[Mikey]

Since the first vote ended in a bullshit no-finish that the fans crapped all over, and I'm too lazy to think of a good tiebreaker, so we're just gonna do this again.





Gonna leave this one open til Friday night around midnight eastern.

[Tommy]

IT'S ANDRE!!!!!!!

[DevSop]

Come one, come all let's watch ANDRE shut Taker out...

[The Jewish Cunthead]

Nope... Taker.

[Lucky]

Oh goody. A brand new life for the nostalgic sack of crap that's sure to have the edge in a shorter runoff.

[Mikey]

Let's list the good->great matches that both men have competed in:

Undertaker:

vs. Mankind at KOTR '96
vs. Shawn Michaels at Ground Zero '97
vs. Bret Hart at One Night Only (UK PPV '97)
vs. Shawn Michaels at Badd Blood '97
vs. Mankind at KOTR '98
vs. Steve Austin at SummerSlam '98
vs. Steve Austin on RAW June '99
vs. HHH at WM-X7
vs. Ric Flair at WM-X8
vs. Jeff Hardy on RAW July '02
vs. The Rock and Kurt Angle at Vengeance '02
vs. Brock Lesnar at No Mercy '02
vs. the BIG SHOW at No Way Out '03
[sure I'm forgetting some here]
vs. Kurt Angle at No Way Out '06

Andre:

.....?

[Lucky]

Again, Andre fans. ONE argument for him that doesn't include the Princess Bride or "he's big!" and I'll stop talking shit. Or at least calling him a sack of shit.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

You forgot "B-b-b-b-but it's Andre"

[Moosehead Jack]

Andre was more important to wrestling as a whole than Taker has ever been. Andre was THE attraction in the 70's and at least part of the 80's.

Taker, he was a nice sideshow distraction

[Lucky]

Oh yeah? Well Taker was more popular and made more money, even when taking into consideration inflation.

See? I can say unsubstantiated things and pretend they are factual arguments too.

What I have trouble doing is voting in a wrestling tournament and ignoring that one guy is about a million times a better wrestler.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

Mikey wrote this in the nomination thread and it's pretty much how I'm voting in this thing -

Best Wrestler: This takes into account drawing power, star power, workrate, character, interviews, the whole smash.

At the very least, Taker has a 3-2 edge.

[Lucky]

You're crazy. Andre was the biggest draw EVER. He and Hogan drew 200 Billion people. Hulk said so.

He was 7'3" and Taker is only 6'11". Bigger star. Duh.

Andre wrestled real good... uh... sometime in the... uh... 70s?

Andre had great characters. First he was nice big guy and then he was mean big guy.

I might give Taker interviews. But only because you new fans don't understand French.

[salmonjunkie]

But IT'S UNDERTAKER!~

[jmd]

Lucky's right... the more I think about it, the more I realize I only want to vote for Andre because he had an aura of invincibility when I was a seven year old mark. I can't come up with a single reason or great moment beyond the two he had with Hogan (Mania 3 and the initial Hebner screwjob), and either of those could have been done with anyone else if they happened to be the same size and had no other talent. Heck, you probably could have done them with John Studd and accomplished the same thing, if you'd had him go over Andre during their feud and kept him strong afterwards.

If Taker doesn't win, it'll be a shame.

[Lucky]

Because I was arguing this with Moose and Tommy tonight I want to make clear. I concede that Andre is one of the most historically significant wrestlers in wrestling history. If not THE one.

But my question is why? Moose says "Because he was the THE attraction of the '70s." Why? Because he was big.

Tommy says "Because he made Hogan and without that wrestling would not be what it is." Ok. How? By being body slammed and beat by Hogan. He passively made Hogan. But that's ok, because it was because of his aura, right? His aura and unbeatable rep that came from... being big. And the visual that made it was the body slam of the big guy.

I know Tommy thinks I'm unfairly dismissing him. I don't think I am. He is historically significant. But not because of his ring ability, promo work, character, and any personal skill or ability. Because he was born with a birth defect. Everything you can argue for Andre comes down to that. Acromegaly.

[Tommy]

And as I mentioned to you in the chat - what I think of when I think Undertaker:

Chokeslam, Tombstone, Last Ride, "Rest In Peace".

