Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,199
|
Post by Woo on Oct 11, 2015 17:33:57 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. But none of those sports have undead zombie undertakers, a man who can create fire at will and drags people to hell, a midget leprechaun who lives under the ring or a cult leader who seemingly has the ability to teleport and turn off LED lanterns with his breath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 17:42:35 GMT -5
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. But none of those sports have undead zombie undertakers, a man who can create fire at will and drags people to hell, a midget leprechaun who lives under the ring or a cult leader who seemingly has the ability to teleport and turn off LED lanterns with his breath. College Football used to, but then that son of a bitch Henry MacCracken had to butt in
|
|
|
Post by whatamaneuver on Oct 11, 2015 17:44:50 GMT -5
To be fair, neither did the sports Totorob101 or the rebuttal were referring to.
Assuming Totorob101 meant at the elite level, it was inaccurate to say that women are as good as men at sports. That is clearly not true.
But every gym in the world has women who can out-lift, out-train and out-run many men. Every woman on the WWE / NXT roster falls into that category.
I think that is more in the spirit of what Totorob101 was trying to say...
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 12, 2015 6:43:01 GMT -5
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. But none of those sports have undead zombie undertakers, a man who can create fire at will and drags people to hell, a midget leprechaun who lives under the ring or a cult leader who seemingly has the ability to teleport and turn off LED lanterns with his breath. But even that ties to the other part of the intergender issue that was mentioned mockingly. Yes, wrestling has this benefit that it's entertainment as much as a sport, so on paper a woman facing off with a man in a pro wrestling match is different than in a regular sporting event would be. However, even this has a problem, as even pro-intergender arguers need to check their own biases. Whenever people say they want intergender, they always force it based on who has workrate for who "deserves" to fight the men...and even the people like "well, Kong/Aloisia/Nia Jax are bigger, so they could conceivably do it" is the same issue. With this argument, even those separations don't work well to see if there is intergender, since an instance like this has to be an all or nothing move. Since the very concept of intergender wrestling, in a entertainment showcase, requires there to be the leap of faith that you allow for people like Kane/Undertaker/Hornswoggle/Bray Wyatt to exist as the leap of faith that says that maybe a woman could compete with a man on the same playing field based on skill alone, then it also requires the leap of faith to accept that any and every woman in the WWE would have the ability to face off with any and every MAN in the WWE, and not pick and choose which women get the right to fight in the men's division by any means whatsoever- whether it be by their talent, by their size, by their wrestling style. Intergender being a thing requires a switch-off- unlike other forms of workrate, going for the concept of it happening is a "that which you do to the least of my sisters, so too you do unto me" scenario. It was said as a joke earlier in the thread, but this isn't a joke: If you aren't willing to welcome and celebrate the possibility of Eva Marie beating Brock Lesnar clean as a sheet in the middle of the ring, then you have no right demanding the Four Horsewomen fight the men in a match either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 6:54:33 GMT -5
To be fair, neither did the sports Totorob101 or the rebuttal were referring to. Assuming Totorob101 meant at the elite level, it was inaccurate to say that women are as good as men at sports. That is clearly not true. But every gym in the world has women who can out-lift, out-train and out-run many men. Every woman on the WWE / NXT roster falls into that category. I think that is more in the spirit of what Totorob101 was trying to say... But comparing exceptional members of one group to ordinary members of another is pointless. There's some 12 year olds out there that can beat some adults in arm wrestling. That doesn't really mean anything about the strength of 12 year olds or adults.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,817
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Oct 12, 2015 7:18:09 GMT -5
Bork vs Bayley confirmed
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 12, 2015 11:30:26 GMT -5
But none of those sports have undead zombie undertakers, a man who can create fire at will and drags people to hell, a midget leprechaun who lives under the ring or a cult leader who seemingly has the ability to teleport and turn off LED lanterns with his breath. But even that ties to the other part of the intergender issue that was mentioned mockingly. Yes, wrestling has this benefit that it's entertainment as much as a sport, so on paper a woman facing off with a man in a pro wrestling match is different than in a regular sporting event would be. However, even this has a problem, as even pro-intergender arguers need to check their own biases. Whenever people say they want intergender, they always force it based on who has workrate for who "deserves" to fight the men...and even the people like "well, Kong/Aloisia/Nia Jax are bigger, so they could conceivably do it" is the same issue. With this argument, even those separations don't work well to see if there is intergender, since an instance like this has to be an all or nothing move. Since the very concept of intergender wrestling, in a entertainment showcase, requires there to be the leap of faith that you allow for people like Kane/Undertaker/Hornswoggle/Bray Wyatt to exist as the leap of faith that