Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 12, 2015 23:43:23 GMT -5
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?!? That is the whole point. There IS A HIERARCHY. Heath Slater, Santino, Kung Fu Naki, were jobbers- and they could fight anyone on the roster. But that's only part of the point. Again, like you said. There's a hierarchy. Power rankings. And whether you want to admit it or not, The Bella Twins are higher on that hierarchy than people like Tamina, or the Horsewomen, or Asuka- because they're AT THE TOP of that power rankings. Going back to the tennis analogy for intergender before: Saying that Nikki Bella shouldn't be able to fight intergender because she's "not that good", but these other wrestlers SHOULD get it because "hierarchy" and "power rankings" or whatever other excuse you want to hide that you are biased towards the indy women... is the same as saying "Okay, so Serena Williams, the number-one ranked woman in the world and most dominant women's tennis player around, couldn't beat the 203rd ranked man in the planet...but I'm SURE that Madison Keys could beat guys in the top 200, even if she's only ranked 19th among the women!"
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 13, 2015 0:09:38 GMT -5
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?!? That is the whole point. There IS A HIERARCHY. Heath Slater, Santino, Kung Fu Naki, were jobbers- and they could fight anyone on the roster. But that's only part of the point. Again, like you said. There's a hierarchy. Power rankings. And whether you want to admit it or not, The Bella Twins are higher on that hierarchy than people like Tamina, or the Horsewomen, or Asuka- because they're AT THE TOP of that power rankings. Going back to the tennis analogy for intergender before: Saying that Nikki Bella shouldn't be able to fight intergender because she's "not that good", but these other wrestlers SHOULD get it because "hierarchy" and "power rankings" or whatever other excuse you want to hide that you are biased towards the indy women... is the same as saying "Okay, so Serena Williams, the number-one ranked woman in the world and most dominant women's tennis player around, couldn't beat the 203rd ranked man in the planet...but I'm SURE that Madison Keys could beat guys in the top 200, even if she's only ranked 19th among the women!" Why are you so focused on the Bella twins? Why are you assuming I'm biased towards indie women? I don't care. I'm just trying to make a case for intergender matches. Your case against it has only been "it shouldn't happen because the weakest woman would HAVE to fight the strongest man" while refraining from saying WHY this has to happen. It doesn't. And if it did, then it would be a squash. Still no reason for it not to happen. Some women would get squashed, some would have competitive matches where they come up short, and some would win. What's the problem? It would really freshen things up too instead of the same matches we get every week for months on end.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 13, 2015 0:42:35 GMT -5
That is the whole point. There IS A HIERARCHY. Heath Slater, Santino, Kung Fu Naki, were jobbers- and they could fight anyone on the roster. But that's only part of the point. Again, like you said. There's a hierarchy. Power rankings. And whether you want to admit it or not, The Bella Twins are higher on that hierarchy than people like Tamina, or the Horsewomen, or Asuka- because they're AT THE TOP of that power rankings. Going back to the tennis analogy for intergender before: Saying that Nikki Bella shouldn't be able to fight intergender because she's "not that good", but these other wrestlers SHOULD get it because "hierarchy" and "power rankings" or whatever other excuse you want to hide that you are biased towards the indy women... is the same as saying "Okay, so Serena Williams, the number-one ranked woman in the world and most dominant women's tennis player around, couldn't beat the 203rd ranked man in the planet...but I'm SURE that Madison Keys could beat guys in the top 200, even if she's only ranked 19th among the women!" Why are you so focused on the Bella twins? Why are you assuming I'm biased towards indie women? I don't care. I'm just trying to make a case for intergender