Break it down 1: Best faces

[El-P]

And yes, Lawler no sold his opponents offense during comeback. Drop the strap, no-sell, punches. Every time.

Except for the times that he doesn't, which is all the time.

 

This isn't about sacred cows. This is about you being wrong. Explain why you're right, or stop trying to front like you are.

 

Ok son, read my last post back if you can understand the words. I think I said *3 times* something to the effect of "well, that's the impression I got, but maybe I'm wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm wrong".

 

So at this point, you're just being a dickhead for the sake of it. Maybe you're not used to people acknowledging the fact that they may be wrong. And I'm not the only one saying that Lawler was hulking up, but you're no-selling that one. So my best guess is at this time you're just trolling me. So ease up, have a drink, and stop acting like a douche. Thanks in advance.

[Coffey]

I just went and watched quite a few Lawler clips on YouTube and it looks like he kind of did both. Sometimes he would no-sell right before the strap came down, sometimes he would no-sell right after the strap came down. Sometimes he didn't no-sell at all and the strap coming down just made the heel beg him off or signaled him switching to offense. You watch a different clip, against Dundee or Funk or Martel, and you get different things.

 

There is no question that he was "Hulking up" in all of them though.

[NintendoLogic]

I think the argument's getting a little muddled. If someone's trying to argue that Lawler never no-sold at all, of course that's ridiculous. Arguing that he didn't no-sell everything that happened prior to his comeback sequence the way Warrior often did is much more accurate.

[El-P]

Let's be precise : I never said Lawler was no-selling the entire match after his comeback. I said Lawler no-sells the offense that his opponent is dishing out during the comeback sequence. I thought it was clear from the beginning we were talking about *comeback sequence*. Not for everyone I guess.

 

I dropped the Warrior's name just because to me, the dropping down the strap before the comeback is like Warrior shaking the ropes : a visual gimmick : "I don't care much for any comeback that consist of no-selling. Lawler dropping the strap equals Warrior shaking the ropes to me." I could have said "equals Sting hitting his chest", and this would have probably been less offensive to some sensitive souls.

[smkelly]

If someone's trying to argue that Lawler never no-sold at all, of course that's ridiculous.

Not around here it isn't.

 

Except for the times that he doesn't, which is all the time.

Except Lawler didnt no sell during comebacks. The only time I recall that happening was during Lawler/Martel when he brushed off some leg work

I meant to lol at this earlier.

[El-P]

Because Jerry Lawler never does a no-sell routine during his comeback. Never.

 

As illustrated from 00:42 and on :

[Dylan Waco]

I like the part during the routine there where he is back to selling literally less than a minute after his "no selling" comeback.

[El-P]

I like the part during the routine there where he is back to selling literally less than a minute after his "no selling" comeback.

Yeah, be a smart-ass Dylan. It doesn't change the fact that he made a comeback with a no-selling routine, which is the whole point. I don't even know why I even bother at this point.

[Dylan Waco]

I've never seen a babyface who made a comeback with a "no selling" routine that was similar to that on some level. Even with Morton it wasn't uncommon for him to tag out after taking a ten minute beating and then be back in firing offense to help Robert "clear the ring" or set up for the fall thirty seconds later.

 

Don't call me a smart ass because I watched your "proof" and thought it showcased the irrelevancy and stupidity of your argument.

[El-P]

I've never seen a babyface who made a comeback with a "no selling" routine that was similar to that on some level. Even with Morton it wasn't uncommon for him to tag out after taking a ten minute beating and then be back in firing offense to help Robert "clear the ring" or set up for the fall thirty seconds later.

That's entirely different. You never see Ricky Morton get up no selling a bunch of kicks and punchs and then make the hot tag.

 

Don't call me a smart ass because I watched your "proof" and thought it showcased the irrelevancy and stupidity of your argument.

Ok. Watch the video :

_Lawler is down. Idol kicks him once : Lawler doesn't sell it and get up like he's upset.

_Austin kicks him a second time : Lawler no-sells it and then goes up on his feet.

_Austin punches Lawler three times in the face, granted Lawler registers he's been hit but act like it didn't hurt him and act all pissed instead. Then Lawler proceed to punch Austin in the face several times.

 

Lawler no-sold 5 offensive shots from Austin, two of which looked like they revived Lawler. Now, if you don't call that a "no-selling routine comeback", then nothing is a no-selling routine comeback.