says that maybe a woman could compete with a man on the same playing field based on skill alone, then it also requires the leap of faith to accept that any and every woman in the WWE would have the ability to face off with any and every MAN in the WWE, and not pick and choose which women get the right to fight in the men's division by any means whatsoever- whether it be by their talent, by their size, by their wrestling style. Intergender being a thing requires a switch-off- unlike other forms of workrate, going for the concept of it happening is a "that which you do to the least of my sisters, so too you do unto me" scenario. It was said as a joke earlier in the thread, but this isn't a joke: If you aren't willing to welcome and celebrate the possibility of Eva Marie beating Brock Lesnar clean as a sheet in the middle of the ring, then you have no right demanding the Four Horsewomen fight the men in a match either. But why? you're pitting one of the worst against one of the best. How many male wrestlers can conceivably beat Brock? Theres only about 3 names that could. Since when do wrestlers have to believably beat the best clean to have a career in wrestling? Foley became world famous by losing most of his matches. I saw a Sexy Starr match in Lucha Underground that blew me away. an intergender match can be entertaining and that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by Big Bad Kahuna on Oct 12, 2015 12:17:57 GMT -5
Brock & Bayley vs Sasha & Rollins would break the ***** scale
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 12, 2015 16:38:10 GMT -5
But even that ties to the other part of the intergender issue that was mentioned mockingly. Yes, wrestling has this benefit that it's entertainment as much as a sport, so on paper a woman facing off with a man in a pro wrestling match is different than in a regular sporting event would be. However, even this has a problem, as even pro-intergender arguers need to check their own biases. Whenever people say they want intergender, they always force it based on who has workrate for who "deserves" to fight the men...and even the people like "well, Kong/Aloisia/Nia Jax are bigger, so they could conceivably do it" is the same issue. With this argument, even those separations don't work well to see if there is intergender, since an instance like this has to be an all or nothing move. Since the very concept of intergender wrestling, in a entertainment showcase, requires there to be the leap of faith that you allow for people like Kane/Undertaker/Hornswoggle/Bray Wyatt to exist as the leap of faith that says that maybe a woman could compete with a man on the same playing field based on skill alone, then it also requires the leap of faith to accept that any and every woman in the WWE would have the ability to face off with any and every MAN in the WWE, and not pick and choose which women get the right to fight in the men's division by any means whatsoever- whether it be by their talent, by their size, by their wrestling style. Intergender being a thing requires a switch-off- unlike other forms of workrate, going for the concept of it happening is a "that which you do to the least of my sisters, so too you do unto me" scenario. It was said as a joke earlier in the thread, but this isn't a joke: If you aren't willing to welcome and celebrate the possibility of Eva Marie beating Brock Lesnar clean as a sheet in the middle of the ring, then you have no right demanding the Four Horsewomen fight the men in a match either. But why? you're pitting one of the worst against one of the best. How many male wrestlers can conceivably beat Brock? Theres only about 3 names that could. Since when do wrestlers have to believably beat the best clean to have a career in wrestling? Foley became world famous by losing most of his matches. I saw a Sexy Starr match in Lucha Underground that blew me away. an intergender match can be entertaining and that's all that matters. Because the question isn't about "can they believably beat the best clean?", but rather "would I believably buy THEM fighting wrestlers too?". If you can see past the bias of "men would be better athletes than women"...and you accept that in a pro wrestling ring, the answer to "who would win in a fight- Alex Riley or Sasha Banks?" would be "Whoever the WWE writing staff decides to win that fight"...and you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept women fighting the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match...and you accept that the more supernatural/fantastic performers can be perfectly natural in a pro wrestling ring as part of the nature of sports entertainment...but at the same time as you accept all of those things as facts, you're only willing to suspend your disbelief enough to fathom the possibility of the biggest women or the women with the most WORKRATEZ to be able to fight the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match, then that very limitation defeats the whole argument right there. With intergender matches, there needs to be an "all or nothing" mentality- if you aren't willing to accept even ONE of the women as being able to conceivably face off with the male wrestlers, then that is the same as saying you're not willing to accept ANY of the women as being able to face male wrestlers. With a change as widespread as allowing men to face women in the ring, intergender supporters don't get the right to pick and choose which women are worthy of fighting the men- it's either ALL the women are worthy of facing off with men, or NONE OF the women are worthy of facing off with men. The real battleground that needs to be accepted in order to make intergender matches work in the WWE is not if they can make a really big woman fighting the men, or a really talented women's wrestler fighting the men, but rather if you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept the more traditional Divas fighting the men. In order to accept the possibility of Charlotte and Becky Lynch going after the tag titles, you have to be willing to accept the possibility of the Bella Twins going after the tag titles too. In order to accept Nia Jax going after Finn Balor, you have to be willing accept the possibility of Carmella going after Finn Balor too. And yes, if you're willing to accept the possibility of Sasha Banks going after Seth Rollins's World Title, you also have to be willing to accept the possibility of Eva Marie going after Seth Rollins too.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 12, 2015 18:29:23 GMT -5
