Jake Roberts Vs Billy Gunn Vs Kamala Vs Wade Barrett

[Aubergine~!]

Wade Barrett kicked out of an AA.

Just to compare that's like kicking out of a Hogan legdrop in the 80's.

In a few years, I don't think this will be even close to a fair debate, as IMO Barrett can and will be one of the biggest stars in the WWE very soon.

Granted, I wouldn't trust the WWE booking team to do anything right, but Wade's a can't miss prospect IMO.

[Aubergine~!]

I would love you to point out where I was rude.

There's stating an opinion and there's stating an opinion whilst needlessly including "this guy is clueless". None of which I did at any point before it became a natural way of retaliating to someone doing that to me.

'Well wikipedia'd.' doesn't strike you as sounding the least bit condescending?

[KJ Stewart]

'Well wikipedia'd.' doesn't strike you as sounding the least bit condescending?

Not when the guy I was talking to had just told me that he'd specifically lifted the information from Wikipedia - a totally unreliable information source - as a method of "putting me straight". With information I already knew, nonetheless.

Plus, not an insult is it.

[Aubergine~!]

Not when the guy I was talking to had just told me that he'd specifically lifted the information from Wikipedia - a totally unreliable information source - as a method of "putting me straight".

You said that Roberts and Kamala had 'won nothing'. He was correcting you.

With information I already knew, nonetheless.

Given your subsequently expressed views on territorial wrestling I rather doubt that you knew Jake Roberts was a 2 time Mid-South North American Heavyweight Champ.

And if you did, why would you say in your previous comment that Roberts had 'won nothing'?

Plus, not an insult is it.

You can be rude without being insulting.

[KJ Stewart]

You said that Roberts and Kamala had 'won nothing'. He was correcting you.

Given your subsequently expressed views on territorial wrestling I rather doubt that you knew Jake Roberts was a 2 time Mid-South North American Heavyweight Champ.

Well, as someone who has quite closely followed wrestling/sports entertainment as a whole since about 1989, you'd be mistaken on that front.

And if you did, why would you say in your previous comment that Roberts had 'won nothing'?

Basic rumbles precedent.

I'm following years and years of what has gone down. Including in my most recent threads, where only championships in the major promotions are taken in to account.

Albert, Boss Man... heck, recently, someone said that Test would beat Greg Valentine because Test has a clean win over HHH, which was above anything that Valentine has done. Whereas Valentine actually has one of the most impressive resumes when it comes to championships in regional promotions.

I'm sticking with a trend.

If we're going to include the promotions that wrestlers were in as a means to earning their spot in the WWE/F in the first place, pretty much every wrestling thread that's ever been posted in rumbles is gonna have a different outcome.

I'm happy for that to occur, but the fact is we've never done that. Mostly because they played a different "character" in those promotions.

You can be rude without being insulting.

Yes, I know.

You did it by using the term "BS" instead of just saying that you thought I was wrong.

[Aubergine~!]

Well, as someone who has quite closely followed wrestling/sports entertainment as a whole since about 1989, you'd be mistaken on that front.

Fair enough.

However, the territorial system was dead by then. Roberts and Kamala at least had been around for ages before that time, and cut their teeth in the territories back when those mattered.

If you're going to debate the importance of the regional titles, at least read up on them first.

Basic rumbles precedent.

I'm following years and years of what has gone down. Including in my most recent threads, where only championships in the major promotions are taken in to account.

A.) If you really want that followed you might want to specify it in the OP.

B.) That rule doesn't make much sense. Something happening in the indies /territories doesn't mean it didn't happen. Unless there's been an official mod ruling I am not following that rule.

C.) If that was what you actually meant, do you at least see that he honestly thought he was correcting you?

You did it by using the term "BS" instead of just saying that you thought I was wrong.

There are more polite ways to say that, but given the tone you'd set I felt that was appropriate.

[KJ Stewart]

A.) If you really want that followed you might want to specify it in the OP.

It's not a rule. I've not said that. It's just something that seems to have naturally occurred.

For instance, only last week, somebody put Mystico (now known as Sin Cara) in a match with Mysterio, and the first reply was "Mystico's only feat is ambushing Sheamus, so Mysterio wins", and it was actually me who first responded saying something like "just this once I think we can grant non-WWE accomplishments, especially considering the use of the name Mystico in the title and not Sin Cara".

So I've essentially had that precedent thrust towards me. On that basis, I don't feel the need to specify. It's something that is just evident to me in pretty much every thread about wrestling.

It's not something I imposed, and not something I necessarily agree with, I'm just going with it because it's blatantly apparent.

B.) That rule doesn't make much sense. Something happening in the indies /territories doesn't mean it didn't happen. Unless there's been an official mod ruling I am not following that rule.

Like I say, it's not a rule. Never said it was. I'm just doing as others do to avoid being that one person who everyone who follows that precedent has an argument with.

C.) If that was what you actually meant, do you at least see that he honestly thought he was correcting you?

