe that you get a rub from holding the belt - for example, McGuinness winning the belt shows he is in the same league as Danielson, Aries, Joe, ect. However, I don't agree with the whole idea that long title reigns add prestige. I believe good matches and good champions add prestige, or value, to a belt, and I would like to see it switch more. The long titles reigns mean that 95% of title matches are predictable, it'd be good to see a few shocks happen along the way. It's definately more valuable than the TNA title, but I'd still say the WWE title has more value for obvious reasons. Being in the same league as Austin Aries and Samoa Joe isn't saying a whole lot, though. |
|
|
|
Post by kentakobashi on Feb 24, 2008 15:12:13 GMT -5
I guess there are just subjective opinions as to what a clean win is. I consider it to be a win that is within the rules, with no outside interference or illegal factors coming into play. Regarding the original post, I don't consider it a useless title. Some of the best workers in the US have held the belt, and I believe that you get a rub from holding the belt - for example, McGuinness winning the belt shows he is in the same league as Danielson, Aries, Joe, ect. However, I don't agree with the whole idea that long title reigns add prestige. I believe good matches and good champions add prestige, or value, to a belt, and I would like to see it switch more. The long titles reigns mean that 95% of title matches are predictable, it'd be good to see a few shocks happen along the way. It's definately more valuable than the TNA title, but I'd still say the WWE title has more value for obvious reasons. Being in the same league as Austin Aries and Samoa Joe isn't saying a whole lot, though. it's really saying nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by PhoeniX™: Valoween on Feb 25, 2008 11:38:09 GMT -5
S This guy is 100% right, and anyone who doesn't see it is completely blind. So, if someone has a different opinion to you, they are blind? Give me a break. |
|
Andrew
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 25, 2006 6:45:29 GMT -5
Posts: 3,302
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2008 11:52:35 GMT -5
Its kinda like comparing a more popular sport to another, i mean in ireland it would be like comparing Gaelic football to Baseball, Gaelic being the WWE, baseball being the ROH indy w/e
Your credible if your a baseball champ but in most peoples eyes wow thats nothing unless your a football champ. Mainstream wrestling and indy wrestling are different things, So you cant compare someone who holds the ROH title to someone who has held the WWE title as such.
A Title is there, to show your the best at what your doing or competing in. So how can a Title in ROH be compared to anything else. Of course know most people in ROH would go to the E on a Heartsbeat notice even if it was to job and earn a wage of funaki, still would be more than in ROH, but they dont have this chance so they are making due with what they have.
The person who wrote this article, I find he is talking from experience he is one of the people who possibly is talking from a steryotyle, I mean Showstopper dosent go OMG WWE SUXOR, And most of the people on this board dosen't so why is he tarnishing all the ROH fans with the same brush. Thats like saying the NOAH fans are like that because they dont like mainstream wwe.
This man who wrote the article who may be right in some aspects, is just an annoyed fan who is Spiteful and is only doing it to be an ass.
|
|