But why? you're pitting one of the worst against one of the best. How many male wrestlers can conceivably beat Brock? Theres only about 3 names that could. Since when do wrestlers have to believably beat the best clean to have a career in wrestling? Foley became world famous by losing most of his matches. I saw a Sexy Starr match in Lucha Underground that blew me away. an intergender match can be entertaining and that's all that matters. Because the question isn't about "can they believably beat the best clean?", but rather "would I believably buy THEM fighting wrestlers too?". If you can see past the bias of "men would be better athletes than women"...and you accept that in a pro wrestling ring, the answer to "who would win in a fight- Alex Riley or Sasha Banks?" would be "Whoever the WWE writing staff decides to win that fight"...and you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept women fighting the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match...and you accept that the more supernatural/fantastic performers can be perfectly natural in a pro wrestling ring as part of the nature of sports entertainment...but at the same time as you accept all of those things as facts, you're only willing to suspend your disbelief enough to fathom the possibility of the biggest women or the women with the most WORKRATEZ to be able to fight the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match, then that very limitation defeats the whole argument right there. With intergender matches, there needs to be an "all or nothing" mentality- if you aren't willing to accept even ONE of the women as being able to conceivably face off with the male wrestlers, then that is the same as saying you're not willing to accept ANY of the women as being able to face male wrestlers. With a change as widespread as allowing men to face women in the ring, intergender supporters don't get the right to pick and choose which women are worthy of fighting the men- it's either ALL the women are worthy of facing off with men, or NONE OF the women are worthy of facing off with men. The real battleground that needs to be accepted in order to make intergender matches work in the WWE is not if they can make a really big woman fighting the men, or a really talented women's wrestler fighting the men, but rather if you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept the more traditional Divas fighting the men. In order to accept the possibility of Charlotte and Becky Lynch going after the tag titles, you have to be willing to accept the possibility of the Bella Twins going after the tag titles too. In order to accept Nia Jax going after Finn Balor, you have to be willing accept the possibility of Carmella going after Finn Balor too. And yes, if you're willing to accept the possibility of Sasha Banks going after Seth Rollins's World Title, you also have to be willing to accept the possibility of Eva Marie going after Seth Rollins too. You still haven't given a solid reason why everyone must face everyone. Logically, it would only be the strongest or the most skilled of the women to make it seem like they are on equal footing. Maybe some women just wouldn't want to work in that division, like how some cruiserweights would stay in that division, but the most talented, like Rey would be up to the challenge of fighting heavyweights. Besides, we've always had to accept the outlandsish in wrestling, like fighting bears or magical zombies. Personally, I like it when it's a bit more sports based realism but with larger than life characters. This is something I think intergender wrestling would fit in with. There's been bigger shifts in real life in relatively recent times. The army is co-ed now. Female cops are a common site. There's been a huge shift in gender equality so the WWE is out of touch not having intergender matches. Lucha Underground does and from what I've seen, it's been awesome. Wrestling is becoming more and more acrobatic as well. With guys like Balor, Bourne, Neville, sometimes I feel like I'm watching Cirque De Sole. There's a lot of smaller guys these days too. It doesn't have to be Eva vs Brock or Sasha vs Big Show but they've got a lot of women that could fit midcarders like Ziggler, Miz, Cody, Los Matadores, Woods, etc. You seriously think it's too ridiculous to have Charlotte, Jax, Asuka, Tamina or Nattie fighting those guys in a scripted sports entertainment show? There's a big enough talent pool for it to work. If your logic is that it would destroy the women's division because the intergender wrestlers would outclass them, then so what? That's good. Then you have the potential "huge upset" that wrestling storylines love.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 12, 2015 18:53:39 GMT -5