 

So yeah, you're a smart ass mentionning Lawler going back to selling *after* his comeback (and a ref bump), a point I never even argued against. Shit, even Warrior would sell during the post-comeback finishing sequence if it was needed (which wasn't often the case, but still).

Just deal with the fact that Lawler, at least *at times*, did a no-sell comeback routine.

[Loss]

I've kinda changed my tune and decided I don't have a problem with a no-selling comeback. We all have wrestlers we like who have done it and wrestlers we don't like who have done it -- the details are in the execution. If someone can pull it off in a way that seems organic and fits the tone of the match, good for them.

[Dylan Waco]

The difference here is that you see a "no selling routine" as being something different than what I see a "no selling routine" as being. To me "no selling routine" requires total indifference to any previous work that has been executed in the match in the course of a comeback that is sustained. That's not what is happening here. I can buy that sort of thing as a burst of energy and don't see it as no selling as long as the wrestler in question wear's the damage in some way. If he goes back to selling less than a minute later I fail to see how it can be qualified as "no selling" in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

Not being a smart ass. I just don't mind that sort of "no selling" since it has occurred in probably 90% of competitive wrestling matches in the history of wrestling.

[ohtani's jacket]

A ref bump as a cut-off for the "hulk up" is not a good example of going back to selling. The whole spot was just a teased comeback.

[Dylan Waco]

A ref bump as a cut-off for the "hulk up" is not a good example of going back to selling. The whole spot was just a teased comeback.

It's also not a good example of a "no selling routine" at least not the sense that I would use the term.

[Loss]

There is absolutely a difference being an organic comeback where the babyface gets punched in the face, finally has enough and loses their shit, and Hulk Hogan deeming the first 95% of a match meaningless. I don't know what to tell people who can't see the difference when they watch the matches. It's not a structural issue, rather it's one of timing and execution.

[S.L.L.]

Ok son, read my last post back if you can understand the words.

Ok, dad....

 

Well, I'm glad I'm not totally hallucinating then, because at some point, I was just wondering if my brain was totally fucked up (and since I'm too lazy to dig into my external hard drive for Lawler matches...)

 

That was specifically in response to....

 

No, Lawler did the "hulk up" comeback. I don't see how that can even be a debate.

So your last post back (aside from the Tito stuff, which I'm sure wasn't what you meant) was you specifically agreeing that Lawler no-sold. You also made several posts since this one that continued to push the "Lawler was a no-seller" line.

 

I think I said *3 times* something to the effect of "well, that's the impression I got, but maybe I'm wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm wrong".

Yeah, and if I had caught that earlier, I would've given you a pat on the back and agreed to disagree. Then one guy strongly agreed with your original position, and that was enough for you to immediately revert to it. I know English isn't your first language, but you generally seem to be pretty good at it. You're too good to do the Hercule Poirot/Charlie Chan "funny foreigner uses his funny foreignness to trick his enemies into underestimating him" bit. And if that's not what you're going for, you may want to get a refund from whoever taught you English reading comprehension, because you suck ass at it.

 

So at this point, you're just being a dickhead for the sake of it.

 

For the sake of it? Bitch, please. I've always followed the Bugs Bunny rule. If everyone's getting along, cool. If you start being a dick in my general vicinity, this means war. As Bo Diddley put it, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself". I get zero satisfaction from bullying the innocent. But paying douchebaggery unto doucebaggery? Well, I'm not going to pretend it's a positive trait, but I don't feel too bad about it, either.

 

Maybe you're not used to people acknowledging the fact that they may be wrong.

 

Of course not. It's the internet. NO ONE admits to being wrong. Hell, I'd like to think I'm a fairly honest dude, and even I rarely admit to being wrong unless it's about something serious. What I do do most of the time is quietly disappear and let the guy who was right get the last word, since, well, he's right, and he deserves that. What I don't do is the "Jumbo was Lazy/Murdoch was Lazy/Lawler No-Sold All the Time" thing of continuing to press my argument, or twist and change it around in a desperate attempt to be "right" in spite of all the mounting evidence to the contrary. That's a much bigger dick move than anything I'm pulling here.

 

And I'm not the only one saying that Lawler was hulking up, but you're no-selling that one.

