|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 10, 2015 16:54:02 GMT -5
Being competitive in a doubles match is completely different from being competitive in singles matches. Martina Navratilova captured her last doubles title at 50 years old long after she was no longer competitive in singles tennis. I've also seen entertaining intergender matches in places like Chikara, but the fact that I found them entertaining didn't make them any less unrealistic or improbable. Your argument is based on the fact that you like them and that's fine, but it really doesn't change the underlying reasons why people like me don't. My argument is simple; that your argument is based on your biases, nothing more. And yet, you keep trying to rationalize it and rationalize it like stacking a house of cards. I mean, you're talking about improbability and a lack of realism in a sport that regular plays with both. Especially the WWE. Of course my argument is based on bias, as is yours. Bias is the substance of disagreement. My bias is based on the fact that I cannot suspend disbelief to accept that Nikki Bella is going to pose a credible threat to any male wrestler, and since pro wrestling is scripted entertainment, there's no way for her to demonstrate otherwise. Understand? For me, it breaks suspension of disbelief. For you, either it doesn't or you just don't care because you prefer to think of pro wrestling as Street Fighter where no logic applies. That's fine, and I don't begrudge you that, but this is MY bias and you're not going to change it by continually reiterating your bias.
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,279
|
Post by Woo on Oct 10, 2015 20:06:38 GMT -5
I don't get the whole "man fighting woman" thing. It's not a fight, it's a wresrling match where they are trying to pin their shoulders to the mat for three seconds.
Nobody calls it unrealistic when Wonder Woman or Catwoman hold thier own in fights anyway. Kim Possible beat up men all the time and she was a cartoon for girls.
If you want realism then I'm amazed that you are watching the WWE at all. The Undertaker. Kane. The Boogeyman. Hornswoggle. Etc etc. So I'm supposed to believe that a garbage man or a plumber can beat a full-time wrestler but find it too hard to accept a woman out wrestling a man? Come on.
The WWE keep saying that they aren't in the wrestling business and that they are a TV show. Well in that case they can do just what shows like Alias and Buffy have done.
Nobody also cries during mixed doubles that it's unfair to the women either.
|
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,962
|
Post by Sicho100 on Oct 10, 2015 21:13:25 GMT -5
BS. If you can believe guys like Miz and Rey can compete with some of the bigger wrestlers, then it's not that unbelievable for a Charlotte or a Nia Jax to do the same with some of the smaller guys. I don't believe that Rey can compete with the bigger wrestlers and never did. But, you're illustrating my point exactly by pointing out that the most amazonian of females could be believable against small males. So, what have you done for women by throwing them into the same division with men when the only men they could realistically be competitive with are the small ones? What happens when you put Charlotte against Lesnar or Big Show? Let's apply this logic to another sport and take Serena Williams, the most dominant women's tennis player for nearly two decades, and put her in the men's division for the cause of equality. Then, let's watch her get knocked out in the first few rounds of every tournament because she doesn't have the speed or power to compete with the top ranked men's tennis players in the world. What have you accomplished? There's a reason legitimate sports have a men's and women's division and recognize the accomplishments of each separately. I, uh, I don't think you want to use Tennis as your sport of choice showing that women can't compete with men. Considering, you know, Tennis may very well be the sport that has the most prominent example of a woman beating a man.
|
|
|
Post by lmagicdancer1 on Oct 10, 2015 21:30:54 GMT -5
I agree with kid kamikaze when he said if it can be considered believeable with in prowrestling that someone with the stature of rey mysterio is a viable competitor against kane or the big show then why cant it be believable for a woman to beat a man in the wrestling. Women can use their speed just like a luchador. Also isn't it kind of a mix message for the wwe to not encourage intergender wrestling when alot of the tough enough training footage featured the women practicing and learning moves with and on men. Also, It annoyed me when Nattie wasn't allowed in the elimination chamber to help her team when the other two teams were allowed to bring their third man in. The matadors could bring in their freakin' bull but tyson and cesaro couldn't bring in her even though she had pinned el torito not that long before. She could have just fought the mascot!
I will give credit to them for not writing the miz as intimidating to charlotte and becky. It was even implied that miz fled so he wouldn't get beaten by them. Or it seemed to me.
