Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 399: Browser - DELETE your last viewed, Paige

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

Remember how they were debating whether an 18 year old was mature enough to handle touring with the main roster?

lol guess we answered that!

She wasn't 18 when she made the main roster, though.
---

They weren't debating it; they had already decided she couldn't come up until 21.

We were the ones debating it!
---

To be fair, this wasn't exactly a result of immaturity.
---

The real lesson is that Becky Lynch is the true best woman from the British Isles and we should all enjoy her puns.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Paige was among the best they had in 2013

The standards have just changed a lot since then

I think the biggest problem between NXT to WWE callups is that they don't have weeks in advance for the big shows. I recall reading that many of those Takeover singles matches during the 4 Horsewoman era were pretty meticulously planned? Maybe I am wrong here -- or it was bulls*** info. But yeah times have changed, that's for sure.

But yeah Paige really never clicked for me on the main roster. Same with people like Sasha, Alexa, and Bayley. Just in the former two they had a character I liked. Becky's pretty good and I actually enjoy watching Charlotte wrestle, but I digress.
---

Charlotte is pretty underrated among the fanbase - she really is the real deal and Sasha just isnt and thays hard for people to accept because its also true that charlotte was afforded a stronger push
---

I'll do one better: Charlotte and Sasha are both pretty mediocre.
---

Charlotte is good but overpushed. Sasha is also good but stupidly pushed.
---

Eddv posted...

Charlotte is pretty underrated among the fanbase - she really is the real deal and Sasha just isnt and thays hard for people to accept because its also true that charlotte was afforded a stronger push

I assume anyone who says this is either racist, or in love with the moonsault to a stupid unhealthy degree... not really sure which is worse...

Sasha is leagues better in the ring, and she would be on the mic, if this company had ANY intelligence whatsoever and they would make her a f***ing heel again. What she was born to be.
---

Or they can just have a different opinion on rasslin
---

NBIceman posted...

I'll do one better: Charlotte and Sasha are both pretty mediocre.

I think this sort of discussion needs to be graded on a WWE curve
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Or they can just have a different opinion on rasslin

This isn't like comparing Bret and Shawn in ring
Or Rock or Hoga for charisma
Or Jericho or Foley for talking...

Those you can argue either way, and at least respect the differing opinion.

But Sasha is objectively better in the ring, and on the mic when she is a heel... so, racism or moonsault is the only explanation.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

NBIceman posted...

I'll do one better: Charlotte and Sasha are both pretty mediocre.

I think this sort of discussion needs to be graded on a WWE curve

In that case, sure. They're both good by the standards of typical WWE women wrestlers.
---

Ric Flair's legacy > Eddie's legacy
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

But Sasha is objectively better in the ring

Except wrestling is the very definition of subjective so this argument is dumb, just like this fake persona you've been carrying around is.
---

davidponte posted...

Ric Flair's legacy > Eddie's legacy

Eddie was better than Flair in ring, just like Sasha is compared to Flair.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

But Sasha is objectively better in the ring

Except wrestling is the very definition of subjective so this argument is dumb, just like this fake persona you've been carrying around is.

Being better in ring is many times not subjective. This isnt like talking, or charisma, or telling a story.

Kenny Omega is OBJECTIVELY better in ring than Tyler Reks.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

Being better in ring is many times not subjective.

What are the measurable qualities of what makes a match good?
---

By exact measurements?
---

I've seen a handful of each of their matches including HiaC and neither really impressed me but I'd say Charlotte has been slightly better in the ring
---

I think the gap between Charlotte and Sasha in mic skill is much, much higher than the wrestling ability is, if there even is one at this point.

(Charlotte has improved substantially over the years in both categories IMO)
---

charlotte's been better at both.
that though i still associate due to the roles. face sasha has a ceiling to it.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

By exact measurements?

So do you use a ruler? A beaker? What is your tool of measurement?
---

VeryInsane posted...

I think the gap between Charlotte and Sasha in mic skill is much, much higher than the wrestling ability is, if there even is one at this point.

(Charlotte has improved substantially over the years in both categories IMO)

This is essentially my opinion as well. I used to think Sasha was better but at this point I can't stand her or the mic and Charlotte can sometimes be pretty good.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

By exact measurements?

So do you use a ruler? A beaker? What is your tool of measurement?

I'm asking you.... do you want a way to measure exact measurements?
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

By exact measurements?

So do you use a ruler? A beaker? What is your tool of measurement?

I'm asking you.... do you want a way to measure exact measurements?

For something to be objective it has to be based on provable facts. Which often use some form of measurements.

If I say "Great Khali is the best wrestler of all time" you have to have something provable that isn't opinion based or based on something immeasurable.
---

NBIceman posted...

I'll do one better: Charlotte and Sasha are both pretty mediocre.

Sasha is overrated and Charlotte is underrated, Trish could actually work the crowd better with far less.