 

Yeah, because it's still wrong. Two people saying something wrong doesn't make it true, it makes two people wrong. I mean, there are way more than two people who think we never landed on the moon. Way more than two people who think 9/11 was an inside job. Way more than two people who think the Holocaust never happened, or that psychic powers are real, or that they've been abducted by aliens, or that Bigfoot exists...why shouldn't I no-sell it? The only thing it proves is that you're dumb enough to believe that it proves anything. And if there's any merit to it at all, guess what? There's more than one person arguing that Lawler doesn't no-sell! And there seems to be more of them! So even if that did mean something, it would probably mean you were wrong. Here's your dunce cap. Go sit in the corner.

 

I dropped the Warrior's name just because to me, the dropping down the strap before the comeback is like Warrior shaking the ropes : a visual gimmick : "I don't care much for any comeback that consist of no-selling. Lawler dropping the strap equals Warrior shaking the ropes to me." I could have said "equals Sting hitting his chest", and this would have probably been less offensive to some sensitive souls.

But his visual indicator doesn't indicate no-selling. It just indicates him sucking it up and trying for a comeback. It's wrestling. It happens. All the damn time. The fact that you only see it as a problem when Jerry does it means you're...

 

A. Ignorant (willful or not)

B. Stupid

C. Lying

 

I'm still willing to believe A, but I'm starting to lean B. Again, really don't want to assume C, but the option is on the table.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just watched the Lawler vs. Austin Idol match and that is 100% the hulking up, no-selling comeback. He does it here against Terry Funk too, 6 minutes in:

 

There is no problem with this. The vast majority of wrestling matches have this spot, and it makes perfect logical sense: the fired-up babyface is high on adrenaline and so can take a few punches or whatever as he's caught up in the moment. In real life, people can do all sorts of amazing thing on adrenaline.

 

The problem only comes when guys act like they are fresh or haven't taken any punishment AFTER that. If they've been selling a leg the whole match but then forget about it after their arm is raised. I don't think anyone is accusing Lawler of that. We're talking a 30-second spurt of energy here. Unless I've missed something.

[S.L.L.]

I just watched the Lawler vs. Austin Idol match and that is 100% the hulking up, no-selling comeback. He does it here against Terry Funk too, 6 minutes in:

 

There is no problem with this. The vast majority of wrestling matches have this spot, and it makes perfect logical sense: the fired-up babyface is high on adrenaline and so can take a few punches or whatever as he's caught up in the moment. In real life, people can do all sorts of amazing thing on adrenaline.

 

The problem only comes when guys act like they are fresh or haven't taken any punishment AFTER that. If they've been selling a leg the whole match but then forget about it after their arm is raised. I don't think anyone is accusing Lawler of that. We're talking a 30-second spurt of energy here. Unless I've missed something.

Which goes back to what Dylan said:

 

The difference here is that you see a "no selling routine" as being something different than what I see a "no selling routine" as being. To me "no selling routine" requires total indifference to any previous work that has been executed in the match in the course of a comeback that is sustained. That's not what is happening here. I can buy that sort of thing as a burst of energy and don't see it as no selling as long as the wrestler in question wear's the damage in some way. If he goes back to selling less than a minute later I fail to see how it can be qualified as "no selling" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Which I completely agree with (and by extension, I agree with you on). The argument is whether or not even that is acceptable.

 

It also has to be noted that the term "Hulk-Up" has, to the best of my knowledge, always referred to something very specific: a sudden, complete recharge of energy and elimination of all previous damage taken, combined with the inability to take more damage unless something very, very serious happens, en route to (usually) victory. In other words, it's what Hogan did so frequently. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be calling it the Hulk-Up.

 

Jerry Lawler matches frequently have a spot near the end where he gets a short-term adrenaline rush, that lets him eat up his opponent's offense to the best of his ability and make a last ditch effort at victory. This is not, under any circumstances, Hulking-Up.

 

Jerome's argument has become a wibbly-wobbly mishmash of nonsense where the main point seems to be "my assessment of Jerry Lawler's selling is the correct one" more than it is any claim of what that assessment is. He's gone back and forth between "Lawler does the full Hogan/Warrior no-sell" and "Lawler's comeback includes no-selling" at least three times in the last 24 hours...or at least I think he has, since he's used very deceptive language, seemingly to couch his words in case he gets called on a particularly silly claim. Consider that he started by comparing Lawler's selling to Warrior's. That suggests something extremely specific for most of us (a total Hulk-Up), and I'm disinclined to think Jerome is too clueless not to know that. But when called on it....