We can now add "Snake Eyes", "Old School" and "weird choky thing" to that. Who did Taker "make"? Who did he put over? Andre was the most popular draw in the WWF for a decade before he put Hogan over. His heel turn previous to that was huge. And comparing a moveset from the 70s to someone working currently; ANYONE; is inherently unfair. Was Andre a big workrate guy? Hell no; but he made what he did do LOOK dominating.

I'm saying Andre is more than just "Historically Significant", he one of the very MOST historically significant workers there was. Without Andre, there's no Hogan, there's no Rock N Wrestling, there's no mainstream appeal, and chances are good there's no Taker; and there's a good possibility this board doesn't exist.

Then again, you mentioned to me in chat that you think Cena is more significant than Andre, so I'm pretty much done arguing this point.

Just know it's not just "cause I love the 80s stuff". I'm a WCW/ECW/TNA mark, and a lot of the 80s stuff doesn't hold much water for me; but even I would acknowledge the significance of Andre. So I voted like I did.

But, Owen beat Sting in the last round; so I just assume anyone who advances likely makes no sense.

[jmd]

If Nelson Frazier had been born in the 1950s instead of the 1970s, isn't it entirely possible we'd be talking about Mabel the Giant rather than Andre the Giant? That's the question here, not Andre's undeniable and quite possibly unparalleled significance in the history of pro wrestling. What could/did Andre do that Viscera can't? Because I can't think of anything...

[Tommy]

Really? Because I don't remember arenas being filled because Viscera was headlining the show.
It's called selling, it's called match psychology and it's called personality; 3 things Viscera is unable or unwilling to do.

Also, I don't remember Viscera putting anyone over and making their career. Must have been all those awesome feuds Viscera was in.

Are you serious with this?

[Lucky]

I did not say Cena is more significant than Taker. In fact I don't think I ever even mentioned to two in the same thought. I said that I'd choose Cena over Andre. I said Cena has been a great DRAW for WWE as is evidenced in the numbers. And that he's been an above average worked for 3 years and the most reliable guy in the company, probably the 3rd or 4th most reliable and good guy in the country during that time (Joe, Danielson, AJ). That he's a better promo and character than Andre. That's an entirely different argument and I really think we weren't even talking about the same thing in chat. I prefer Cena to Andre and would make the case if they matched up. Cena has to rank with the top guys over the last 10 or 20 years as far as draw goes, simply by the numbers. And I prefer him as a performer.

Taker vs Cena? I'd probably take Taker. And there's no doubt that Taker is more historically significant even if Cena is a bigger draw (and I'm not sure he is). I don't even remember that question coming up in chat.

Tommy, we don't disagree and I don't know how many times I can tell you that I think Andre might be the most historically significant wrestler in history before you believe me that I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the hows and whys. Its ALL because he was big. Andre made things look dominating because he was big. He was able to form an aura before he was big. He made Hogan because he was big. He drew because he was big. He was big. That's the beginning and end of his contributions. He was there at the right time and right place and used right to become what he became. But Big Show would have worked just as well if he had been born earlier. Probably better because he was a better performer.

I'd vote 50 people in this showdown over Hogan. He's 2nd to Andre in terms of historical significance, if he's not above him or his equal. That's ONE merit in my book. He's got no other merits. And seeing as how Taker is an icon in his own right and one of the biggest draws of the last 20 years? It doesn't give Andre that much of an edge before we start factoring in the other criteria.

Now you think that WM3 is the end all and be all. Begins and ends there, open and shut case, 'nuff said. I don't. Its as simple as that. I care about the ringwork, the character, the ability, the feuds, and everything else. And 20 years after WM3 can Andre entertain me? No, he can't. Not from a damn thing I've been shown or people have said (except for these mysterious matches Moose keeps mentioning from the '70s).

Citizen Kane is arguably the most historically significant movie of all time. It bores me to fucking tears and there are hundreds of films I think are better. Birth of a Nation is one of the most historically significant movies of all time. Please shoot me if I ever have to watch it again. See what I mean? You can disagree. I think its clear that you do. You're voting for "Who was the most important wrestler?" I'm voting for "Who was the best?" That way I didn't have to compromise my criteria when I voted RVD over Hogan. Hogan was more important, RVD was better.

