|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 12:01:45 GMT -5
You make it sound like the E does nothing but bad SNL skits. I'm not even a WWE fan, but even I know they feature plenty of good wrestling. Certainly every bit as much as WCW did when it was sliding into its grave. If you say so. I can't argue, except to say the last WWE product I watched (the premiere of ECW on Sci Fi) had approximately four minutes of wrestling and one of the wrestlers was Justin Credible (aka Sean Waltman without the drug addiction). But as was pointed out to me earlier, that was 15 months ago, and everything's changed. I'm not willing to endure the 'bad SNL skits' to find out for myself. If you can derive enjoyment from this product, go right ahead. I'm willing to bet I can't. And I could find SOME things to like during WCW 2000 and TNA 2007.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Sept 13, 2007 12:07:38 GMT -5
You make it sound like the E does nothing but bad SNL skits. I'm not even a WWE fan, but even I know they feature plenty of good wrestling. Certainly every bit as much as WCW did when it was sliding into its grave. If you say so. I can't argue, except to say the last WWE product I watched (the premiere of ECW on Sci Fi) had approximately four minutes of wrestling and one of the wrestlers was Justin Credible (aka Sean Waltman without the drug addiction). But as was pointed out to me earlier, that was 15 months ago, and everything's changed. I'm not willing to endure the 'bad SNL skits' to find out for myself. If you can derive enjoyment from this product, go right ahead. I'm willing to bet I can't. And I could find SOME things to like during WCW 2000 and TNA 2007. That same show you mentioned features more wrestling in one show than Impact has in a month. And CM Punk is champ. I think there's a little bit to like. But I'll never argue it's the best show ever. I'd never say that about any WWE show. For my money, Nitro circa 1997-1999 was the best ever (in my short lifetime, anyway). But to try and argue that the garbage Russo threw out was at all better than what's on WWE today is absurd. I'm sorry, but Hornswaggle is nowhere near as bad as the Dustin Se7en Rhodes "shoot," the Hogan/Russo "shoot," or David Aquette WCW World Champ (even David Arquette didn't want to do it).
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 12:15:53 GMT -5
That same show you mentioned features more wrestling in one show than Impact has in a month. And CM Punk is champ. I think there's a little bit to like. Impact has tons of wrestling now. Your view of impact is probably just as out of date as my view of the 'new' ECW. The impacts with 12 to 15 minutes of wrestling ended like seven months ago. They've even had two matches that were 30 minutes long. For my money, Nitro circa 1997-1999 was the best ever (in my short lifetime, anyway). Of this, you and I finally have found something we can agree on 100% But to try and argue that the garbage Russo threw out was at all better than what's on WWE today is absurd. Well I'm not the only one who thinks so. And more than a few of them watch every WWE broadcast including some friends of mine.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Sept 13, 2007 12:23:33 GMT -5
That same show you mentioned features more wrestling in one show than Impact has in a month. And CM Punk is champ. I think there's a little bit to like. Impact has tons of wrestling now. Your view of impact is probably just as out of date as my view of the 'new' ECW. The impacts with 12 to 15 minutes of wrestling ended like seven months ago. They've even had two matches that were 30 minutes long. I've watched Impact here and there. Not regularly, but within the last month. ECW still features far more wrestling. And the longer matches don't have endless run-in's and cheap finishes. I guess it's all just a matter of taste. But to honestly believe that today's WWE--which featured a helluva Cena/Orton match at Summer Slam, a great Morrison/Punk match on ECW--is worse than the dying WCW's Viagra on a Pole matches, Oklahoma, and Russo making himself champ for a day...just seems really far fetched. WWE today features a few gems within a pile of crap. WCW under Russo's reign was just a pile of crap.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 12:35:21 GMT -5
I've watched Impact here and there. Not regularly, but within the last month. ECW still features far more wrestling. And the longer matches don't have endless run-in's and cheap finishes. I though you said you don't watch impact at all? The last 30 minute impact match, Sting won cleanly. Yeah, Tomko gave him one swift kick, but that didn't effect the outcome. I would accept that as a complaint IF after a half hour of wrestling, interference determined the outcome. And now that I think about it, Angle won the 30 minute match against Rhino and Christian clean. Although I guess you could argue that Abyss chasing Christian away could have affected the finish. WWE today features a few gems within a pile of crap. WCW under Russo's reign was just a pile of crap. Although I hate myself for defending anything during Russo's reign of terror -- there were gems there too -- Lance Storm came into the company and received a great push winning three single's titles. Booker and Scott Steiner won their first world titles. Anyway, maybe if I watched WWE today I would be willing to concede that it's on the same level as Russorific WCW. But I wouldn't have watched WCW during those days if TNA existed as an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 13, 2007 14:21:59 GMT -5
I like how my comment was completely ignored
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 13, 2007 14:36:57 GMT -5
It's hard to say that WCW in 2000 was better than current WWE, even if it is truly awful.