 

I dropped the Warrior's name just because to me, the dropping down the strap before the comeback is like Warrior shaking the ropes : a visual gimmick : "I don't care much for any comeback that consist of no-selling. Lawler dropping the strap equals Warrior shaking the ropes to me." I could have said "equals Sting hitting his chest", and this would have probably been less offensive to some sensitive souls.

So yeah, you're a smart ass mentionning Lawler going back to selling *after* his comeback (and a ref bump), a point I never even argued against. Shit, even Warrior would sell during the post-comeback finishing sequence if it was needed (which wasn't often the case, but still).

When somebody compares someone else's selling to that of The Ultimate Warrior, do you think of the fact that Warrior's comeback had a visual cue? Do you think of the fact that, in a handful of matches, Warrior's Hulk-Up didn't finish the job, and he sold as much afterwords? Or do you think of the fact that Warrior would start dancing like Jennifer Beals to "Maniac", completely forget he was hurt, ignore any further attempts at offense on his person, and promptly squash his opponent? Let me answer that for you - you'd think of the last one, and while I mocked his intelligence in my last post, I have to think Jerome knows this. I doubt it started this way, he probably actually believed what he was saying, but when backed into a corner, he used his arguments as weasel words, allowing him to claim he was right all along by recontextualising his argument to mean something different while staying true to the letter of it. I still can't call him a liar, but his capacity for dishonesty is greater than I've given him credit for.

 

Unless he's just dumb. I mean, for God's sakes..."And I'm not the only one saying that Lawler was hulking up, but you're no-selling that one."...if I ever make a argument like "more than one person agrees with me on something, clearly that validates my claim", I hope you'd all do me the favor of ruthlessly mocking me until I learn my lesson. Tough love and all that.

[Johnny Sorrow]

And even when talking about Hulk Hogan, during his first year as WWF Champion his "Hulk ups" were awesome because he'd have had the shit kicked out of him for most of a match and he's be drenched in sweat and often wearing the crimson mask when he'd point and go "YOU!" He sold the beating he had gotten during the Hulk up just by looking like someone had just kicked the shit out of him

[JerryvonKramer]

SLL - ah, I understand where you're coming from now.

[smkelly]

There is absolutely a difference being an organic comeback where the babyface gets punched in the face, finally has enough and loses their shit, and Hulk Hogan deeming the first 95% of a match meaningless. I don't know what to tell people who can't see the difference when they watch the matches. It's not a structural issue, rather it's one of timing and execution.

Agreed. I liked how Cena made his comeback in the LMS matching against Umaga. Lawler helped make that moment better by saying exactly the same thing Cena's facial expressions were - give me your best shot.

 

I can dig that. Sting was good at it, like when Flair would chop him to hell, and then, nope, not working anymore. And the thing that worked about it the most in my mind was that Flair would cut Sting off by going back after his knee. Like how Cena's comeback got cut off by a dangerous looking Samoan drop. I think failed babyface comebacks are vastly superior to successful babyface comebacks.

 

And between the parties that are arguing, I think there is some serious misinterpretations going on.

 

The issue of Lawler never no-selling is a ridiculous thing to say. But to me it is mostly a semantics thing.

 

El-P:

I don't care much for any comeback that consist of no-selling.

SLL:

If Lawler's comebacks = Warrior's comebacks, all babyface comebacks = Warrior's comebacks.

In response to El-P's:

Lawler dropping the strap equals Warrior shaking the ropes to me.

Besides being a logical inconsistency, maybe El-P prefers other types of babyface comebacks more than others. Like I prefer the Japanese comeback spot of unleashing a flurry of offense, but, then immediately following that expense of energy, they collapse to the mat - Misawa and Kawada did this a lot.

 

Maybe the point wasn't about selling, but about tropes of babyface comeback signals. Hogan had the finger waving, Warrior shook the ropes, Lawler drops the singlet, etc. I don't know, El-P didn't specify.

 

El-P:

Yeah, because that's what they all did, no-selling with a little visual gimmick thrown in

Aha.

 

(Cont.)

I don't care for this stuff, it annoys me every time.

Kostka:

Except Lawler didnt no sell during comebacks. The only time I recall that happening was during Lawler/Martel when he brushed off some leg work, but other than that, Lawler was a very consistent seller throughout his entire career.

Brilliant contradiction.

