Better Wrestler #30

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Wishbone Okay, first and foremost I assumed the "racist" thing was a joke but you're starting to make me wonder, dude. If you're seriously saying that people are racists over this then you're just being stupid. I'm gonna continue to assume you're joking though because you've always seemed smarter than that. Anyway, you're making the assumption that I'd choose either of these guys if I was building my own promotion which I would not. If I absolutely had to pick one I'd pick Reigns because he has the potential to at least be semi-viable in the modern world. We saw Khali be used exactly as you're saying and it still flopped. He was in movies, and if you think Vince didn't get every movie role he could for the big oaf you're a fool. Hollywood just isn't interested in that either at this point. You're stuck in the past, Noid. You still seem to think that the old style of spectacle is something people care about and it's not. What you personally see as spectacle is a massive turn off to young people who are in fact the number one demographic at the moment. You ever wonder why the action stars of the 80s died out? There are still plenty of guys that fit that mold out there but people don't pay to see big muscular morons say one liners anymore. We live in a different age and the mentality you have is the same mentality that Vince has despite you often claiming to disagree with him. You could definitely use Khali a bit better than they did, but the end result would always be the same. As for your assertion that you could use him in India I again have to ask how often that would actually be of use. How often are you actually going to be in India as a global company? You're essentially saying that you'd build around a guy for one singular purpose and that's just ludicrous. Now having him around wouldn't be a terrible thing, but to actually put any major stock in him as a pillar of your company would be crazy.

It is a joke. I shouldn't have to explain that, because you've always seemed smarter than that. But your reluctance to run in India regular because it isn't "global" enough for you makes me wonder...

No, I'm not making that assumption -- I'm providing that as a potential tool for analyzing value. Deciding which of two talents is more valuable to a hypothetical wrestling promotion is definitely a viable method of determining who is the "Better Wrestler," since ultimately the dude you want to get is the better one.

Did Khali flop? Really? Do you just mean critically among smark fans? When he lost the belt to Batista, ratings did go up, I'll give you that, but they were higher then than they are now. And this isn't Khali vs. Batista; it's Khali vs. Roman Reigns.

Of course Khali was in movies -- that is what I am referencing. Why are you telling me things I do not know? He's got a very specific look, no shit, so there's only so many things he can do. But when he does them you promote them and you use them to generate money. If you don't, you're a fool.

Isn't Roman Reigns basically Vince's attempt at an action hero? You want to tell me they're dying out? Fine, but don't defend then defend the action hero. Spectacle dying out might actually be what is wrong with professional wrestling today. That might be why fewer 18-49 year olds are watching, and why fewer kids, proportionately, are watching than ever before. Where are you getting this information that they are the #1 demographic? And where are you getting this information that they don't like watching giants chop things down?