I mean, really people, think back; even if the storylines are on equal footing in terms of crappiness, WWE's current production values put it above 2000 WCW.
That said...maybe I'd watch 2000 WCW over today WWE, if just because, in some ways, I'd rather watch a trainwreck than the monotony of WWE.
Then again, maybe I just wouldn't watch either.
|
|
|
Post by MVP = Ballin.222 on Sept 13, 2007 14:44:50 GMT -5
Wow, I thought Rick Mad was the only loser who watched WCW in 2000. Hell no, I watched it to the bitter end and actually enjoyed the majority of it.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 15:14:40 GMT -5
I like how my comment was completely ignored I went back and searched and the only comment I saw from you was mentioning that Oklahoma won the cruiserweight title. If this is the point you're trying, to reiterate than it only reinforces my opinion that WWE is worse. If Oklahoma winning the CW belt was bad, then Vince winning the ECW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP was worse. If David Arquette pinning Eric Biscoff to win the World title was bad, then Kevin Federline pinning the WWE world champion was worse. Are you seriously trying to defend current WWE by mentioning that Russo put the belt on Ferrara as a joke, when as we speak, the same title is on a midget? For every example of WCW being bad at the end, I just see WWE as being worse. And I shudder to think of what will happend if TNA keeps following the path they are on. We just witnessed a non-wrestler win a world title there...... This madness must end. Can we all just agree that in all companies non-wrestlers shouldn't be booked in wrestling matches, and if they are they should never pin wrestlers or win titles?
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 13, 2007 15:20:39 GMT -5
I like how my comment was completely ignored I went back and searched and the only comment I saw from you was mentioning that Oklahoma won the cruiserweight title. If this is the point you're trying, to reiterate than it only reinforces my opinion that WWE is worse. If Oklahoma winning the CW belt was bad, then Vince winning the ECW WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP was worse. If David Arquette pinning Eric Biscoff to win the World title was bad, then Kevin Federline pinning the WWE world champion was worse. Are you seriously trying to defend current WWE by mentioning that Russo put the belt on Ferrara as a joke, when as we speak, the same title is on a midget? For every example of WCW being bad at the end, I just see WWE as being worse. And I shudder to think of what will happend if TNA keeps following the path they are on. We just witnessed a non-wrestler win a world title there...... This madness must end. Can we all just agree that in all companies non-wrestlers shouldn't be booked in wrestling matches, and if they are they should never pin wrestlers or win titles? Actually the point was that if WCW was so much better when Russo was booking and it was sooo much better than seeing a "gimmick" holding the Cruiserweight....then how do you explain the fact that a "gimmick" held the Cruiserweight title when Russo was booking WCW. So then there's no possible way that anyone could argue that one is better than the other since the exact same thing happened. Vince winning the ECW Title has NOTHING to do with the point I was making. Nice try though. You'll get it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 16:51:41 GMT -5
Yeah, except only one guy was talking about the midget holding the CW title in WWE today when you brought up Oklahoma. Why would anyone else respond to something specific that you wrote regarding something most of us weren't discussing? I probably WON'T get that eventually.