 

El-P:

And yes, Lawler no sold his opponents offense during comeback. Drop the strap, no-sell, punches. Every time. I know tha shall not invoque the King's name in vain in 2011, but still, let's be honest here. It worked wonders for him. I find it annoying.

"Every time" is troublesome because there were times Lawler probably didn't no-sell once the strap came down to signal business was about to pick up.

And again, El-P is demonstrating his dislike for the in-match tropes of traditional babyface comebacks, i.e., and in similar regards, like in Over the Top and how the hat turning was the "switch" needed to win, i.e., like the strap coming down or the vigorous shaking of ring ropes. It is a tried and cliched trope, honestly. It's too sports entertainment/hokey for me, as well.

 

SLL:

It's about saying something that's actively, undeniably untrue, and that you should know if you've ever watched a Jerry Lawler match before.

The every time part is untrue yes, but to say that Lawler never no-sold is a logical inconsistency in itself.

 

SLL:

Except for the times that he doesn't, which is all the time.

Ditto above.

This isn't about sacred cows.

It comes across that way, honestly. Just look at those who have responded against El-P. Pretty much the usual suspects from the Lawler camp.

 

El-P:

I thought it was clear from the beginning we were talking about *comeback sequence*

That's the way I read it.

 

El-P:

As illustrated from 00:42 and on :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97OcSU0lds...feature=related

That is a textbook Hogan Hulk-Up without the theatrics and the drama. There was no-selling involved, as every stomp/kick took Lawler to a higher elevated base, and the punches, though rocking his jaw, did little to no damage at that exact moment.

It worked though. It popped the crowd. The point of it all along. Lawler was a superhero in Memphis.

 

DylanWaco:

I like the part during the routine there where he is back to selling literally less than a minute after his "no selling" comeback.

So he goes back to selling after no selling, but doesn't no sell? You don't think he was no selling?

I watched your "proof" and thought it showcased the irrelevancy and stupidity of your argument.

El-P's:

I don't care much for any comeback that consist of no-selling.

Lawler dropping the strap equals Warrior shaking the ropes to me.

Yeah, because that's what they all did, no-selling with a little visual gimmick thrown in

I don't care for this stuff, it annoys me every time.

I thought it was clear from the beginning we were talking about *comeback sequence*

How are any of those stupid arguments? Or are they stupid because you disagree with them? I have no doubt that you're a smart person, which you have demonstrated countless times over several boards, but this just reeks of thought police to me. Unless you have a different explanation for what I just watched (Lawler doing exactly what El-P said he has done -- and contained within a famous Lawler match no less) then I have to assume your being hostile and stubborn simply because Lawler is an untouchable.

 

(Cont.)

If he goes back to selling less than a minute later I fail to see how it can be qualified as "no selling" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Well, he was no selling punches and then got rammed face first into the referees head. So what is the exact time limit that a wrestler has to no sell before it is considered no selling? I guess pro wrestling is being quantified like the two feet touch/drag and time of possession rules in football nowadays.

 

Notice 1:38-1:41.

What is that called?

 

SLL:

Lawler No-Sold All the Time

Besides not being the argument originally posed...

of all the mounting evidence to the contrary

Contrary to Lawler no sold all the time, yes, but not to Lawler no sold during some babyface comebacks.

 

Yeah, because it's still wrong.

Like I asked Dylan, what would you call what Lawler did in the video El-P posted and mine as well? I see a less theatrical version of Hulking Up with sprinkles of no-selling on top.

 

The only thing it proves is that you're dumb enough to believe that it proves anything.

We've all been guilty of using the persuasive powers of statistics and appealing to authority, but we've also been prone to other things, things like mob mentality and bias. The thing this quoted part shows is some sturdy stereotyping stemming from groupthink. There are actually symptoms in all three categories of groupthink up for analysis from the Pro-Lawler Camp in this thread.

 

So even if that did mean something, it would probably mean you were wrong.

Wrong where though?

About Lawler never no-selling during comebacks? No, actually, El-P is right there.

About Lawler always no-selling during comebacks? As I said above, the probablity of some cutoff Lawler comeback probably exists somewhere, so I am inclined to say that he is probably wrong here. I simply don't like working in quantifiable less than/perfect measures. Nothing is perfect and nothing is less than perfect.

