Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Athletic is a stupid word. I hate it. What does it mean? You ask 10 different people and they'll give you 10 different definitions. It's an easy fallback word used by lazy sports writers and TV personalities when they're A) talking about college prospects they know nothing about or talking about a black guy who runs very fast but isn't very good at whatever sport he plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 ath·let·ic (th-ltk)adj.1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion; active: an athletic lifestyle; an athletic child.3. Physically strong and well-developed; muscular: an actor with an athletic build. See Synonyms atmuscular.ath·leti·cal·ly adv.ath·leti·cism (-lt-szm) n. athletic [æθˈlɛtɪk]adj1. physically fit or strong; muscular or active2. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Athletics (Track & Field)) of, relating to, or suitable for an athlete or for athletics Ath•let•ic (æθˈlɛt ɪk) adj.1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.3. of, pertaining to, or involving athletes or their physical skills or capabilities.4. for athletics: an athletic field; athletic shoes.5. pertaining to or having a sturdy or well-proportioned physique; mesomorphic.[1595–1605; ath•let′i•cal•ly, adv.ath•let′i•cism (-əˌsɪz əm) n.pron: See athlete.3. of or relating to a person with a muscular and well-proportioned body See also somatotypeathletically advathleticism n --- The word athletic has several different definitions. Seem to me Jerry is talking purely physique. Just say physique Jerry and save the wasted argument. We would all agree that Watts does not have the best physique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 I don't know why people rag on that Erik Watts dropkick so much. If you were to actually try to dropkick someone, I'd imagine that's what it would actually look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 I think that is largely the point. A professional wrestler should be able to throw a better dropkick than...me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 I think that is largely the point. A professional wrestler should be able to throw a better dropkick than...me. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini Bennett Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 Razor Ramon/Scott Hall or Randy Orton? Daniel Bryan or Bob Backlund? Curt Hennig or Rick Rude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Orton - More great main event matches. Razor didn't last long enough, then his work dropped off. Backlund - If we're just talking Daniel's WWE run, I still might have to go with Backlund even including Daniel's indy stuff but It'd be close. and Rude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Orton vs. Hall is an interesting one because I could care less about either guy. However, in terms of volume of good-great matches, Orton wins easily. At this point in time, I prefer to watch Dragon over Bob. I love Bob's best matches but I love watching DB in all settings. I was going to say Rude but I think when you combine his Portland and AWA runs, Hennig probably has the edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Orton vs. Hall is an interesting one because I could care less about either guy. However, in terms of volume of good-great matches, Orton wins easily. So you do in fact care? I would go with Hall there, even though Orton is the better worker. I think Scott Hall, in the right position in the company, was a pretty compelling character, especially with the nWo. I always felt like he was the wild card of the original trio. Hogan was Hogan and Nash is Nash, but I could buy pretty much any storyline they did with Hall. I think Orton is in a tough position in that he is pushed above his station and that he isn't a natural character in terms of what the WWE tries to do with him. Even in his great matches over the years, like the Backlash match against Foley or most of his stuff with Cena, his work exceeds his character. Of course, I speak as a guy who watches wrestling for the characters and stories yet my faves were the guys who weren't strong in that department (Hart, Benoit, DB) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Note to self: ban Slasher for catching my bad grammar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Watching the lucha set got me thinking about this thread. Some of these will be difficult due to lack of footage but humor me. Satanico vs Jerry Lawler (for some reason every time I watched a Satanico match I thought "this is what a Mexican Jerry Lawler would wrestle like") Los Infernales vs Choshu's Army pick your own members La Fiera vs. Pirata Morgan vs El Dandy Who would yall compare Chicana to? Incredible brawler, had at least one great title match off the top of my head. Probably the best at selling and garnering sympathy on the set. Charismatic as fuck. Sangre has blown me away more than anyone on the set. Who would you guys compare him to/whats the general perception? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Randy Orton or Triple H? I'm not nearly as critical as others here are of these two but I do see some of the same criticisms thrown at them so I'm interested in seeing PWOs view. A couple months ago when WWE was hyping the Cena/Orton title match on RAW and putting over both guys as 2 of the greatest ever, Meltzer made a comment on twitter basically saying it's a joke to call Orton one of the best ever. Shortly after that he conceded that HHH *is* one of the best ever and it got me thinking that I really disagree with Dave on this and think that by every imaginable metric except for title wins and mic skills, Orton is better than HHH. Like, even from a business/drawing standpoint I think Orton might be better than HHH when you consider that Orton has been a top (full time) guy for longer and didn't have the luxury of riding the wave of the biggest boom period ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 ^ Wow, really interesting points brought up. I'm not sure where I'd lean in this debate. To me, ranking Triple H is always a little difficult because I was never a huge fan of his work and I think I've seen a ton of it as a WWE fan dating back to the early 90s. As the blue blood, he was good-not-great, but definitely had a spark and I thought the feud with Curt Hennig in the mid-90s could've been awesome. In early DX, his personality came through a lot more and he definitely showed he had charisma - but, to me, even as leader of DX V.2, his mic work came off as below Shawn or his Clique buddies Hall & Nash. Better than Waltman, though. His in-ring work is hard to gauge because he's never been a flashy worker (like HBK) or a great technician (like Benoit or Hart), but does maybe sneak into the top 10 list in terms of brawling. His work might even be the epitome of "Attitude Era main event style," even moreso than Austin or The Rock. Since 2002, Triple H has continued to deliver great matches on occasion and good matches mostly, with some major stinkers (vs. Kozlov). Its also hard to ignore certain booking decisions he's been involved in over the years, but I try to keep that out of my mind when I want to rate his work objectively. For the past 5-6 years, we haven't seen him mix it up with anyone but the biggest stars - namely Taker, Lesnar, Cena, Orton, Big Show & Jericho, and, well, that's about it, save 1-2 matches thrown in against Sheamus, Punk, and the Legacy (memba dem?). Orton, on the other hand, has really faced everyone worth facing on the roster for the past decade, from midcarders like Kofi Kingston and The Miz to main eventers like Cena, Punk, Mysterio, Del Rio, and Big Show to aging vets like Kane and Christian to top prospects like the Shield and Antonio Cesaro. In all of these pairings, Orton has been fairly consistent, but like Triple H before him, overexposure and indifferent audiences make him someone that is not necessarily easy to appreciate in 2014. So - who is better? I'm gonna go with Triple H...by a nose...but I think the next 2 years WILL change things as Orton is still young enough that, unless he gets seriously injured, he will likely have really great programs in the future against a variety of talents that Triple H will likely never face (The Shield, Cesaro, Bray Wyatt, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 I've seen a lot of prime Triple H lately and his matches are almost all bloated and brutal. He has a lot of the fundamentals, whether it be bumping or selling, or fairly decent offense, but the structure tends to run towards frustrating tedium. Orton can be lazy. I feel like he's stopped working his chinlocks in interesting ways, but if you put him in with a guy like Christian or Bryan, they can have a hell of a match. I don't even think it's in the same book really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 HHH is boring, but would've made a great career long upper mid card stooging heel (his circa 97 run.) Orton is boring, but had all of the tools to be one of the best ever. I think the fact that HHH actually surpassed his potential to succeed and Orton never lived up to his potential skews peoples thoughts on who was fundamentally better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Well, Meltz did say that Orton was the only guy today who could be a top guy in JCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 It is all about ratios... I would take 10 Randy Orton matches over 1 HHH match. I would take 1000 William Regal matches over 1 HHH match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm gonna go with Triple H...by a nose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Resurrecting this thread with this insanity driven Who's Better comp... Sayama Dory Funk Jr HHH Bruiser Brody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.