Jake Roberts Vs Billy Gunn Vs Kamala Vs Wade Barrett

[Syrile Demonthyst]

Complete BS.

Ok, take Ken Anderson again. Is there any one thing (ring name aside) you can point to that conclusively shows that he is different from Ken Kennedy? Just one is fine.

Here's one for DBZ & DBZ the movie: GOKU ISN'T JAPANESE IN THE MOVIE.

DBZ Animated Movies

Whatwhatwhat?!?

Now that I want a ruling on, because that's completely ridiculous.

Regardless Kane and Show are midcard, which is the point you're trying to avoid addressing here.

So, what you are saying is that it is considered acceptable for people to use low end feats for a character shown to be clearly above what is happening as acceptable evidence?

Why would I try to avoid it at all. Instead, I could completely agree they are billed as mid-card when it comes to story lines. However, based on feats, they are quite a bit above that pay-grade.

I mean, we do not count it when Flash Jobs to Deathstroke. Why should we count it when Big Show jobs to Mysterio? The Rumbles Rules apply to all Rumbles, even wrestling ones.

Or we do the logical thing, realize that Kamala is playing the same character across different feds, and count him as one guy.

Except the fact that his name was not even the same until a few years before joining the WWF... So yeah.. Same character.

Was that a different character, or can we accept that like in comics, wrestling booking isn't exactly consistent?

Not consistent means a few feats every so often.
Not years upon years of feats that are completely out of place with the feats in question...

The rest I will get to later as I have some things to deal with.

[Sharpandpointies]

According to the rules, if one wants to be strict about it, we use the current incarnation of a character.

If there has been a significant change in the character, past feats no longer stand. Presentation is important.

Going by that idea, if we have a change in the character from one company to another, the presentation of the character under different companies may be different. This has nothing to do with the fluctuation of the writers, and more to do with company policy on the character themselves.

This also seems to fall under something similar to the whole 'canonicity' ruling. Note the Star Wars canonicity and the Buffy canonicity, where stuff is explictly referenced in the shows/movies/comics, but the feats aren't useable for Rumbles.

So for now, yes, use the current version of the character under the character's current company.

If people want to use all the character's feats, all they have to do state that in the OP.

[KJ Stewart]

God love ya Sharp, God love ya.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

God love ya Sharp, God love ya.

Agreed!
Long live the Mountie!

[Aubergine~!]

According to the rules, if one wants to be strict about it, we use the current incarnation of a character.

If there has been a significant change in the character, past feats no longer stand. Presentation is important.

I agree that significant change in a character should mean it's a different character. I'm just saying that IMO, moving federations doesn't in itself qualify as significant change.

Going by that idea, if we have a change in the character from one company to another, the presentation of the character under different companies may be different. This has nothing to do with the fluctuation of the writers, and more to do with company policy on the character themselves.

Guys like Jeff Hardy and Anderson are currently playing pretty much the same characters they did back in the WWE though, and company policy between the WWE and TNA doesn't have too many differences (and nothing significant enough to significantly change a character IMO).

In fact, I'd argue there's enough evidence to show that wrestling is a shared universe across all (North American) feds.

So, what you are saying is that it is considered acceptable for people to use low end feats for a character shown to be clearly above what is happening as acceptable evidence?

No, I'm saying that not counting jobbing would mean that according to Rumbles rules, no one has ever lost a match in wrestling.

Take note that I'm using the wrestling definition of jobbing, which is basically losing.

Except the fact that his name was not even the same until a few years before joining the WWF... So yeah.. Same character.

...what?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Not consistent means a few feats every so often.
Not years upon years of feats that are completely out of place with the feats in question...

No, that sounds exactly like wrestling booking.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

No, I'm saying that not counting jobbing would mean that according to Rumbles rules, no one has ever lost a match in wrestling.

It is the exact same thing.
Jobbing is losing to someone below your caliber and is PIS. Nothing more.
Not acceptable as evidence in a Rumble.

Take note that I'm using the wrestling definition of jobbing, which is basically losing.

Jobbing is not just losing.
Being a jobber is someone who loses consistently but in general, jobbing is a phrase used to denote that someone is losing to someone beneath their level.

...what?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

You said they are the same character.
When he did not even use the same name, why would they be the same character?

No, that sounds exactly like wrestling booking.

And exactly how is Rumbles supposed to handle that except by the above Ruling? The current portrayal of a character is how you determine where to pull the feats from.

[Aubergine~!]