At the end of the day whether inter gender wrestling is allowed or not I just want women wrestlers(especially former world champions) to have a little dignity and not be ordered to slip into 1950 scream queen/damsel in distress every time they are confronted by big scary man. It is 2015 and women's self defense courses do exist. If I can get that once in a while I'll be happy. I was thrilled when Rhonda Rousey was allowed to give hhh a hip toss even.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 10, 2015 21:45:37 GMT -5
I don't believe that Rey can compete with the bigger wrestlers and never did. But, you're illustrating my point exactly by pointing out that the most amazonian of females could be believable against small males. So, what have you done for women by throwing them into the same division with men when the only men they could realistically be competitive with are the small ones? What happens when you put Charlotte against Lesnar or Big Show? Let's apply this logic to another sport and take Serena Williams, the most dominant women's tennis player for nearly two decades, and put her in the men's division for the cause of equality. Then, let's watch her get knocked out in the first few rounds of every tournament because she doesn't have the speed or power to compete with the top ranked men's tennis players in the world. What have you accomplished? There's a reason legitimate sports have a men's and women's division and recognize the accomplishments of each separately. I, uh, I don't think you want to use Tennis as your sport of choice showing that women can't compete with men. Considering, you know, Tennis may very well be the sport that has the most prominent example of a woman beating a man. Tennis is a perfect example. The match you're referring to is Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King, where 55 year old Riggs, long since retired, was beaten by King, a woman in her early 20's, in what was actually a pretty close match. There was controversy surrounding the match, including some feeling that King only won because she hit short shots to a 55 year old guy who was too old and slow to possibly return them. Just prior to the match with King, 55 year old Bobby Riggs faced the #1 ranked woman's player in the world, who was 30 years old, and completely destroyed her. To drive the point further home, the Williams sisters were defeated annihilated back to back by a chain smoking male player named Karsten Braasch whose highest career singles ranking was #36.
|
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,962
|
Post by Sicho100 on Oct 10, 2015 21:57:13 GMT -5
I, uh, I don't think you want to use Tennis as your sport of choice showing that women can't compete with men. Considering, you know, Tennis may very well be the sport that has the most prominent example of a woman beating a man. Tennis is a perfect example. The match you're referring to is Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King, where 55 year old Riggs, long since retired, was beaten by King, a woman in her early 20's, in what was actually a pretty close match. There aren't age gaps in wrestling? For example, the woman that is probably getting the most praise these days, Sasha Banks, is 23. Most of the top guys are at least early thirties, often mid-to-late 30s. And then the bigger guys (generally I mean size here - Big Show, Kane, etc) are pushing 50. (And just a quick correction, though it doesn't really matter for your argument - King was 29 at the time, not early 20s. It was still a 26-year gap, though) So, like, she studied her opponent and knew how to beat him? Cause I feel like that would be an easy thing to translate to wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Oct 10, 2015 22:03:42 GMT -5
I don't get the whole "man fighting woman" thing. It's not a fight, it's a wresrling match where they are trying to pin their shoulders to the mat for three seconds. Nobody calls it unrealistic when Wonder Woman or Catwoman hold thier own in fights anyway. Kim Possible beat up men all the time and she was a cartoon for girls. If you want realism then I'm amazed that you are watching the WWE at all. The Undertaker. Kane. The Boogeyman. Hornswoggle. Etc etc. So I'm supposed to believe that a garbage man or a plumber can beat a full-time wrestler but find it too hard to accept a woman out wrestling a man? Come on. The WWE keep saying that they aren't in the wrestling business and that they are a TV show. Well in that case they can do just what shows like Alias and Buffy have done. Nobody also cries during mixed doubles that it's unfair to the women either. Comic books and cartoons are different then actual people. As much as Vince pretends it's just sports entertainment, it's still presented as a combat sport, and will involve man on woman violence, which I don't think you are going to see in a PG type atmosphere. Plus, practically, who does it help? What is the overall benefit? I remember when Chyna was over and she had matches with Jericho and Jarrett, and I don't think it helped either one of them, nor did it help the rest of the women on the roster who couldn't fight men. I just don't see the appeal of it. It's not comics or cartoons because you can't make Nikki Bella lift up a car and throw it half way across the world nor could have have Bayley go toe-to-toe with Seth Rollins in kicks because it wouldn't look believable, because as much as pro wrestling is fiction, it's live, and it's still basically has some grasps in reality(with some exceptions). Wonder Woman is a literal God, and is shown that she is stronger than anyone or almost anyone on the planet. Could it happen. I suppose, but it would take a totally different atmosphere, a totally different wrestling environment, and really, to me, is beyond anything the WWE has shown they could produce. Somewhat brought up Ronda Rousey. Can she kick the living shit out of me. Of course. Could she beat up most men. Yeah, I'd say so. Is Dana White going to book her in a fight vs Robbie Lawler? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 10, 2015 22:18:52 GMT -5