Because the question isn't about "can they believably beat the best clean?", but rather "would I believably buy THEM fighting wrestlers too?". If you can see past the bias of "men would be better athletes than women"...and you accept that in a pro wrestling ring, the answer to "who would win in a fight- Alex Riley or Sasha Banks?" would be "Whoever the WWE writing staff decides to win that fight"...and you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept women fighting the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match...and you accept that the more supernatural/fantastic performers can be perfectly natural in a pro wrestling ring as part of the nature of sports entertainment...but at the same time as you accept all of those things as facts, you're only willing to suspend your disbelief enough to fathom the possibility of the biggest women or the women with the most WORKRATEZ to be able to fight the men on equal ground in a pro wrestling match, then that very limitation defeats the whole argument right there. With intergender matches, there needs to be an "all or nothing" mentality- if you aren't willing to accept even ONE of the women as being able to conceivably face off with the male wrestlers, then that is the same as saying you're not willing to accept ANY of the women as being able to face male wrestlers. With a change as widespread as allowing men to face women in the ring, intergender supporters don't get the right to pick and choose which women are worthy of fighting the men- it's either ALL the women are worthy of facing off with men, or NONE OF the women are worthy of facing off with men. The real battleground that needs to be accepted in order to make intergender matches work in the WWE is not if they can make a really big woman fighting the men, or a really talented women's wrestler fighting the men, but rather if you're willing to suspend your disbelief enough to accept the more traditional Divas fighting the men. In order to accept the possibility of Charlotte and Becky Lynch going after the tag titles, you have to be willing to accept the possibility of the Bella Twins going after the tag titles too. In order to accept Nia Jax going after Finn Balor, you have to be willing accept the possibility of Carmella going after Finn Balor too. And yes, if you're willing to accept the possibility of Sasha Banks going after Seth Rollins's World Title, you also have to be willing to accept the possibility of Eva Marie going after Seth Rollins too. You still haven't given a solid reason why everyone must face everyone. Logically, it would only be the strongest or the most skilled of the women to make it seem like they are on equal footing. Maybe some women just wouldn't want to work in that division, like how some cruiserweights would stay in that division, but the most talented, like Rey would be up to the challenge of fighting heavyweights. Besides, we've always had to accept the outlandsish in wrestling, like fighting bears or magical zombies. Personally, I like it when it's a bit more sports based realism but with larger than life characters. This is something I think intergender wrestling would fit in with. There's been bigger shifts in real life in relatively recent times. The army is co-ed now. Female cops are a common site. There's been a huge shift in gender equality so the WWE is out of touch not having intergender matches. Lucha Underground does and from what I've seen, it's been awesome. Wrestling is becoming more and more acrobatic as well. With guys like Balor, Bourne, Neville, sometimes I feel like I'm watching Cirque De Sole. There's a lot of smaller guys these days too. It doesn't have to be Eva vs Brock or Sasha vs Big Show but they've got a lot of women that could fit midcarders like Ziggler, Miz, Cody, Los Matadores, Woods, etc. You seriously think it's too ridiculous to have Charlotte, Jax, Asuka, Tamina or Nattie fighting those guys in a scripted sports entertainment show? There's a big enough talent pool for it to work. If your logic is that it would destroy the women's division because the intergender wrestlers would outclass them, then so what? That's good. Then you have the potential "huge upset" that wrestling storylines love. No. The logic is and always has been as simple as possible: Part of accepting women fighting the men is accepting ANY WOMAN fighting the men. Whether or not they want to fight the men in storyline or not is beyond the point, but the possibility cannot be discounted for any woman fighting the men. "Sports based realism" also has to take its place when you consider intergender wrestling for that regard. Since wrestling is a predetermined sport, it is important to the sport to remember that in the WWE's universe, "the best worker" and "the best wrestler" are not necessarily one and the same. In WWE right now, whether you're a fan of John Cena's in-ring ability or think he's absolutely terrible, it does not change that a vital part of WWE kayfabe is accepting the fact "John Cena is the best wrestler in WWE right now." and viewing the show accordingly. Likewise when tied to intergender, this is the same reason for why you need to accept any woman fighting the men- EVEN IF you assume "only the best women's wrestlers have any purpose fighting in intergender matches", it's also necessary to assume that no "outside the ring" benefit- whether it be being 200 pounds, being 6 foot tall or taller, or having once mowed Dave Prazak's lawn and thus becoming one of the most technically skilled women to ever lace up the boots in the process- none of those inherently make you the best women's wrestler. WWE has made it a vital plot point "The Four Horsewomen are very good wrestlers and will help bring a new level of in-ring ability to the sport", but in WWE's kayfabe, at this moment, you're supposed to accept that The Bella Twins are the top women in the company- and by virtue of being the top women in the company, are therefore the most likely women to be able to thrive against male competition. Despite that kayfabe fact- something that, in order to accept WWE's logic, you have to suspend your disbelief and accept as a fact- if Nikki Bella were to jump into the men's division, the same people who scream for intergender wrestling would scream bloody murder that one of the "models" or "worthless Divas" got to fight the men on equal ground instead of one of the "REAL wrestlers"...and THAT is the entire issue. If you can't accept the possibility of ANY of the women in the company being able to fight the men, you don't REALLY accept the possibility of women fighting men. Period.
