Mura- Thanks for sticking up for me, homies4lyf. It's funny that I orinigally came in here to stick up for Luco, and now someone is sticking up for me.
Everybody else- If you think that I have some sense of intellectual superiority, or am guilty of turning subjective opinion into objective fact moreso than anybody else here then you couldn't be more wrong. My whole point is that intellectual superiority is worthless. I used to be one of these people that thought that listening to classical was better than listening to house, or that reading Odyssey was better than reading Twilight because it was more sophisticated, but now I realise that they're just subbjective values that humans ascribe to things arbitrarily. Intellectual superiority is thinking that it's better to read Oddyssey instead of Twilight, but I'm the complete opposite of that now.
Teran if you read my posts you'd realise that my comments on video game discussions have nothing to do with it being nerdy. I think it's just as trivial to get worked up other things such as sport and other things favoured by society.
I don't see how I'm more guilty than anyone else when it comes to turning subjective opinion into fact. This whole debate started because Falcon come in and basically said Luco was stupid for thinking what he thought. What he said couldn't be objectively proven either, so it seems like you guys are setting are double-standard. At least I wasn't rude to people and didn't insult them because they diagreed with me.
Also, you have beern incredibly hypocritical with your comments about wrestling. How you define good in a wrestler is subjective. What you're talking about is really the marketability perspective of the industry. That side is more subjective than in-ring ability. For example, what is marketable in America isn't as marketable in Mexico. WWE wrestlers are just big guys with mic skills but a very limited move pallet, but that is successfull in America. In Mexico, to be successfull you actually have to do things that normal wrestlers can't, and as a result many of them fit the luchadore mould because bigger wrestlers normally aren't capable of more diverse move-pallets.
To put it into perspective, I think it would be controversial to call Twilight a good book simply because it sold a lot. The book was trashed by every literature critic and basically anyone with a sophisticated taste in literature. By your logic, because it made money, it's objectively a good book. I don't think it's that clear. It depends on what you define as good, making money or artistic quality. You could say from a commercial perspective it was a good book, but from an artistic perspective it was poor.
What you're doing with wrestling is taking a specific component (in this case the marketability) and claiming it's the objective definition of good in the wrestling industry.
I personally find that people confuse talent with marketability. Many of the top cards in the WWF-WWE were simply competent wrestlers that basically had an angle or mic skills that made them marketable enough to get a push. Austin is a classic example. Austin was low-mid card in WCW, then went to WWF and adopted the Stone Cold gimmick and is now considered one of the greatest wrestlers of all time. It was basically his angle that pushed him into stardom.
Or take Taka and Funaki and those other Japanese guys. They were top cards in Japan, and were basically the DX over there. They come to WWE and were made low-card jokes.
What you define is a good wrestler is incredibly subjective. What I define as good is in-ring ability, which I think is more objective. So to me, that's things like ability to sell moves, botch rate, what moves you can do etc.
I personally think Mexican wrestling is leagues ahead of the WWE because Mexican wrestlers can do everything WWE wrestlers can plus so much more. They execute moves just as well, sell moves a lot better, and can do moves that WWE guys couldn't ever dream of doing. If you stripped wrestlers of their fame and their angles and threw them into the ring, I think wrestlers like luchadores would definiely be considered way more talented than WWE guys.
I mean, many mid-low cards said top cards controlled everything in their respective companies, and stopped lower card talent from getting pushed. Many top-cards also came out and shot on other top-cards saying that they had no talent.
Judging by what you consider good wresters, we clearly value different things. To me, most of those guys are just competent wrestlers, but not many of them can do anything that other wrestlers can't in the ring once you remove their fame and angles. In fact, most of those aren't particularly good at basic things like selling moves.