[Tommy]

I meant Cena over Andre. Sorry. I edited the previous post appropriately.

Edit: I didn't say WMIII was the be all and end all, but to not see that and the program leading up to that as absolutely huge in wrestling's development; I just don't know how you can do that.

Like you said, we don't disagree much here; I just put more significance on some things, and you put more significance on other things.

That doesn't mean it's always the case, and it doesn't mean either of us are wrong. Taker was huge for the advancement of the WWF/E and a huge draw. I just feel like Andre putting Hogan over was the cornerstone moment in modern wrestling history. That's not the be all and end all, but it's big.

That's why I voted like I did. I just wanted to make sure you understand that it's not "cause I like 80s stuff"; there's an actual reason.

[Lucky]

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't say he was more historically significant. I said I think he's a better performer. Because he's a big draw if not as big as Andre and he's WORLDS better of a performer. You disagree because you see ring psychology and ability that I sure as fuck don't and I'd love someone to point me to because WM3 ain't doing it for me. But I never said Cena is more historically significant. Fuck, Cena ain't got Nash, Hall, HBK, HHH, Austin, Rock, Taker, Bret, or Flair beat. I'm not sure if he has Rey, Benoit, and Eddie beat.

RE: you response to JMD? He said if Viscera had been there THEN. To then undermine his argument because he didn't do it NOW is either you missing his entire point or being a jerk. After Andre and others Viscera doesn't have the same affect. But in 1975, would he have? THAT was JMD's point. If Paul Wight had been born then, would he have been Andre? If The Great Khali had been there, would he have been Andre? Disagree if you like, but you just took JMD's argument and rewrote into something he never said. Viscera's lack of significance doesn't mean shit to his hypothetical question. The point is if Andre became ANDRE because he was fucking huge and something they had never seen before, then wouldn't another fucking huge guy have done the job just as well? There's probably some margin for difference. Khali would have been worse, Wight might have been better. But the same basic historical significance could have been made.


EDIT: "This board likes '80s stuff" is an exaggerated swipe. Why is that everyone on this board can make racist comments, behave like pedophiles, tell each other to die, call each other gay, and do anything else but my shit always' taken literally?

Fact is this is a board of guys who mostly grew up in the '80s. Many of their cherished memories from their formidable years came them. As a result EVERY one of these showdowns has shown a clear bias towards the '80s. Do I think you all just prefer it JUST because its from them? No. I think you legitimately prefer it. Because you were a little kid and it was ANDRE. And because I was a young man and it was some big dude who couldn't talk or wrestle as well as other guys as big as him with the same disease it doesn't impact me that same way. Meanwhile there's shit I grew up with that left a mark on me that you can see with a clearer and less biased view, I'm sure (not that we're far apart in age, but there will be a difference on some things and it helps that I didn't watch wrestling until I was 15).

The '80s have dominated these Showdowns and the general humor of the board and it wears me down. Because there have been a lot of things that I think we should judge with as much objectivity as possible. But I think you've demonstrated that you're not voting for Andre because you were seven and he was a monster. But because you are voting for "Most Important." Fine. I just don't think that's what this showdown is at all.

[Tommy]

luckylopez said:

RE: you response to JMD? He said if Viscera had been there THEN.

That's not what he said:

jmd said:

What could/did Andre do that Viscera can't? Because I can't think of anything...

What could Andre do that Viscera CAN'T (present tense). Even if he meant what could he do that Viscera COULDN'T HAVE DONE, my second sentence is an appropriate answer:

tommyd420 said:

Really? Because I don't remember arenas being filled because Viscera was headlining the show.
It's called selling, it's called match psychology and it's called personality; 3 things Viscera is unable or unwilling to do.

Also, I don't remember Viscera putting anyone over and making their career. Must have been all those awesome feuds Viscera was in.
Are you serious with this?

luckylopez said:

To then undermine his argument because he didn't do it NOW is either you missing his entire point or being a jerk. After Andre and others Viscera doesn't have the same affect. But in 1975, would he have? THAT was JMD's point.