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,299
|
Post by Sam Punk on Oct 12, 2015 19:00:06 GMT -5
It wouldn't work in wwe because it wouldn't be believable. It's not like Chikara where the men and women are roughly the same size. I'd have a hard time buying that a 5'10" 150 lb woman could get the better of a 6'5" 250lb man.
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Oct 12, 2015 19:22:58 GMT -5
High Schools and Colleges have females on their teams, who also pull off wins as well. Beth Phoenix was a varsity wrestler. It's conceivable she could hold her own against guys.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 12, 2015 20:55:20 GMT -5
You pro-intergender people keep saying things like "Beth Phoenix could do it" or "Tamina could do it" but I don't hear anyone saying "Nikki Bella could do it" or "Eva Marie could do it". Why is that? If you truly want intergender, you have to stop cherry picking which women would be believable and accept that pro wrestling is whatever Vince says it is instead of trying to hold it to any logical standard. If you can't get behind Nikki Bella changing her finisher to a lariat and knocking out Big Show, then you're still clinging to logic and the laws of physics. You can't have it both ways. Our choices are to try to keep wrestling grounded with some standard of logic, or abandon logic and accept that wrestling is a live action comic book where the writers can justify anything no matter how it defies scientific laws. You can't cherry pick.
Finally, those who are justifying intergender by citing wrestling's undead zombie gimmicks, people teleporting, people throwing fire and lightning, etc. are only illustrating the truth of intergender, because each of these examples, including intergender, are equally ridiculous and implausible. Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not stupid.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 12, 2015 21:38:28 GMT -5
You pro-intergender people keep saying things like "Beth Phoenix could do it" or "Tamina could do it" but I don't hear anyone saying "Nikki Bella could do it" or "Eva Marie could do it". Why is that? If you truly want intergender, you have to stop cherry picking which women would be believable and accept that pro wrestling is whatever Vince says it is instead of trying to hold it to any logical standard. If you can't get behind Nikki Bella changing her finisher to a lariat and knocking out Big Show, then you're still clinging to logic and the laws of physics. You can't have it both ways. Our choices are to try to keep wrestling grounded with some standard of logic, or abandon logic and accept that wrestling is a live action comic book where the writers can justify anything no matter how it defies scientific laws. You can't cherry pick. Finally, those who are justifying intergender by citing wrestling's undead zombie gimmicks, people teleporting, people throwing fire and lightning, etc. are only illustrating the truth of intergender, because each of these examples, including intergender, are equally ridiculous and implausible. Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not stupid. Neither of you have given a decent reason why though. Booking is all about cherry picking. It's fiction. There are no legit rankings or mandatory challengers. Could Heath Slater beat anyone? Santino? Ku Funaki? Why were they there? Nikki and Eva can barely deliver a convincing Diva's match, that's why no one is saying they should fight men. They're small and not that good. That's why you wouldn't book them in those matches. Problem solved. Just like you wouldn't put Slater against Brock, unless it's to get squashed. There's a heirarchy. Power rankings. Do you think the strongest woman has a lower power ranking than the weak man? Do you hate Game of Thrones because Brienne has beat men? Really having a hard time understanding this reasoning of it not being possible because the least talented woman would HAVE to face the most talented/imposing man. Why?!?
