NERDS!!!


Here's a question - who would've voted Samoa Joe or Sting over Rock?

I like Owen, I just think Joe is better. He's a better worker in a better industry. Owen was something unique and exciting in his period of American wrestling, but then came a rush of guys perfecting the style. Owen got unlucky that he never got to work with Benoit, Malenko, Angle, Booker, Saturn, Eddie, and much of the Monday Night War guys that helped change wrestling. His career would have had more highlights and higher standing. But Joe also exists in a different industry and became a standard bearer in a much more skilled and well rounded "sport" where the fans have become more jaded. Owen was flooring us with Enziguris, a move that has become a standard transitional move now.

Which again, isn't meant to be an attack on Owen. I love the dude. But he was a very good worker in a largely bad working era who played an amusing whiny heel. His best work was probably in tag action, but that may be because he didn't get the opportunity to truly shine. Fate robbed his legacy, most likely. Joe's not yet found his peak (hopefully) and half of his career has happened on a very small stage of ROH. I think his career plays better against Owen than it would many of the longer running guys in this tourney, but if most of the field of voters hasn't seen even half of it, what are you gonna do? Joe's got more potential for greatness by pure virtue of still being around, but I also think he was better positioned and skilled to make that top level than Owen ever was. But we'll never know.

And that's why I'm voting for Samoa Joe. I am completely biased towards Joe in this matchup. Samoa Joe is just fucking awesome. If you like workrate, my god, Joe is just devestating in the ring. A guy that size yet so agile and quick. Every match he's in is good, whether it's a main event that's back and forth, or a pummelling squash. The guy just portrays vicious - despite being a pretty average looking fat guy. And he can work the mic. He's got this great character who's all business, no bullshit, and hardly ever over-the-top. He's almost like an early Stone Cold Steve Austin, or even an early Batista.

If anyone has the "it" factor, it's Samoa Joe. If TNA is going to be successful, it's going to be be because of this guy. (with some help from Angle, Christian, AJ, and Curry Man)

Funny, this poll is mostly based on potential. I think a lot of people who voted Owen vote it based on the potential of what his legacy could have been if he had not died. I also think that a lot of people voting for Joe are basing it on potential of what he will do for TNA in the next 5-10 years.

Vote Joe.

Personally I think its BS to say Owen accomplished more. Surely we don't give him credit for his days as the Blue Blazer or in High Energy. He was in his prime for a longer period than Joe has been (in major national TV exposure) but in a different era when he was getting exposed less. Joe's career moves faster because modern wrestling moves faster. 12 PPV matches a year, 52 weeks a year of major TV. An era of higher level wrestlers and longer matches and bigger stakes (because again, part of what made Owen so awesome was that he was better than his peers but not better than the group that was about to change wrestling).

And again, not a knock on Owen because as I've said, I think this is a good and even matchup. But I DO think its even and to disregard Joe because his career has been too short? Owen's longer career was VERY up and down and besides one match with Bret and brief moments before HBK and Austin feuds were aborted he was a midcarder or tag team wrestler that was stupid half the time. He wasn't in heated feuds a lot of the time and he fell away to the background of WWF a lot. I think Joe has squeezed in a comparable amount in the 3 years in TNA that Owen did in 8 years in WWF. I also think Joe's 4 years in ROH were more high profile and had a LOT more than anything Owen did outside of WWF (Stampede, Japan, whatever). Now I'm not saying that Joe is better than Owen in this regard. Owen/Yoko, Owen/Bulldog, the Bret feud, the "Black Hart", even the "King of Harts." It was good-great stuff.

