Originally Posted by sharkboy22
Ok, I tried to stay out of this but seriously fuck off. No, no seriously you're a terrible debater. You really are.
"For every 1 good match Cena has, Angle has 20" that's not supporting your view at all. That's just called over exaggeration.
"Angle's random RAW matches shit on Cena's best performances from a freakin' 20 foot ladder" doesn't even make any sense. R.I.P. English.
"If Cena could put on a match 1/5 of the quality Angle had with the likes of Rock, Austin etc" is 1) an immeasurable statistic. What is 1/5 the quality of his matches? Which match? and 2)Cena has had one match with Rock and none with Austin. How can you compare the countless Rock/Angle and Angle/Austin with just one Cena/Rock and absolutely no Cena/Austin? And who the fuck is etc?
"Kurt gave him that one good match because he doesn't have many" I swear to God we just compiled a huge ass list of matches not just in this thread but the official match thread comprising of quite a few Cena matches.
Again, for the last time. Come up with a list with, of what you think, Angle's greatest matches and explain why they were great. Explain the psychology behind it and how such and such a move contributed to tone, atmosphere and the overall match. When you can do that then reply to this. Otherwise, just do what this thread asked you to do or post elsewhere. Point is, shut up about the debate because you are losing. When you can actually bring something to the table worth discussing instead of a bunch of over exaggerated and senseless statements such as "What makes Angle so great is that the quality of his body of work dwarves Cena's at a ratio of about 763/1." then I would waste time having a conversation with you.
Also when you learn to support and elaborate a statement such as "What makes Angle so great is that his brilliance, excellence and innovation inside and outside of the ring, as a wrestler, worker and as a character makes Cena's bland, unimaginitive, lazy, stale, boring, awkward, formulaic, untalented persona looking like the low-midcard talent he is.", only then can you partake in this discussion because clearly some level of intelligence is needed to participate in this discussion. A level which you are way, way below.