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 12, 2015 21:58:45 GMT -5
You pro-intergender people keep saying things like "Beth Phoenix could do it" or "Tamina could do it" but I don't hear anyone saying "Nikki Bella could do it" or "Eva Marie could do it". Why is that? If you truly want intergender, you have to stop cherry picking which women would be believable and accept that pro wrestling is whatever Vince says it is instead of trying to hold it to any logical standard. If you can't get behind Nikki Bella changing her finisher to a lariat and knocking out Big Show, then you're still clinging to logic and the laws of physics. You can't have it both ways. Our choices are to try to keep wrestling grounded with some standard of logic, or abandon logic and accept that wrestling is a live action comic book where the writers can justify anything no matter how it defies scientific laws. You can't cherry pick. Finally, those who are justifying intergender by citing wrestling's undead zombie gimmicks, people teleporting, people throwing fire and lightning, etc. are only illustrating the truth of intergender, because each of these examples, including intergender, are equally ridiculous and implausible. Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not stupid. Neither of you have given a decent reason why though. Booking is all about cherry picking. It's fiction. There are no legit rankings or mandatory challengers. Could Heath Slater beat anyone? Santino? Ku Funaki? Why were they there? Nikki and Eva can barely deliver a convincing Diva's match, that's why no one is saying they should fight men. They're small and not that good. That's why you wouldn't book them in those matches. Problem solved. Just like you wouldn't put Slater against Brock, unless it's to get squashed. There's a heirarchy. Power rankings. Do you think the strongest woman has a lower power ranking than the weak man? Do you hate Game of Thrones because Brienne has beat men? Really having a hard time understanding this reasoning of it not being possible because the least talented woman would HAVE to face the most talented/imposing man. Why?!? What makes you qualified to decide who is too small and who is "not that good"? Rey Mysterio was World Champion. How many guys have been World Champion or a top tier contender who people said were "not that good"? You're basically saying that we open up Pandora's Box to a little bit of intergender implausibility just so long as the writers don't go too far. It's cool for Tamina to beat up little guys so long as she doesn't beat any of the best guys, and so long as we don't have anyone who is small or "not that good" beating anyone. In this fictional world you're speaking of, what makes Nikki and Eva a less plausible threat to Brock Lesnar than John Cena or the Undertaker? I'm supposing the answer is logic? If indeed that's your answer, then at what point do you start applying that logic? Do you apply it before it gets stupid or only before it gets really stupid?
|
|
|
Post by paperbackhero on Oct 12, 2015 22:11:03 GMT -5
It wouldn't work in wwe because it wouldn't be believable. It's not like Chikara where the men and women are roughly the same size. I'd have a hard time buying that a 5'10" 150 lb woman could get the better of a 6'5" 250lb man. Check out some of the CHIKARA World Grand Prix events from the late 2000's. Cesaro, as Claudio, gets bumped all around the ring by a 5'10, 150 lb woman.
|
|
kidkamikaze10
Dennis Stamp
Trying to think of a new avatar
Posts: 4,236
|
Post by kidkamikaze10 on Oct 12, 2015 22:23:15 GMT -5
You pro-intergender people keep saying things like "Beth Phoenix could do it" or "Tamina could do it" but I don't hear anyone saying "Nikki Bella could do it" or "Eva Marie could do it". Why is that? Two reasons. Three if you include "I just don't want to see it." the pro-intergender matches crowd aren't just looking for intergender matches, but good ones. Which are possible. 1) Internal logic states that Beth Phoenix and Tamina are considered heavy hitters in comparison with the rest of the divas. Nikki and Eva aren't. If the internal logic of the E builds up Nikki and Eva as people that can take on guys, then so be it. 2) Craft. Frankly, I wouldn't even want to see Tamina take on guys because she's not that good. More than that, there are fundamental things in the ring Tamina fails to consistently do that make her a very unappealing option unless booking covers those flaws. Same goes for Eva, same goes for Nikki. But I'd be fine with that with Beth, and was when she fought against guys. And yes, you can say that through their in ring performances. Equally? No. They were brought up because they are far more ridiculous and implausible and yet far more accepted.
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Oct 12, 2015 23:18:21 GMT -5
You pro-intergender people keep saying things like "Beth Phoenix could do it" or "Tamina could do it" but I don't hear anyone saying "Nikki Bella could do it" or "Eva Marie could do it". Why is that? If you truly want intergender, you have to stop cherry picking which women would be believable and accept that pro wrestling is whatever Vince says it is instead of trying to hold it to any logical standard. If you can't get behind Nikki Bella changing her finisher to a lariat and knocking out Big Show, then you're still clinging to logic and the laws of physics. You can't have it both ways. Our choices are to try to keep wrestling grounded with some standard of logic, or abandon logic and accept that wrestling is a live action comic book where the writers can justify anything no matter how it defies scientific laws. You can't cherry pick. John Cena could beat Lesnar. Taker can beat Lesnar. Pee Wee Herman can't. I can't. Those who can, do.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 12, 2015 23:24:16 GMT -5
If WWE won't sign Joey Ryan, then they need to have one of their guys steal the Boobplex.
|
|