About El-P's personal preferences to wrestling? I don't see how you could call him wrong for not liking traditional babyface comebacks. Unless those psychic powers you mentioned are realz.

 

But his visual indicator doesn't indicate no-selling.

He registers the punches more than the kicks, yes. But it doesn't look like pain, more like anger and overall expressions to tell the live audience that business is about to pick up in Memphis because the King is about to make a comeback.

 

It just indicates him sucking it up and trying for a comeback.

Sucking it up is okay for Lawler, but what about the wrestlers a large percentage of his dislike, like a Davey Richards for example. A Pro DR fan could cite that as an excuse for his lack of selling - "He's sucking it up!" Doesn't work. No-selling is no-selling across the board, no matter who does it, it is annoying.

 

If it wasn't, we wouldn't be calling it the Hulk-Up.

The connotations are simple, which you pointed out. Hulking Up = Hulk Hogan. But because Hogan is the standard bearer, the memes describing him have been attributed to many. But I generally use the more generalizing phrase - Superman Comeback. It describes practically the same thing - a face will stop selling damage and use some type of over visual indicator to show the crowd and his opponent that he has had enough and is about to make a comeback despite the damage he is weathering to get said comeback.

 

The Lawler clip El-P posted is illustrative of that notion, though not a full blown comeback by any means, it was nevertheless indicative of a no-selling babyface comeback. It is a successful plot device within the context of a professional wrestling match.

 

Whether long term or short in nature, is irrelevant, and simply because checkboxes for the term have been satisfied. Like a Ric Flair match with a high percentage of Ric Flair Spots. Doesn't need 100% of Ric Flair Spots to be a Ric Flair Match.

 

But I guess if we're sticking closer to semantics on this debate, then no, Lawler did not Hulk Up in the traditional sense. I mean, there were no finger pointing, big boots, leg drops, no cupping of any ear. Less theatrics and overall playing to the crowd, but no-selling nonetheless.

[El-P]

Yeah, and if I had caught that earlier, I would've given you a pat on the back and agreed to disagree. Then one guy strongly agreed with your original position, and that was enough for you to immediately revert to it.

 

I did not revert to anything. The fact that someone else agreed that Lawler was noing a no-selling routine *at least from time to time* just made me think I wasn't just making stuff up, because at that point I was too lazy to check it out. I never said that Lawler was doing it all the time after your long post, to which I replied I was maybe wrong. Read my response to Dylan, I concluded that Lawler was doing the routine, "at least at times", not "everytime", a point I agreed to be wrong about. But you said he was never doing it, ever, which seemed pretty odd to me.

 

I know English isn't your first language, but you generally seem to be pretty good at it. You're too good to do the Hercule Poirot/Charlie Chan "funny foreigner uses his funny foreignness to trick his enemies into underestimating him" bit. And if that's not what you're going for, you may want to get a refund from whoever taught you English reading comprehension, because you suck ass at it.

 

Funny from a guy who couldn't be bothered to read or understand a post I made a day before in which I said three times that I may very well be wrong after all. And yeah, I reiterate, I may very well be wrong about Lawler doing it all the times. Still, it doesn't mean he never did it either, which I illustrated.

 

Of course not. It's the internet. NO ONE admits to being wrong.

 

Well, pretty amazing uh ? Too bad, I have zero problem with admitting when I'm wrong. None. Don't give a shit. I'm not here to jerk-off my little ego. So yeah, about Lawler doing the no-sell routine *all the time*, maybe totally wrong. My bad. Mea culpa maxima.

 

Hell, I'd like to think I'm a fairly honest dude, and even I rarely admit to being wrong unless it's about something serious.

 

Well, that's too bad. Learn to love it, it's no biggie, really.

 

What I do do most of the time is quietly disappear and let the guy who was right get the last word, since, well, he's right, and he deserves that. What I don't do is the "Jumbo was Lazy/Murdoch was Lazy/Lawler No-Sold All the Time" thing of continuing to press my argument, or twist and change it around in a desperate attempt to be "right" in spite of all the mounting evidence to the contrary. That's a much bigger dick move than anything I'm pulling here.

 

I admit being a dick there, not problem admitting that either. I'm usually being a dick when people are dick to me. The fact that you mention "Lawler No-Sold All the Time" at least proves you don't read my post closely enough, since even after posted the video, I said that Lawler did it *at least at times*. Which is not the same as *all the time*, a point about which I'm probably wrong. Hey, I may suck at English, but I'm using little signs so that lazy people can understand the point I'm making here. Obviously not enough of an effort from me.