Tennis is a perfect example. The match you're referring to is Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King, where 55 year old Riggs, long since retired, was beaten by King, a woman in her early 20's, in what was actually a pretty close match. There aren't age gaps in wrestling? For example, the woman that is probably getting the most praise these days, Sasha Banks, is 23. Most of the top guys are at least early thirties, often mid-to-late 30s. And then the bigger guys (generally I mean size here - Big Show, Kane, etc) are pushing 50. (And just a quick correction, though it doesn't really matter for your argument - King was 29 at the time, not early 20s. It was still a 26-year gap, though) So, like, she studied her opponent and knew how to beat him? Cause I feel like that would be an easy thing to translate to wrestling. I feel that you're grasping to prove something that you don't need to prove. We're talking about fictional entertainment, and if you aren't struggling with plausibility hurdles in throwing men and women into the same division to wrestle for the same titles, then you simply don't need my approval. For me, there are plausibility hurdles and I think I've amply underscored them. To me it is not plausible - it's silly, and it does a disservice to both male and female athletes. Again, tennis is a perfect example because it underscores the simple fact that when all things are equal, women are simply not able to compete at the same level as men. In fact, it goes a step further and shows that even under lopsided conditions when age/rank/statistics favor women, they still are not typically able to compete at the same level as men. You're cool with the Street Fighter logic where the outward appearance is just cosmetics and Cammy can beat up M.Bison. I get that, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that's not how I look at wrestling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 22:23:35 GMT -5
Champion vs Champion, Finn Balor vs Bayley. WWE kind of did that once...it was WWE Champion, John Cena and Women Champion, Candice Michelle Vs. Tag Team Champions, Cade and Murdoch and Intercontinental Champion, Umaga.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,054
|
Post by CMWaters on Oct 10, 2015 22:27:27 GMT -5
Champion vs Champion, Finn Balor vs Bayley. WWE kind of did that once...it was WWE Champion, John Cena and Women Champion, Candice Michelle Vs. Tag Team Champions, Cade and Murdoch and Intercontinental Champion, Umaga. Yeah, I remember that. Candice ended up running away mid match and then Cena won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 22:31:36 GMT -5
Do they have intergender matches in MMA or Boxing? The closest I can think of is that there is a male to female transgender MMA fighter who fight in the women division.
|
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Oct 10, 2015 22:41:28 GMT -5
There's really no reason for it and I have no interest in it whatsoever.
It just looks weird and out of place now. I still see some indy companies do it where they have women giving huge men reverse hurricanranas and it's impossible to suspend disbelief when watching it.
Again, no interest from me. It either looks too cartoony or too real, there's no in-between.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 0:13:46 GMT -5
I think WWE's style does not lend itself to it.
They like their strong heel beatdowns for the meat of the match to get heat going, and their big muscular dudes, and their svelte/petite women.
No one wants to watch a big muscular dude beat up a petite woman for 10 minutes before they make a babyface comeback. All it would do is make dudes who are into ryona jerk off, and make pretty much everyone else feel uncomfortable. That may sound off-base, but that's the reason they stopped having intergender matches in the video games, there's quite a large community around that shit.
On indy shows where they do it, it's with smaller guys where size isn't such a factor, or it's more comedic/sexual/sometimes both. It's a very different tone from WWE.
Even if you take someone like Awesome Kong, she doesn't weigh that much more than someone like Cody Rhodes, and Cody is way more athletic and quicker.
In WWE, it'd always be a weird mismatch because of the kinds of wrestlers they hire and the way they present their matches. They'd have to completely shift their presentation for intergender matches to work, and yeah, they don't really do that no matter what.
Other promotions, cool. But it doesn't work in WWE for a lot of reasons. I don't think it'd do anyone any good.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Oct 11, 2015 0:44:03 GMT -5
Even if you take someone like Awesome Kong, she doesn't weigh that much more than someone like Cody Rhodes, and Cody is way more athletic and quicker. In WWE, it'd always be a weird mismatch because of the kinds of wrestlers they hire and the way they present their matches. They'd have to completely shift their presentation for intergender matches to work, and yeah, they don't really do that no matter what. That's what always irked me about Chyna's presentation in the IC division. They promoted her as a powerhouse Amazon, but in reality she's roughly six-feet and 200 lbs, which means the vast majority of the roster was significantly bigger than her. Yet, she never actually wrestled like that was the case, so she was Powerbombing and Gorilla Pressing people in a way that would have looked proposterous if men her size did it, like Grand Master Sexay or Chris Jericho
|
|
Totorob101
Hank Scorpio
Glob Glob Glob
Posts: 5,563
|
Post by Totorob101 on Oct 11, 2015 1:49:02 GMT -5
Women these days are as good, if not better, then most men at sports, so i could see them competing against the guys. The likes Asuka and Sasha Banks would murder most of the current superstars in the ring (apart from the giants). It irritates me when people say the girls wouldnt stand a chance against the men, they bloody well would!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 6:25:58 GMT -5
