First Round: New York - Randy Savage vs. Kane

[IrishCanadian25]

What exactly did he ever win? One big match? Ever? Was he ever the forefront of the company? Fun, super choreographed matches, sure, you bet.

Some guys do their best work in a losing effort. Such was Savage. His losses to Steamboat, Hogan, and Warrior are often described as some of the more classic moments in wrestling history. His victory over Flair is an all time fave of mine, you know this.

Kane, at one point, was about as dominant as anyone has ever been.

I must have been away that week.

Lack of titles, sure, but he was an absolute fucking unstoppable juggernaught when he first came onto the scene.

An unstoppable juggernaut who was soundly and regularly stopped.

Kayfabe, I give it to Kane, Savage may have the slight edge in contribution, but its by much less than people are likely trying to put over, here.

No chance. Savage had a great deal of power for a guy his size, and a great deal of agility too. He has too much going for him. Kane I say is only a step or two up from Crush, whom Savage beat in a feud around WM10.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

So then, you admit he mostly loses his biggest matches? Well thank you for agreeing with me.

Uh, the "week" Kane was dominant? Regularly stopped?

you are speaking absolute MADNESS right now. Kane, at his apex was touchable ONLY by the Undertaker. You just WAIT til XFear sees this ridiculousness you are spewing. SPEWING. A step or two up from Crush at Wm10?

IC. They do drug testing at your job, surely. I would suggest laying off the dope smoking, which clearly you did before making this post.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Savage was one of the most entertaining men in the history of pro wrestling. This guy could make anyone look good in the ring (and during his era in WWF, he had to against the likes of Hogan and Warrior). Kane served his purpose, but I haven't cared about him since he lost the WWF title to Austin on Raw in 1998. Savage is superior in every way, IMO.

Savage gets my vote.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

By way of "Prime", there is seriously NO WAY that Randy Savage would ever defeat Kane. Now, don't laugh just yet let me explain.

Savage's prime was years longer than Kane's.. however, in the very short time I consider Kane's "Prime" the guy was unstoppable. He had all the strength's and none of the weaknesses that the Undertaker held. He was viewed as a mirror image, that was quicker, stronger and some could say "better". (kayfabe, that is)

Savage has always, prime or otherwise, struggled against guys that are bigger and stronger. Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, Big Show, Andre the Giant. Savage has even met the Undertaker.. and lost. So on that note, if Kane is to be considered in his prime - just as equal as Taker, then why would anyone feel Savage could beat him?

Now, in closing with that being said.. oddly enough with me backing Kane.. I still voted for Randy Savage. I did so because the fact of the matter is, some guys just shouldn't advance because the match-ups in future rounds would be horrible. No one wants to see Kane go on. So, my vote is to Savage - not because I feel he'd ever win, but simply because I believe no one wants to see Kane go on.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Some guys do their best work in a losing effort. Such was Savage. His losses to Steamboat, Hogan, and Warrior are often described as some of the more classic moments in wrestling history.

Wait, so let me try to mull this over. You're trying to say Savage should WIN VOTES because he LOST the majority of his big matches?

Have you lost your mind, or are you simply trying to see how far an admin's "vote for him" power goes? Because I have no idea how you expect anyone to vote for a guy.. when your opening statement is that he LOST the majority of his bigger matches.. but did so in such a classy fashion.

My goodness, I bet you wanted Funaki in this thing to win it all, didn't you?!

An unstoppable juggernaut who was soundly and regularly stopped.

Kane's prime, as I noted before was short lived. Mainly because his character was only one dimensional. He was a mirror image of the Undertaker, with all the power (maybe even stronger) and none of the "slight emotional weaknesses."

It took THREE Tombstones to defeat Kane.

Randy Savage couldn't even put Warrior away with FOUR Elbow drops.

And in many people's view, an Elbow drop is not even remotely have as deadly and destructive as a Tombstone f'n Piledriver.

So, how on earth is Savage EVER gonna defeat Kane? A wishful thinking roll-up? A coin in the fountain prayer that he forgets the count and gets counted out?

No chance. Savage had a great deal of power for a guy his size, and a great deal of agility too. He has too much going for him. Kane I say is only a step or two up from Crush, whom Savage beat in a feud around WM10.

Agility yes. Power, to a degree. But he couldn't ever do anything with it against guys bigger than him. Which Kane is.

As for the Crush comment, whats in the water in NJ? Because you and D-Man are now sharing similar random thoughts. His for La Parka, and now your's for Kane being equal to Crush.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Wait, so let me try to mull this over. You're trying to say Savage should WIN VOTES because he LOST the majority of his big matches?

Yeah, I know, the logic is a touch convoluted. And yes, the fact that Savage wasn't known to win in big spots has to be held against him a bit. My only point was that there are a few guys who lose big matches and yet somehow come out the better for it. Savage is one such guy. But your point is well taken.

Kane's prime, as I noted before was short lived. Mainly because his character was only one dimensional. He was a mirror image of the Undertaker, with all the power (maybe even stronger) and none of the "slight emotional weaknesses."