matches. Your case against it has only been "it shouldn't happen because the weakest woman would HAVE to fight the strongest man" while refraining from saying WHY this has to happen. It doesn't. And if it did, then it would be a squash. Still no reason for it not to happen. Some women would get squashed, some would have competitive matches where they come up short, and some would win. What's the problem? It would really freshen things up too instead of the same matches we get every week for months on end. That's the point. I'm trying to make the case for intergender matches too- but the same viewpoint has gone on FROM the pro-intergender group. The case all the pro-intergender people make, however, is people either saying "intergender can only be the biggest women against the smallest men" (which, in itself, is a form of bias that changes the intergender dynamic)- or, in many of the cases in this thread, outright saying "Intergender can only happen if it's the indie women against the men". Both of these problems are a load of crap. With intergender wrestling, IT ONLY WORKS if you go into the concept of "can women fight men?" without any biases whatsoever except "can women fight men". No matter what your bias is- be it "they're not big enough", "they're not talented enough", "they're not big enough stars", "F*** the cast of Total Divas", they all come back to one thing and one thing only: If you're not willing to assume it is possible for any woman in the company, whatsoever, to fight the men, then you're inherently saying "women shouldn't fight men." There is nothing more blatant than that. All the "size", all the "workrate", all of the other stuff, does not change the fact. When you're willing to make something as big as intergender wrestling, you cannot pick and choose who gets the right to. The weakest woman may NOT HAVE to fight the strongest men- you may never get Eva Marie vs. Brock Lesnar...but you had damn sure better be willing to celebrate "Eva Marie vs. Heath Slater" as a possibility. If you want intergender, you have to be willing to accept intergender for everyone or intergender for NO one. If you feel it's okay to pick and choose, complain more about ethics in pro wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Oct 13, 2015 6:02:47 GMT -5
...but you had damn sure better be willing to celebrate "Eva Marie vs. Heath Slater" as a possibility. They'll eventually team up and become All Red Everything, your new WWE Tag Team Champions.
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Oct 13, 2015 6:34:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 13, 2015 9:02:17 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. What? Who accepts that the Undertaker is undead? No one. Maybe some little kid when he first debuted, but I was 11 years old in 1990 and I never accepted that he was a zombie. Furthermore, I never interpreted the WWF as trying to sell him as a legitimate zombie. To me, he was a creepy eccentric guy who slept in coffins. I never accepted that a wrestler could teleport or throw lightning, and I'll bet that the vast majority of wrestling fans never accepted that either. Neither did I accept that Robo Cop and Sting were friends or that the Giant fell off the roof of Cobo Hall at Halloween Havoc '95. These were all ridiculous moments that the fans collectively rolled their eyes at. So, your logic is that intergender wrestling is justified because somewhat more ridiculous things have happened in wrestling. Thing is, I'm not against someone wanting to see intergender wrestling or enjoying the more ridiculous aspects of sports entertainment. What I guess I'm not seeing is how the pro-intergender crowd feels that they can cherry pick which women are suitable for intergender in a scripted pseudo-sport. What makes Heath Slater less qualified to beat Brock Lesnar than John Cena? It's just one thing, which is that WWE hasn't booked him in that capacity. By the same logic, Beth Phoenix is no more qualified to beat Lesnar than Nikki Bella. If you're going to embrace implausibility, you can't cherry pick. You can't say "Well, Beth Phoenix is bigger and has this athletic background and is a good wrestler so she could hang with the guys" and then say "Eva Marie is not that good and is too small so she can't do it."