The way he phrased that, that was NOT his point. That's YOUR point. The answer either way is the same. Andre sold; Andre was able to use psychology in matches, and Andre had personality; all things Viscera does not do or does not have. So no, he wouldn't have then either.

luckylopez said:

If Paul Wight had been born then, would he have been Andre?

Show would have been even bigger than Andre.

luckylopez said:

If The Great Khali had been there, would he have been Andre?

No fucking way. See my answer: personality, ring psychology, and selling. Khali does none of these. He just says "Blargh".

luckylopez said:

Disagree if you like, but you just took JMD's argument and rewrote into something he never said.

It appears you took what JMD said and turned it into your arguement. Which is a legitimate arguement, just not what JMD said originally.

luckylopez said:

Viscera's lack of significance doesn't mean shit to his hypothetical question.

It means everything. He asked what CAN Viscera do that Andre could not. I answered.

luckylopez said:

The point is if Andre became ANDRE because he was fucking huge and something they had never seen before, then wouldn't another fucking huge guy have done the job just as well?

No, as I've mentioned above.

luckylopez said:

There's probably some margin for difference. Khali would have been worse,

Yes.

luckylopez said:

Wight might have been better.

Undoubtably.

luckylopez said:

But the same basic historical significance could have been made.

I disagree. If Andre was just a big fat guy who no-sold everything, didn't know how to work a match, and had no personality, he wouldn't have been the top draw of the company.

[jmd]

I should point out again that I came late to this party, so there may be things I'm missing in the criteria we're supposed to be considering, or how we're supposed to be weighing them. But I think there are more important things than historical significance.

As far as significance itself goes, Andre is the number two guy, behind Hogan, of anyone we could consider in my opinion. I won't argue with you about selling tickets or building up the business, anything like that. I would dispute the extent to which he made Hogan, though... if I'm not mistaken, Hogan did great business with Piper, Bundy, and Orndorff well before the Andre heel turn even happened.

What it comes down to for my vote is; when I was forced to think about why I liked Andre (and I voted for him in the first go round, in fact), I had to acknowledge I couldn't think of anything not related to either nostalgia or how big he was. I don't know of a single great match or promo he's ever had that stands up to a modern viewing. Maybe there are intangibles in his work that I just don't see, that modern monster types couldn't have replicated if they were given the same chance and same build he was... but I just don't know what those things are. I don't see it.

ETA:

I've cross-posted with Tommy, so I'm going to elaborate some here. First of all, I was sloppy with tenses, but I did intend to ask what Andre did that Viscera could not have done if he was there at the time and given the same opportunity, not what he can do now.

Second, I've seen Viscera sell. His selling is fine for a monster heel type. I'll give you personality, I guess, although I don't recall any great Andre promos... but psychology? He's a big dude who squashes people. Where's the psychology in that?

Andre was able to be the top draw because he was something no one had seen before in wrestling. His personality was that he was a huge scary looking dude. His psychology was that he was a huge scary looking dude who beat people up. He was the immovable object. It worked because it hadn't been done on that kind of scale, or anything close to it, before.

Have you ever seen any of the really, really early movies? Stuff like a 50 second clip of women leaving a factory at the end of their shift, or a train arriving at a platform? It's not good film, even if it's monumentally important historically, and even if it caused a sensation among everyone who saw it. It worked not because it's good film, but because it's something that hadn't been seen before. It wasn't even LIKE anything that'd been seen before. It shocked the hell out of people. But that doesn't change the fact that it's 50 seconds of women walking out of a factory, or 30 seconds of a train slowing down.

[salmonjunkie]

luckylopez said:

Citizen Kane is arguably the most historically significant movie of all time. It bores me to fucking tears and there are hundreds of films I think are better. Birth of a Nation is one of the most historically significant movies of all time. Please shoot me if I ever have to watch it again.

quoted for fucking truth

[National Champion Chris Cole]

Is Andre undefeated at Wrestlemania?

I'd say at this point Taker is as much of an icon as Andre. The only difference is that in the 70s he was the ONLY big draw in town. Taker is now surroounded by other greats.