Also way better than both on the mic.

Finley trained divas>pc trained women.

Though girls who trained mostly outside that system are better. Still, at the end of the day, history will remember nikki Bella as a better wrestler than any joshi.
---

WWE's history will, sure. And I suppose that is the only history that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
---

They f***ed up Sasha so much after her main roster debut
---

Eric Young's voice is annoying as all f***.

Nikki Cross though <3
---

Annual Fale push is great
---

Rock you are so obtuse sometimes.

You just know who the better wrestler is intuitively when you've been watching this for long enough. Like how you know AJ Styles is better than Randy Orton. Ability to have better matches with a wider variety of people. It's not subjective, stop being dumb.
---

If "better matches" is subjective though, then doesn't that make "better wrestler" also subjective?

That's a rhetorical question BTW
---

Dave breaking down Paige stuff.

All roads lead back to Hogan.
---

Personal enjoyment determines the better wrestler and it varies person to person.

The joy i get from Great Khali brain chopping people is not the same feeling others get.
---

But okada, nakamura, tanahashi, suzuki, ibushi, naito and cena have all had big matches with aj styles, but also better matches with other opponents.
---

I will say this. AJ Styles is a better wrestler then the Brooklyn Brawler.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Rock you are so obtuse sometimes.

You just know who the better wrestler is intuitively when you've been watching this for long enough. Like how you know AJ Styles is better than Randy Orton. Ability to have better matches with a wider variety of people. It's not subjective, stop being dumb.

How is it not the very definition of subjective? What if I think Randy Orton is a better wrestler than AJ Styles? What is your provable objectivity that AJ is better than Orton?

If you're still confused on the concept, read this:

https://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

"AJ Styles is a wrestler, also called "superstar," for the WWE. He performs wrestling moves in a ring such as various strikes, lifting moves, submissions, and moves from the top rope. He sometimes wins matches and he sometimes loses matches. He has long hair and wears long tights and gloves. He has entrance music."

That's being objective about AJ Styles.

"AJ Styles is the greatest wrestler in the world. He could put together a great match with a broomstick. His match with John Cena at Summerslam was a 5 star classic. The WWE is wasting his WM spot with Shane McMahon since Shane's awful."

That's being subjective about AJ Styles.

Saying we "intuitively" know who's the better wrestler means that then we should all agree on who is the best. Yet every year we get voting from various websites and while there is someone who gets the most votes, no one ever gets 100%. How come these people don't "intuitively" know it was AJ? Or someone else?
---

It's weird trying to be objective about wrestling- on one level I totally agree with Rock that you can't compare wrestlers objectively as a statement of fact, yet I don't feel wrong in asserting that AJ Styles is objectively a better wrestler than, say, me, or even a lot of bottom-shelf indy dudes.

I was gonna use Orton too but I think I might be more entertaining
---

I'd love to see AJ/HBK
---

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
---

Yeh, hogan is a much better wrestler than say bret Hart for most people.
---

being objective on AJ Styles would also include technical ability, high flying ability, different styles he's able to adapt to, how good he is at selling, etc.

the subjective part of this is how all of that comes together into a neat package. but his skills aren't.
---

Most of what you listed is still subjective, if not all of it.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Most of what you listed is still subjective, if not all of it.

no
---

...no, it's mostly objective. you can question the value of each of those but if you're talking high flying ability it's objective to say that he regularly performs a 450 and uses various jumping or leaping maneuvers. it's objective to list out the various holds and joint locks he has, which is all "technical ability." it's objective to point out that he's got different styles mixed in to create his own style. you can even name them outright.

i mean if you want to get into semantics over how i phrased analyzing selling you can but that's just being petty. those are all different objective analysis on him and his abilities. like i said, his skill is objective. that's what he has. your viewpoint of how much those skills matter or how he blends them? that's subjective. he is objectively more technically proficient than most of the roster.
---

Tomorrow will feature what will likely be one of the best shows of the year....and like 2 people will watch it.

Still, whoda thunk a sleaze fed like ddt would survive for 20 years.
---

Wanglicious posted...

...no, it's mostly objective. you can question the value of each of those but if you're talking high flying ability it's objective to say that he regularly performs a 450 and uses various jumping or leaping maneuvers. it's objective to list out the various holds and joint locks he has, which is all "technical ability." it's objective to point out that he's got different styles mixed in to create his own style. you can even name them outright.

That's assuming I say any of that is a skill. He can jump off a rope and perform an elbow. So can I. Can I argue that I'm just as skilled as AJ Styles just because we can both do something?

Or that we even agree on what "technical ability" is. Chain wrestling? f***, Kane once chain wrestled with the Big Show, and technically speaking it was the same as any other wrestler. He performed headlocks, proper takeovers, and all things you attribute to "technical ability."
---

Selling can be totally subjective. For example, some people love Dolph's selling. Some people HATE it.
---