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 13, 2015 9:34:38 GMT -5
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. What? Who accepts that the Undertaker is undead? No one. Maybe some little kid when he first debuted, but I was 11 years old in 1990 and I never accepted that he was a zombie. Furthermore, I never interpreted the WWF as trying to sell him as a legitimate zombie. To me, he was a creepy eccentric guy who slept in coffins. I never accepted that a wrestler could teleport or throw lightning, and I'll bet that the vast majority of wrestling fans never accepted that either. Neither did I accept that Robo Cop and Sting were friends or that the Giant fell off the roof of Cobo Hall at Halloween Havoc '95. These were all ridiculous moments that the fans collectively rolled their eyes at. So, your logic is that intergender wrestling is justified because somewhat more ridiculous things have happened in wrestling. Thing is, I'm not against someone wanting to see intergender wrestling or enjoying the more ridiculous aspects of sports entertainment. What I guess I'm not seeing is how the pro-intergender crowd feels that they can cherry pick which women are suitable for intergender in a scripted pseudo-sport. What makes Heath Slater less qualified to beat Brock Lesnar than John Cena? It's just one thing, which is that WWE hasn't booked him in that capacity. By the same logic, Beth Phoenix is no more qualified to beat Lesnar than Nikki Bella. If you're going to embrace implausibility, you can't cherry pick. You can't say "Well, Beth Phoenix is bigger and has this athletic background and is a good wrestler so she could hang with the guys" and then say "Eva Marie is not that good and is too small so she can't do it." Yes you can! I've said it and I'll keep saying it because it's common sense. Why can't you cherry pick? It's what bookers do. They pit the people who they think will have a good match against each other. As a booker I wouldn't put Eva against a man because I don't think she is big enough or skilled enough to pull it off convincingly, but someone like Beth Pheonix could, and did. You guys are cherry picking logic.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 13, 2015 10:04:13 GMT -5
What? Who accepts that the Undertaker is undead? No one. Maybe some little kid when he first debuted, but I was 11 years old in 1990 and I never accepted that he was a zombie. Furthermore, I never interpreted the WWF as trying to sell him as a legitimate zombie. To me, he was a creepy eccentric guy who slept in coffins. I never accepted that a wrestler could teleport or throw lightning, and I'll bet that the vast majority of wrestling fans never accepted that either. Neither did I accept that Robo Cop and Sting were friends or that the Giant fell off the roof of Cobo Hall at Halloween Havoc '95. These were all ridiculous moments that the fans collectively rolled their eyes at. So, your logic is that intergender wrestling is justified because somewhat more ridiculous things have happened in wrestling. Thing is, I'm not against someone wanting to see intergender wrestling or enjoying the more ridiculous aspects of sports entertainment. What I guess I'm not seeing is how the pro-intergender crowd feels that they can cherry pick which women are suitable for intergender in a scripted pseudo-sport. What makes Heath Slater less qualified to beat Brock Lesnar than John Cena? It's just one thing, which is that WWE hasn't booked him in that capacity. By the same logic, Beth Phoenix is no more qualified to beat Lesnar than Nikki Bella. If you're going to embrace implausibility, you can't cherry pick. You can't say "Well, Beth Phoenix is bigger and has this athletic background and is a good wrestler so she could hang with the guys" and then say "Eva Marie is not that good and is too small so she can't do it." Yes you can! I've said it and I'll keep saying it because it's common sense. Why can't you cherry pick? It's what bookers do. They pit the people who they think will have a good match against each other. As a booker I wouldn't put Eva against a man because I don't think she is big enough or skilled enough to pull it off convincingly, but someone like Beth Pheonix could, and did. You guys are cherry picking logic. Fine, here's the flaws with your argument. 1. You're not the booker. No one is going to ask you which women should be pushed and in what capacity. This is why YOU can't cherry pick which women are worthy of a push because YOU have nothing to do with making that decision. If you truly want intergender, you must accept all or none because you literally have no say in who should and should not be used in that capacity. 2. Intergender does not mean that a couple women on the roster can wrestle a couple men. It means that men and women are competing for the same prizes. It means that there would no longer be any gender-specific championships and thus no gender-specific divisions. Even if they did, Big Show would be logically eligible to wrestle for the Divas title. Thus, unless you're willing to either see Nikki Bella and all those other divas who you don't think can hang with the men 1) become jobbers or 2) be able to hang with main eventers, you are not really pro-intergender. 3. Reflecto amply pointed this out but you guys are missing it. The Bella Twins topped the power rankings for how long? Nikki Bella is the longest reigning Divas champion. That means that in kayfabe, Nikki Bella is the best among all the women in WWE. Thus, you can't argue that a lower ranking diva would be plausible against men and not Nikki Bella, when Nikki Bella is supposedly the best among the women. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 13, 2015 10:28:59 GMT -5
Yes you can! I've said it and I'll keep saying it because it's common sense. Why can't you cherry pick? It's what bookers do. They pit the people who they think will have a good match against each other. As a booker I wouldn't put Eva against a man because I don't think she is big enough or skilled enough to pull it off convincingly, but someone like Beth Pheonix could, and did. You guys are cherry picking logic. Fine, here's the flaws with your argument. 1. You're not the booker. No one is going to ask you which women should be pushed and in what capacity. This is why YOU can't cherry pick which women are worthy of a push because YOU have nothing to do with making that decision. If you truly want intergender, you must accept all or none because you literally have no say in who should and should not be used in that capacity. You're not either. Guess we can't talk about wrestling anymore. 2. Intergender does not mean that a couple women on the roster can wrestle a couple men. It means that men and women are competing for the same prizes. It means that there would no longer be any gender-specific championships and thus no gender-specific divisions. Even if they did, Big Show would be logically eligible to wrestle for the Divas title. Thus, unless you're willing to either see Nikki Bella and all those other divas who you don't think can hang with the men 1) become jobbers or 2) be able to hang with main eventers, you are not really pro-intergender. Not true. Intergender could become it's own division. Or it could be special attraction matches that happen once in a while. This is not a real sport! They can do whatever they want!
