THANK YOU FOR PICKING HARLEY RACE, FINALLY. FFS, I've been dancing around him for a while since I was hoping that he'd drop to me and deezy

Race was the ****ing man, simply put. He was a great heel, could brawl, could work a wrestling match, and could get heat. Not just that, there was always something very believable about Harley Race, you just thought that he'd be able to kick some serious ass (unless of course he was drunk off his ass and tripped on the mat)

I think the point the Warrior-haters are trying to make is that Warrior did very little (if anything) to build the success he had. Again, take the other half of the Blade Runners and stick him with the exact same gimmick, etc. I'd wager that he not only matches Warriors success, but carries it much much further.

I think the points the Warrior haters are making are chock full of assumptions about Warrior having nothing to do with his own success, which is absurd as he clearly had something that drew millions of people to absolutely love him. You can push a guy all you want, but if he can't pull it off nobody is going to like him.

and warrior as sting's gimmick would have been over very quick imo.

Which is fine. But you get PEOPLE AT THEIR PRIME! This includes popularity!

and in 2 years, you lose him then. warrior may have been hot for a few minutes, but he had no staying power.

except that vince was gold during this period. Look at the attitude period, and he made a lot of guys who weren't really all that good. Vince goes through very creative periods where he seemingly can't do any wrong and then he'll go insanely bad during down periods. Vince is cyclical and his period from 83-91 was one of his most fertile periods(though he did have his fair share of failures, especially with a certain massive tag team at the time) and he had a great fertile period from late 96-02 when he really botched the Invasion angle(seriously, that could've done massive business, but Vince let his ego get in the way)

Which is why he fell this far, and didn't get taken like #4 or something. He can't wrestler, and didn't last long. But that doesn't change the fact that he was probably one of the most popular wrestlers ever, and none of that is changed by the fact that he can't "wrestle" worth a ****.

The Warrior's "hot" period is pretty short ... 1989 (IC champ) to 1992 (Summerslam match with Savage for WWE title) if I remember right. Sure, he was REALLY, REALLY hot ... but there's one other "big peak, no longevity" guy out there I'd take over him (even though his peak wasn't quite as big). The longevity thing, given the rules/idea of the draft, is a legit issue.

EDIT: Sloooooooooow pony.

so then a second round pick is good for a guy your only gonna have for 3-4 years max?

I don't know where you guys keep getting two years. He was in the WWF from 87-91, returned in 92, and returned in 96 according to wiki.

right, but remember, we are draftring for a 30 year period, so we want longer primes as drawing talents. Warrior having what, 2-4 years as a drawing talent doesn't mean a second round pick. I mean, we may as well draft Yokozuna in this round based on that premise

very very true.

and having austin turn and become the leader of the alliance... qf fail.

You're supposed to build for 30 years. What do you do with the other 27?

is this your argument? He was basically at his peak from 89-91ish, and that's being favorable as he was more at his peak from 90-91. His 92 return was silly as he was gone fairly fast and his 96 return was even faster

I have absolutely no idea.

To be honest, if you want to claim that Warrior is a bad pick because he doesn't last long, I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with people who seem to think because he isn't a good technical wrestler, that the pick is therefore bad.

Whoa ... I may not like Warrior but let's not call him Yoko.

i dont think you want wcw warrior. that was the drizzling poops.

This is what I'm arguing. It helps that he's also pretty horrible at everything else. His charisma is unmatched though, of course.

I really got away from my initial argument. I really had no idea whether Warrior is a bad pick because of longevity, but I don't think he shouldn't be drafted just because he wasn't a good technical wrestler.

Also, FWIW. If you were competing against a bunch of other feds, having Warrior for 3 years would be pretty huge for your initial popularity.

Dude the 30 year time frame was just a way of saying you get their careers. Nobody is going to have anyone left in year 30 if it's as literal as you make it.

And pairing him with Undertaker as also a major part of my reasoning. I don't mind that some people don't like the pick. But being all like LOL AT YOU FOR THINKING HE DESERVES TO BE DRAFTED or even failing to see why there is easily an argument for taking him around now. I have two stars whose peaks I'll put up against any pair taken so far. I'll take that after two rounds.

And seriously, I drafted Undertaker first who is one of the longest tenured guys every. If anyone has room for a huge peak over a smaller duration type of guy, it's me.

both reasons make sence to me.

that said, if nozecandy has plans for him, and is able to draft guys in later rounds to complement him, more power. this is the same type agruement every got their panties in a bunch after my cm punk pick.

Honestly, why would I be fine with Dusty being picked if I was a hardcore I WANT GUYS TO FULLY TECHINICAL WRESTLE guy. obviously there are guys who aren't the greatest technical wrestlers that have drawn big business. The thing is, with teh guys that aren't the best in ring wrestlers, they have carried their success over a much longer period of time, and have done it in a couple of different promotions(granted the territorial days kind of helped this), so one can deduce that they'd be able to repeat this success in our own promotion

then lets say 10 years then. about 98% of the wrestlers picked are still gonna be going strong. warrior... not so much.