Tennis is a perfect example. The match you're referring to is Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King, where 55 year old Riggs, long since retired, was beaten by King, a woman in her early 20's, in what was actually a pretty close match. There aren't age gaps in wrestling? For example, the woman that is probably getting the most praise these days, Sasha Banks, is 23. Most of the top guys are at least early thirties, often mid-to-late 30s. And then the bigger guys (generally I mean size here - Big Show, Kane, etc) are pushing 50. (And just a quick correction, though it doesn't really matter for your argument - King was 29 at the time, not early 20s. It was still a 26-year gap, though) Yes, Billie Jean King was in the prime of her life, and barely beat a man literally old enough to get the half-price tilapia from the senior's menu at Denny's. A man who, 9 months before this match, beat then-#1-woman Margaret Court in a lopsided 6-2, 6-1 win. In other words, Bobby Riggs showed that a chain-smoking male senior citizen was even money against the #1 woman in the world. Which by 1970s standards was actually somewhat of a triumph for women, in a time where "no woman was gonna beat no man at no tennis game" -- triple negative for emphasized ignorance. In a modern light, it really just shows what we already know about intergender sports at an elite level (an important emphasis) and frankly, speaks better about Riggs than about the caliber of the women's game. Hey, I have no problem with how she did beat Riggs, who himself faced criticism for his shot selection against Court. And if Sasha Banks wants to get a 55 year old Undertaker so winded that he collapses outside the ring and she'll win by countout, give her the winner's cut of the purse. No skin off my nose. .... and with regards to the Karsten Braasch vs Williams Sisters tag-team match, it should be pointed out that Brassch was at the time 203rd in the world. The Williams Sisters were going around the US Open saying they could beat any man under the top #200 in the world. They ceased making that claim, and ceased seeking inter-gender matchups, after this clubberin'. From the entire history of intergender tennis matchups, the #1 woman in the world would be about the 250-300th best player in the world. Which isn't bad from an objective point, I mean, 75 million people play tennis in the world, and a woman is better than 74,999,700 of them. But it does show that without the explicit sexism of segregated sports at professional levels, women athletes would make (outside of endorsements) perhaps 1-2% of what they make now. It's an institution worth literally BILLIONS yearly to the female athletes of the world. No small wonder that they're loathe to participate in inter-gender spectacle that would make light of their financial life-line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 6:33:45 GMT -5
Women these days are as good, if not better, then most men at sports And here's where we took emotions too far at the expense of reality. Okay so first off I have no problem with intergender matches if they can come up with something to watch...however No female team formed from the best women on earth will beat the mens basketball champions. No female team formed from the best women on earth will beat the mens american football champions No female team formed from the best women on earth will beat the mens baseball champions No female team formed from the best women on earth will beat the mens football (soccer) champions No female team formed from the best women on earth will beat the mens rugby champions No female will beat the mens olympic sprint record No female will beat the mens olympic lifting record Come on man. There's anecdotes, sure. I'm a pretty big and strong guy, maybe ronda rousey could beat me in a fight anyway. Good for her, she trains for that all her life and I don't try at all. There are surely women out there that can beat me in arm wrestling. They put in a bunch of effort just to even be as strong as me, then more effort to be stronger than me. But no, women are not "as good if not better". That's being silly. Anytime a woman beats a man in a physical pursuit, she does so IN SPITE of being a woman, not because of it. Men have a blatant physical advantage. A woman can always overcome it by working harder and training harder if the guy doesn't do the same. If he does though, well that's why we have men's and women's records in things...with the women's records always being slower times, lesser weights etc. Does that mean women suck and are worthless? Of course not. But it's just the way our bodies work. Men are naturally a bit bigger and a bit stronger. They also get a greater benefit from exercise than women do because of how testosterone works. Considering sports tend to be driven on running faster (Male advantage), being stronger (male advantage), jumping higher (male advantage), more endurance (male advantage), throwing things further (Male advantage)...what in gods name makes women "as good or better at sports"? I like seeing women succeed in sports/athletic proceedings probably the same way you do. That doesn't mean they're as good or better. In fact it's because it's a novelty, that they overcame a muscular inferiority (sorry, reality) to succeed anyway.
|
|
|
Post by moondoggie on Oct 11, 2015 8:36:17 GMT -5
Lets not forget about Dean Malenko vs Lita
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Oct 11, 2015 13:19:41 GMT -5
I get a feeling management may not because they feel like after 2007, everyone's waiting to get on them for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 17:18:25 GMT -5
I get a feeling management may not because they feel like after 2007, everyone's waiting to get on them for it. For sure. They'll only ever do women striking men that can't or won't defend themselves, it's the only "safe" thing they can do. Which is really irritating in its own right and really propagates problematic sexist double standards all the same, but they're ones society has no problem with and at times actively defends, so that's pretty much all we'll get.
|
|