3. Reflecto amply pointed this out but you guys are missing it. The Bella Twins topped the power rankings for how long? Nikki Bella is the longest reigning Divas champion. That means that in kayfabe, Nikki Bella is the best among all the women in WWE. Thus, you can't argue that a lower ranking diva would be plausible against men and not Nikki Bella, when Nikki Bella is supposedly the best among the women. It doesn't make sense. Again, not a real sport. No real rankings or mandatory challengers. Seth is also the champion but that doesn't means he's the most powerful wrestler because they've booked him to be a weasel who holds on to the belt by kayfabe politicing. The Bellas have also maintained their ranking by means other than pure skill. Rey was champ and Andre wasn't so I guess that means he's more powerful by your belt means everything logic.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 13, 2015 11:07:28 GMT -5
Fine, here's the flaws with your argument. 1. You're not the booker. No one is going to ask you which women should be pushed and in what capacity. This is why YOU can't cherry pick which women are worthy of a push because YOU have nothing to do with making that decision. If you truly want intergender, you must accept all or none because you literally have no say in who should and should not be used in that capacity. You're not either. Guess we can't talk about wrestling anymore. 2. Intergender does not mean that a couple women on the roster can wrestle a couple men. It means that men and women are competing for the same prizes. It means that there would no longer be any gender-specific championships and thus no gender-specific divisions. Even if they did, Big Show would be logically eligible to wrestle for the Divas title. Thus, unless you're willing to either see Nikki Bella and all those other divas who you don't think can hang with the men 1) become jobbers or 2) be able to hang with main eventers, you are not really pro-intergender. Not true. Intergender could become it's own division. Or it could be special attraction matches that happen once in a while. This is not a real sport! They can do whatever they want!
3. Reflecto amply pointed this out but you guys are missing it. The Bella Twins topped the power rankings for how long? Nikki Bella is the longest reigning Divas champion. That means that in kayfabe, Nikki Bella is the best among all the women in WWE. Thus, you can't argue that a lower ranking diva would be plausible against men and not Nikki Bella, when Nikki Bella is supposedly the best among the women. It doesn't make sense. Again, not a real sport. No real rankings or mandatory challengers. Seth is also the champion but that doesn't means he's the most powerful wrestler because they've booked him to be a weasel who holds on to the belt by kayfabe politicing. The Bellas have also maintained their ranking by means other than pure skill. Rey was champ and Andre wasn't so I guess that means he's more powerful by your belt means everything logic. You're not getting it, and I think we're going to have to agree that we're at an impasse. The whole substance of your argument is that WWE should do intergender, but then you're trying to micromanage how it should be implemented in a way that makes sense and seems plausible to you while arguing down anyone who suggests a worst case scenario. It's great to have conversations about how things should be if we were calling the shots, but to have a serious discussion we have to concede the fact that we have no say whatsoever. From there, we can decide if intergender is a good idea. Keeping in mind that you would have no control over how WWE implements intergender, do you still think it's a good idea? Do you believe that WWE would do intergender the same way that you would? If not, do you still think it's a good idea? This is the essence of my point. If you're not prepared to accept that Nikki Bella could pin Brock Lesnar clean in the middle of the ring after a devastating lariat, you're not really in favor of WWE implementing intergender. You might be in favor of intergender as it applies to your Be the Booker fantasy booking game, but not on any practical terms as it applies to WWE implementing it.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 13, 2015 12:03:44 GMT -5