Too short lived. And he really only had one "prime." Attempts at renaissances of that short prime failed. And I even wonder of Kane's prime was even all that impressive.

It took THREE Tombstones to defeat Kane.

Randy Savage couldn't even put Warrior away with FOUR Elbow drops.

This is an excellent point.

But I also have to remind you - I can think of 3 separate occassions when Undertaker beat Kane in a decent spot. Warrior beat Savage once, and at SummerSlam for the Savage / Warrior rematch, Warrior couldn't put Savage away either.

Agility yes. Power, to a degree. But he couldn't ever do anything with it against guys bigger than him. Which Kane is.

I think that's fair.

As for the Crush comment, whats in the water in NJ? Because you and D-Man are now sharing similar random thoughts. His for La Parka, and now your's for Kane being equal to Crush.

You'll have to point me out to where I said "equal." I said a step or two up.

Am I missing something with Kane here? I mean, am I just not drinking the Big Red Kool-Aid? If so, by all means, keep trying to convince me.

So then, you admit he mostly loses his biggest matches? Well thank you for agreeing with me.

Uh, the "week" Kane was dominant? Regularly stopped?

you are speaking absolute MADNESS right now. Kane, at his apex was touchable ONLY by the Undertaker. You just WAIT til XFear sees this ridiculousness you are spewing. SPEWING. A step or two up from Crush at Wm10?

IC. They do drug testing at your job, surely. I would suggest laying off the dope smoking, which clearly you did before making this post.

NorCal, if you want to see how to properly and effectively refute my argument, please refer to Will's post. He could show you a thing or two...

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Yeah, I know, the logic is a touch convoluted. And yes, the fact that Savage wasn't known to win in big spots has to be held against him a bit. My only point was that there are a few guys who lose big matches and yet somehow come out the better for it. Savage is one such guy. But your point is well taken.

Okay, but still unless I'm missing something you're telling me Randy Savage is better, because he's lost so many big matches.

So, on that note - Savage would continue to better himself, in a losing effort. Which would mean, he should lose here, to continue to learn? I think we're losing each other.

I'm clearly not getting what you're trying to prove in saying Savage should win - because he's lost, yet bettered himself, so much through his career.

Too short lived. And he really only had one "prime." Attempts at renaissances of that short prime failed. And I even wonder of Kane's prime was even all that impressive.

Well, I was unaware this tournament was to be given to those who had to re-invent themselves and try to re-create their Primes. Kane didn't need more than one, because his initial one was so damn dominating, that it merely can't be re-done.

Savage, in my opinion, never re-created anything. He's always sorta lingered. Just changed his look to fit the times, is all.

But I also have to remind you - I can think of 3 separate occassions when Undertaker beat Kane in a decent spot. Warrior beat Savage once, and at SummerSlam for the Savage / Warrior rematch, Warrior couldn't put Savage away either.

If I recall, didn't the Summerslam 92 match go to a time-limit draw, or a type of draw as a result of Flair and Perfect interfering?

You go back and watch that match. The Ultimate Warrior had Savage once again, put away, until Flair cracks him in the back with a chair.

The only part of this I give you, is as Taker and Kane's feud went on - Kane began losing easier and easier. I believe this is because the mystique of Kane was lost after their Mania encounter, however. (I know, not the greatest excuse)

Am I missing something with Kane here? I mean, am I just not drinking the Big Red Kool-Aid? If so, by all means, keep trying to convince me.

You want me to show you why Kane should win here? I give you Kane's, while short, yet also very dominate.. prime.

Kane v. Vader
[youtube]RROh5RS2ubI[/youtube]

[youtube]RvLeuECr8HI&feature=related[/youtube]​

This match shows the agility, power, and ability to withstand punishment, that Kane has had.

In this match, Vader hits the Top Rope Moonsault and it takes Kane a mere couple of seconds before he sits up and shows that it has no effect. If a Vader Moonsault can't hold him down, how is an Elbow drop from a man not even half the size of Vader, with near the impact, going to do it?

Kane should win this. He'd over-power Savage, take everything Savage could dish out - but simply out last him, and destroy him in the end.

 

[gd]

Anyone trying to vote for Kane forgets a few things. Firstly, he's lost to basically everybody, which can't help him. Also, he's not that great in the ring at all. Average at best. He's facing Randy Savage, one of the most popular and exciting wrestlers of all time. Remember his match against Ricky Steamboat? Ya, that was pretty good, wasn't it? Kane can't even dream of wrestling anything that epic. Easily the Macho Man here.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

Savage.

Randy Savage at his peak would captivate audiences. Whether he was a bad guy smashing Ricky Steamboat’s larynx, or become a tournament champion over Ted DiBiase, or as the jilted tag-team partner of Hulk Hogan, this man knew how to bring it when he was in the ring.

He had some of the most intriguing stories ever told in the squared-circle, and mixed that with some great in-ring ability to bring you a level of entertainment rarely seen. No matter what your taste, he’ll always entertain you.