Not debating that. But the use of the term "putting me straight" as if I was some kind of clueless child and he was some kind of authority figure, whilst using the most illegitimate source of information on the internet as a means of doing so wasn't the best way to go about it.

[Aubergine~!]

It's not a rule. I've not said that. It's just something that seems to have naturally occurred.

*snip*

Like I say, it's not a rule. Never said it was. I'm just doing as others do to avoid being that one person who everyone who follows that precedent has an argument with.

Fair enough, though IMO it's a ridiculous precedent, and one I won't be following without a mod ruling.

Not debating that. But the use of the term "putting me straight" as if I was some kind of clueless child and he was some kind of authority figure, whilst using the most illegitimate source of information on the internet as a means of doing so wasn't the best way to go about it.

Eh, Wikipedia's not that bad.

[KJ Stewart]

Fair enough, though IMO it's a ridiculous precedent, and one I won't be following without a mod ruling.

Fair enough, you don't have to.

Eh, Wikipedia's not that bad.

Would you still say that if I edited Jake's accomplishments to say...

- Tutu-wearing goddess of 1966 school panto.
- Necrophiliac of the Year 1984.
- Texas Cross-gender mud-wrestling runner-up 1986.
- Crufts winner with "Rover" and "Benji" 2001.

.. just as you were looking up his accomplishments?

Because, with Wikipedia, that COULD happen.

[Aubergine~!]

Would you still say that if I edited Jake's accomplishments to say...

- Tutu-wearing goddess of 1966 school panto.
- Necrophiliac of the Year 1984.
- Texas Cross-gender mud-wrestling runner-up 1986.
- Crufts winner with "Rover" and "Benji" 2001.

.. just as you were looking up his accomplishments?

Because, with Wikipedia, that COULD happen.

It'd likely be changed back within a few minutes though.

And to make sure, just check the sources.

[UKFan]

Well, as someone who has quite closely followed wrestling/sports entertainment as a whole since about 1989, you'd be mistaken on that front.

So in other words you know nothing of the past of wrestling?

Of the great territories of the past? Of the great champions of the past?

Of the great feuds? Of the great talkers?

Because someone who thinks that Roberts has won nothing, then cops an attiude when corrected really shouldn't start convos about what they don't know.

I mean, Jeez, Roberts' best days were past him by '89.

[UKFan]

It'd likely be changed back within a few minutes though.

And to make sure, just check the sources.

There's other sources that you could use, if you spent the time before making statements.

[UKFan]

"lol".

It matters very little which wrestlers have held these titles.

The Undertaker has held the Hardcore title. It doesn't make its value any more worthwhile than the 3rd rate title it ended up being.

Randy Orton held the OVW Hardcore Championship. Does that mean that "Mr. Black", "Flash Flanegan" and "Trailer Park Trash" deserve the same respect? Of course not.

The majority of the titles you listed were in promotions that were nothing more than development steps for people dreaming of being in the WWE/F. Why on Earth you think that titles in Smoky Mountain Wrestling, Stampede Wrestling, Midsouth Wrestling and Georgia Championship Wrestling mean anything at the level these guys ultimately reached is beyond me.

Hell, just about every wrestler that makes it to the WWE has had to have a career background that strong to even get noticed by the WWE.

As for the complete bull about "setting criteria", it's a rumble, a wrestling match. So the same for any other bout like this; Feats. Accomplishments. Skill. Accolades. Strength. Durability.

What did you think the criteria was? See who could eat the most hotdogs?

By the way, well done for acting like a petulant, needlessly hostile little prat. Welcome to rumbles kidda.

To recap. You falsely state that Roberts won nothing not 'won nothing in the WWF', but won nothing. I point out that you're wrong.

Politely.

You wail and bitch about it like I've insulted you because you failed to do the research.

Wow.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

To recap. You falsely state that Roberts won nothing not 'won nothing in the WWF', but won nothing. I point out that you're wrong.

Politely.

You wail and bitch about it like I've insulted you because you failed to do the research.

Wow.

The thing is, with certain exceptions, winning nothing does not mean very much.

Good examples of this are The Million Dollar Man and Mr. Perfect.
Despite never being World Champions, only someone with no knowledge of them would claim that they were not at least Main Event level talent (And in very many cases better than most).

Regardless, he is right that you have to be careful about Wiki.
Using it to refresh your memory is good but it can have some really crazy stuff in it. Like a couple weeks ago someone had that Undertaker had already announced his retirement. That of course is gone now.

[Syrile Demonthyst]

Anyways..
To the match at hand.

I do have to agree that Jake takes this.

Following a match based solely on feats the DDT is one of the easiest moves to apply and Jake's was so powerful it was injuring high end wrestlers for months at a time. Following that with him being a credible threat to a lot of Superstars I think he takes this.

As for the rest, I think Billy Gunn gives him a fairly good run but he just does not have the skill to avoid the DDT (On average) nor the durability to tank it.

Pretty much same goes for everyone else.
I do think Billy comes in second for the most part, though Kamala may give him some trouble here solely out of being pretty durable.