|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:08 pm
This shouldn't even be a question. While it is true that Kane is underrated, and I know a lot of people get sick of the Undertakers gimmick, but that doesn't make Kane the better wrestler. Gimmicks have nothing to do with who's better anyways. Undertaker has got incredible speed and agility for a man of his size. And to be able to still do the things he did 20 years ago at his age is incredible. Anyone who says the Undertaker isn't one of the greatest wrestlers ever either knows nothing about skill or is just hating.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:28 am
THE UNDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTAKER!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:30 pm
i SAY UNDERTAKER STRAIGHT UP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:35 pm
Magica V2 This shouldn't even be a question. While it is true that Kane is underrated, and I know a lot of people get sick of the Undertakers gimmick, but that doesn't make Kane the better wrestler. Gimmicks have nothing to do with who's better anyways. Undertaker has got incredible speed and agility for a man of his size. And to be able to still do the things he did 20 years ago at his age is incredible. Anyone who says the Undertaker isn't one of the greatest wrestlers ever either knows nothing about skill or is just hating. I disagree. Gimics have EVERYTHING to do with who is better. You can be the best technical wrestler in the world, but if you lack charisma, or something else to sell why you're interesting, no one is going to want to watch you. ROH suffers from this. Despite having some of the best wrestlers in the world from a technical perspective, no one cares about it other than a very small subset of the fans who are into that. The problem is fairly simple: most of their wrestlers lack charisma, or a meaningful gimic. I'll posit a question to you: Why do the majority of wrestling fans consider Hulk Hogan to be the Babe Ruth of professional wrestling? He certainly wasn't a great technical wrestler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:50 pm
blindedscience Magica V2 This shouldn't even be a question. While it is true that Kane is underrated, and I know a lot of people get sick of the Undertakers gimmick, but that doesn't make Kane the better wrestler. Gimmicks have nothing to do with who's better anyways. Undertaker has got incredible speed and agility for a man of his size. And to be able to still do the things he did 20 years ago at his age is incredible. Anyone who says the Undertaker isn't one of the greatest wrestlers ever either knows nothing about skill or is just hating. I disagree. Gimics have EVERYTHING to do with who is better. You can be the best technical wrestler in the world, but if you lack charisma, or something else to sell why you're interesting, no one is going to want to watch you. ROH suffers from this. Despite having some of the best wrestlers in the world from a technical perspective, no one cares about it other than a very small subset of the fans who are into that. The problem is fairly simple: most of their wrestlers lack charisma, or a meaningful gimic. I'll posit a question to you: Why do the majority of wrestling fans consider Hulk Hogan to be the Babe Ruth of professional wrestling? He certainly wasn't a great technical wrestler. I wonder the same thing. But you just proved my point, technical wrestling ability and gimmicks are two totally different things. And in my opinion, it's the ability that makes a better wrestler. Sure they can be charismatic and all that, but when it comes down to getting in the ring, if they can't wrestle t heir way out of a paper bag, then I'm no fan of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:33 am
Magica V2 I wonder the same thing. But you just proved my point, technical wrestling ability and gimmicks are two totally different things. And in my opinion, it's the ability that makes a better wrestler. Sure they can be charismatic and all that, but when it comes down to getting in the ring, if they can't wrestle t heir way out of a paper bag, then I'm no fan of theirs. My question was actually rhetorical and asked to reinforce my point: "technical wrestling" and "wrestling" are different things. It's possible to be a great "wrestler" while not being a very good "technical wrestler" at all. Your opinion, while valid, is only held by a small subset of fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:59 am
blindedscience Magica V2 I wonder the same thing. But you just proved my point, technical wrestling ability and gimmicks are two totally different things. And in my opinion, it's the ability that makes a better wrestler. Sure they can be charismatic and all that, but when it comes down to getting in the ring, if they can't wrestle t heir way out of a paper bag, then I'm no fan of theirs. My question was actually rhetorical and asked to reinforce my point: "technical wrestling" and "wrestling" are different things. It's possible to be a great "wrestler" while not being a very good "technical wrestler" at all. Your opinion, while valid, is only held by a small subset of fans. Oh believe me, I know most people don't see wrestling in the same way I do, it's just my opinion and I respect everyone who thinks differently. And I shouldn't have used the word 'technical' in my previous post as I was just referring to wrestling ability in general. I blame lack of sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Kane because he's The M0nst3r, Big Red Machine, Unmasked Demon and can do that whole....throwing his arms down thing......to fire.......
I AM A KANENITE AND I AM NOT ASHAMED TO ADMIT IT!
Not just saying it to annoy 'Taker fans.......! rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:25 pm
idk wat to say i like both of them are good wrestlers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