You're not getting it, and I think we're going to have to agree that we're at an impasse. The whole substance of your argument is that WWE should do intergender, but then you're trying to micromanage how it should be implemented in a way that makes sense and seems plausible to you while arguing down anyone who suggests a worst case scenario. It's great to have conversations about how things should be if we were calling the shots, but to have a serious discussion we have to concede the fact that we have no say whatsoever. From there, we can decide if intergender is a good idea. Keeping in mind that you would have no control over how WWE implements intergender, do you still think it's a good idea? Do you believe that WWE would do intergender the same way that you would? If not, do you still think it's a good idea? This is the essence of my point. If you're not prepared to accept that Nikki Bella could pin Brock Lesnar clean in the middle of the ring after a devastating lariat, you're not really in favor of WWE implementing intergender. You might be in favor of intergender as it applies to your Be the Booker fantasy booking game, but not on any practical terms as it applies to WWE implementing it. That's really the biggest point. In order to accept intergender, you have to be willing to say yes to the generic question "would you accept a woman fighting with a man?". If you would say yes to that question without any other details, you're in favor of intergender. If you say no to that question without any other details, or you DEMAND more details before saying yes or no, you're not in favor of it.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Oct 13, 2015 13:05:30 GMT -5
You're not getting it, and I think we're going to have to agree that we're at an impasse. The whole substance of your argument is that WWE should do intergender, but then you're trying to micromanage how it should be implemented in a way that makes sense and seems plausible to you while arguing down anyone who suggests a worst case scenario. It's great to have conversations about how things should be if we were calling the shots, but to have a serious discussion we have to concede the fact that we have no say whatsoever. From there, we can decide if intergender is a good idea. Keeping in mind that you would have no control over how WWE implements intergender, do you still think it's a good idea? Do you believe that WWE would do intergender the same way that you would? If not, do you still think it's a good idea? This is the essence of my point. If you're not prepared to accept that Nikki Bella could pin Brock Lesnar clean in the middle of the ring after a devastating lariat, you're not really in favor of WWE implementing intergender. You might be in favor of intergender as it applies to your Be the Booker fantasy booking game, but not on any practical terms as it applies to WWE implementing it. Well I think the booking has sucked for ages so if you're asking me if I would trust them to do a good job with it, then the answer is no. But that shouldn't prevent hypothetical discussion of why I'd want to see it and how I think it could work.
|
|
|
Post by Old Baby on Oct 13, 2015 13:29:30 GMT -5
You're not getting it, and I think we're going to have to agree that we're at an impasse. The whole substance of your argument is that WWE should do intergender, but then you're trying to micromanage how it should be implemented in a way that makes sense and seems plausible to you while arguing down anyone who suggests a worst case scenario. It's great to have conversations about how things should be if we were calling the shots, but to have a serious discussion we have to concede the fact that we have no say whatsoever. From there, we can decide if intergender is a good idea. Keeping in mind that you would have no control over how WWE implements intergender, do you still think it's a good idea? Do you believe that WWE would do intergender the same way that you would? If not, do you still think it's a good idea? This is the essence of my point. If you're not prepared to accept that Nikki Bella could pin Brock Lesnar clean in the middle of the ring after a devastating lariat, you're not really in favor of WWE implementing intergender. You might be in favor of intergender as it applies to your Be the Booker fantasy booking game, but not on any practical terms as it applies to WWE implementing it. Well I think the booking has sucked for ages so if you're asking me if I would trust them to do a good job with it, then the answer is no. But that shouldn't prevent hypothetical discussion of why I'd want to see it and how I think it could work. ...which I have no problem with whatsoever, because that's essentially all I'm doing, except I'm outlining all the reasons why I don't want to see it and don't think it would work. I was never arguing that you shouldn't have your opinion, but only the practicalities of WWE implementing it.
|
|
|
Post by cageking666 on Oct 13, 2015 14:16:38 GMT -5
Brock & Bayley vs Sasha & Rollins would break the ***** scale Now I'm sad because I want to see a Hugplex on Seth
|
|