 

Yeah, because it's still wrong. Two people saying something wrong doesn't make it true, it makes two people wrong. I mean, there are way more than two people who think we never landed on the moon. Way more than two people who think 9/11 was an inside job. Way more than two people who think the Holocaust never happened, or that psychic powers are real, or that they've been abducted by aliens, or that Bigfoot exists...why shouldn't I no-sell it? The only thing it proves is that you're dumb enough to believe that it proves anything. And if there's any merit to it at all, guess what? There's more than one person arguing that Lawler doesn't no-sell! And there seems to be more of them! So even if that did mean something, it would probably mean you were wrong. Here's your dunce cap. Go sit in the corner.

 

Yeah, impressive stuff. Only you are the one being wrong here, because Jerry Lawler did a no-sell routine comeback, I posted the video. Now you can say it's not a no-sell routine comeback, and we'll agree to disagree on the use of this term like with Dylan. To me it is, and I explained why. When you get kicked and punched 5 time and you get revived from it, it's a no-sell routine comeback to me. Period.

[El-P]

When somebody compares someone else's selling to that of The Ultimate Warrior, do you think of the fact that Warrior's comeback had a visual cue? Do you think of the fact that, in a handful of matches, Warrior's Hulk-Up didn't finish the job, and he sold as much afterwords? Or do you think of the fact that Warrior would start dancing like Jennifer Beals to "Maniac", completely forget he was hurt, ignore any further attempts at offense on his person, and promptly squash his opponent? Let me answer that for you - you'd think of the last one, and while I mocked his intelligence in my last post, I have to think Jerome knows this. I doubt it started this way, he probably actually believed what he was saying, but when backed into a corner, he used his arguments as weasel words, allowing him to claim he was right all along by recontextualising his argument to mean something different while staying true to the letter of it. I still can't call him a liar, but his capacity for dishonesty is greater than I've given him credit for.

Your capacity for not understanding not so complicated things is greater that I've given you credit for actually. Either that, or you're just full of shit, which I tend to believe is the case.

 

_I said countless times now that I may be, probably am, wrong about the fact Lawler is doing a no-sell comeback routine all the time.

_I think it's fair to say he did it, at least at times, enough for me to be annoyed by it at least.

_I never implied that Lawler = Warrior. I said Lawer dropping the strap = Warrior shaking ropes during a no-sell comeback routine to me = annoying part of the match. That's pretty much it. I guessed it was obvious I wasn't extrapolating to the entire match, or even the finishing sequence which comes after the comeback. I guess nothing is obvious when you deal with dense people.

 

Now, that people don't have problems with it is totally ok with me. Matter of taste. Some people love Hogan hulking up. Good for them.

[El-P]

Unless he's just dumb. I mean, for God's sakes..."And I'm not the only one saying that Lawler was hulking up, but you're no-selling that one."...if I ever make a argument like "more than one person agrees with me on something, clearly that validates my claim", I hope you'd all do me the favor of ruthlessly mocking me until I learn my lesson. Tough love and all that.

That's all well and dandy, but pretty ironic too, because at this point, the argument that Lawler has become a "concensus" great worker is thrown around quite a bit to squash any criticism. Not saying you're using it here, but I've seen it countless times. I guess the fact that more than one people agrees that Lawler is now a GOAT makes him a GOAT (see also : Fujiwara Yoshiaki). But the fact that more than one people agree that he did no-sell comeback routines from time to time means zilch and alien abduction believers because tha shall not invoque The King's name in vain, brothers and sisters, or something like that.

The power of Democracy in a way, which is the tyranny of the majority over all minorities.

Just a though...

[El-P]

Maybe the point wasn't about selling, but about tropes of babyface comeback signals. Hogan had the finger waving, Warrior shook the ropes, Lawler drops the singlet, etc. I don't know, El-P didn't specify.

I realize I should have, but I thought it was obvious. My point was about the part where the babyface just no-sells the heel's offense as he's making his comeback, short-lived or not it isn't the point, which in most case is indicated by a visual gimmick : shake ropes, waving finger, droping singlet etc... It's pretty much the whole thing, no-sell of heel's offense + visual gimmick. Some love it, fine. It worked for their audience, fine. I never cared for that, it always annoyed me. That was pretty much it.