It is the exact same thing.
Jobbing is losing to someone below your caliber and is PIS. Nothing more.
Not acceptable as evidence in a Rumble.

Jobbing is not just losing.
Being a jobber is someone who loses consistently but in general, jobbing is a phrase used to denote that someone is losing to someone beneath their level.

Here, yes. but not in wrestling.

The Pro Wrestling Torch (a pretty well known wrestling zine/website) defines jobbing as the following:

Job (n) A planned, voluntary loss.

I'd thought you were using the wrestling term initially.

You said they are the same character.
When he did not even use the same name, why would they be the same character?

He started using the character when he took on the name and the gimmick, which I'd thought was pretty evident.

And exactly how is Rumbles supposed to handle that except by the above Ruling? The current portrayal of a character is how you determine where to pull the feats from.

I'm not sure Rumbles is actually built to handle pro wrestling booking, honestly. Many characters would have only a few months worth of feats to go by based off sharp's ruling.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

Here, yes. but not in wrestling.

The Pro Wrestling Torch (a pretty well known wrestling zine/website) defines jobbing as the following:

I'd thought you were using the wrestling term initially.

I understand.

He started using the character when he took on the name and the gimmick, which I'd thought was pretty evident.

Yes and how much of his character was in that federation?
You said the majority of his feats..
Which it turns out, he was in WWF a lot longer than that from what I can tell.

I'm not sure Rumbles is actually built to handle pro wrestling booking, honestly. Many characters would have only a few months worth of feats to go by based off sharp's ruling.

Funny thing about that...
We have handled them just fine until this.
And no, that is not true.
Lots of characters keep their same basic character for a long time.

And not many wrestlers change federations rapidly.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

I'm not sure Rumbles is actually built to handle pro wrestling booking, honestly. Many characters would have only a few months worth of feats to go by based off sharp's ruling.

I mean..
Actually wrestling would be better in a lot of ways if it followed Rumbles Rules.

Big Show would not lose to Mysterio.. Hell, most people would not for that matter.

All around, the wrestlers that we knew were better would win in most cases (Barring special circumstances and actual upsets and such) and all around a lot of it would be more enjoyable.

All you have to do is follow the High End Consistent Showings just like the rules state. Throw out the Low End showings and anything that is SMvFL. Remove PIS and we have ourselves the Wrestling Rumbles. Just like everything else.

I mean.. We have done fights with Wrestlers against Street Levelers and they turn out just fine.

[KJ Stewart]

Funny thing about that...
We have handled them just fine until this.

Precisely. Never been a problem.

Also, if referencing your history makes it "canon" so to speak (as in the cases of Mr. Kennedy and Hogan that have been specified), then no one in WWE EVER references their history in regional promotions.

The only past accomplishments I can recall being made part of a WWE wrestler's continuity are:

- Kurt Angle's gold medals.
- Brock Lesnar/Shelton Benjamin's (et al) college wrestling background.
- People like Booker T referencing his WCW Championships, which was possible in cases like that because WCW and ECW were part of the same franchise as WWE at that time.

Other than that, WWE wrestlers are generally specifically referred to as newcomers with no history. Look at Sin Cara. They act as if he's some kind of enigma, an unknown phenomenon.

I think we've had my initial points absolutely clarified, hence why I was saying it in the first place. Thank you very much.

Now I think I'm gonna politely ask for this thread to be closed. It's way off track now and the debate has run its course.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

Precisely. Never been a problem.

Also, if referencing your history makes it "canon" so to speak (as in the cases of Mr. Kennedy and Hogan that have been specified), then no one in WWE EVER references their history in regional promotions.

The only past accomplishments I can recall being made part of a WWE wrestler's continuity are:

- Kurt Angle's gold medals.
- Brock Lesnar/Shelton Benjamin's (et al) college wrestling background.
- People like Booker T referencing his WCW Championships, which was possible in cases like that because WCW and ECW were part of the same franchise as WWE at that time.

Other than that, WWE wrestlers are generally specifically referred to as newcomers with no history. Look at Sin Cara. They act as if he's some kind of enigma, an unknown phenomenon.

I think we've had my initial points absolutely clarified, hence why I was saying it in the first place. Thank you very much.

Now I think I'm gonna politely ask for this thread to be closed. It's way off track now and the debate has run its course.

I can agree with all of that.
And I am glad it is fixed.

I enjoy your wrestling threads a lot and do not want this bogging them all down.

[Sharpandpointies]

Thread closed by request of thread starter.