All I'm saying is that I bet if you REALLY thought about it Owen wouldn't have "5 years" worth of more resume than Joe does. Even if he has 5 years more in a major TV promotion. Seems silly to me that a constant motivator for votes during this tournament has seemed to be longevity without real acknowledgment of how much was in that time. A LOT of these modern guys seem to be falling because they haven't been or weren't around long enough. Yet wrestling in Texas and wrestling on WWF Superstars and touring around the country doing the same match again and again are held up as the deciding factors. And I'm not saying these things should be marks against them. They were the eras and environments they were in. But wrestling changed and got a LOT faster and a LOT more competitive and a LOT more got squeezed into the same amount of time. Feuds that would be strung out for months across syndicated television filled with squashes over jobbers became 4 and 8 week feuds done on national TV over 1-5 hours a week of serious and competitive "primetime" action. Matches that USED to be special and rare became constant. Title reigns got shorter.

I get the basic instinct that if you spent a decade loving a guy like Owen that feels like more than the 2 years you've dug Joe. But to say Joe needs to put in years more when he's probably doing 2 or 3 times as much big stuff as Owen did during many of his years (and in fairness, Owen was around for the first few years of this change) just seems silly. And its been repeated a LOT during this tourney. ESPECIALLY with the TNA guys like AJ, Joe, and Daniels but also the ECW guys. Not to say I expected them to go far, especially with a group that pretty much consistently prefers nostalgia. But this whole time its really felt to me like there's been an almost "quantity over quality" standard. Not to say Owen or anyone else wasn't legitimate quality.

Well, I presume when people say that guys like AJ or Daniels or Joe need to put in more time they're really talking about what they've seen in mainstream wrestling. Joe may have been around for 9 years but he's only had 3 years in the TNA spotlight. He probably clocks in around 6 if you count ROH but for a lot of people ROH isn't too accessible. Of course if those same people are giving credit to Owen in Japan then its kinda unfair to discount ROH. But presumably people are talking about Owen's time in WWF vs Joe's time in TNA. Even if ROH may not be much less accessible than ECW or Texas Wrestling.

I just think a LOT more gets squeezed into 1 year of wrestling in 2005 than in 1 year of wrestling in 1995. Forget about one year of wrestling in 1985.

And with wrestling fans you never know how much the "he never got a chance" argument can carry Owen.

He never got a chance to be great, he never got a chance to get passed by dozens of better wrestlers. If CM Punk died today he'd probably become a folk hero.

So then how is "he never got a chance" argument so much worse than the "he MIGHT do all this stuff possibly in the future" one?

Its not really. Thankfully I never really made the 2nd one. I think I mentioned it but only in counter to the "Owen's potential." Because Joe does have the potential to be a World Champion and to carry a company. Owen might have had a shot at the WWF Title (although I highly doubt it) but he was likely gonna get passed by the crazy good talents reaching stardom. IF you're gonna judge Owen for what he could have been, its only fair to judge Joe for what he can be. And lets not forget that Owen died at 34 and Joe is 28. Joe's got a lot more time than Owen would have had.

But personally I say you judge the two on what they are and not what they might (have) become. And I think as much as Owen was a unique and talented wrestler in his day Joe is regarded as a top 5 guy in the world, and that the stuff Owen was doing in '97 is now common place and has been surpassed. I think Joe is a unique talent that we've never seen before (or at least that I can't think of a comp for) that has already helped raise one company into a higher stage of profitability and relevance and drew a lot of attention to TNA.

Hogan will get 3, maybe 4 votes to Flair's 19.

I was at WM20, and Benoit winning the belt is probably my #1 live wrestling moment. Thus, I voted for Benoit.

Andre did a great acting job in Princess Bride.

Hell, I'd call Arn Anderson 10x the promo man than Rock ever was. He wasn't flamboyant and the fans didn't cheer for him but every time he opened his mouth he cut an intense and direct promo without a miss that told a complete story and added to a match or feud.

And I'll still forgive Storm all of his harsh and crazy words if he just comes to TNA, brings Daniels back, and gets Roode as his Awesome. Then he can start every promo with "Can I be serious for a moment? This silliness is retarded. This is not wrestling. Wrestling is conflict! I'm from Calgary... Alberta, Canada." Or something.

Storm & Daniels vs Sharkboy & Curry Man. Can't you see it now?