Anyway, if you were paying attention, I conceded that WWE today could potentially be EQUALLY as bad as WCW under Russo. It seems worse from what I've seen/heard, but I'm refuse to watch the product to confirm my suspicions.
And it's a moot point. Both are terrible. What I don't get are people who watch and defend WWE today, and bash other companies. I won't ever understand that either.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Sept 13, 2007 17:25:54 GMT -5
I have actually been watching old WCW clips from 2001 via DailyMotion, and I definitely think it was way better than WCW 2000. In its last 3 months, it seems like WCW had really begin to see its problems and correct them. They were showcasing some great wrestlers like Helms/Moore/Karagias (won't mention the gimmick, so as not to contradict myself here), Christopher Daniels, Chavo at his best, Devon Storm, Air Paris and AJ, Mike Sanders, etc etc etc etc. These guys were very good wrestlers, and they did put on good matches. In 2001, Oklahoma or Madusa was not the Cruiserweight champ -- Chavo was. Things were really getting back on track. The problem is, no one was around to see any of it since 2000 chased them away.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 13, 2007 17:29:23 GMT -5
Yeah, except only one guy was talking about the midget holding the CW title in WWE today when you brought up Oklahoma. Why would anyone else respond to something specific that you wrote regarding something most of us weren't discussing? I probably WON'T get that eventually. Anyway, if you were paying attention, I conceded that WWE today could potentially be EQUALLY as bad as WCW under Russo. It seems worse from what I've seen/heard, but I'm refuse to watch the product to confirm my suspicions. And it's a moot point. Both are terrible. What I don't get are people who watch and defend WWE today, and bash other companies. I won't ever understand that either. He never said anything about a midget. He said a "GIMMICK." Read it again. Why do you watch and defend TNA nonstop and bash WWE constantly? That's ALL you've done since you've been a member here.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Sept 13, 2007 17:29:55 GMT -5
Yes, some of us watched WCW to the very end. Really, the writing of today's shows are just about the same, if not worse. The quality of WWE's production just does a much better job at masking it.
I'll always believe both of Vince Russo's reigns were the victim of Internet hyperbole. Look at WCW in the summer of 1999 and the Sullivan era of early 2000 and then tell me Russo wasn't writing better television. You can point out and harp on things like Viagra On A Pole or G.I. Bro, but where's the same venom for the crap Bischoff, Nash, and Sullivan pulled? I'll stand behind Russo because at least he wanted to push the right people and try something new. He made an effort to get the majority of the roster involved in angles and feuds, which I'll always respect him for.
That being said, I'll concede that turning Goldberg was a horrible mistake. At least they all realized it about a month into it and then played it off as Goldberg being forced to play the heel by Russo (which led to all of those illogical worked-shoots). Looking back, it's almost a poetic end to the WCW incarnation of Goldberg. The Russo feud led to Goldberg being forced to repeat the winning streak, which led to him being "retired" from WCW by Luger and Bagwell, which, because of the WWF buyout two months later, really was his last match in the company.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 17:47:12 GMT -5
He never said anything about a midget. He said a "GIMMICK." Read it again. I've read it several times. At first, I didn't know what "gimmick" he was referring to. It happens sometimes. I don't watch WWE, so I didn't get what reference he was making so I didn't respond. Then you responded to him by bringing up Oklahoma. I didn't understand what that had to do with anything, so I didn't respond. Then you chimed back in with, "I like how my comment was completely ignored" as though you were expecting a response from someone about something. So I responded and said I didn't get what point you were trying to make. Then YOU responded and said your point was, "there's no possible way that anyone could argue that one is better than the other since the exact same thing happened." So I pointed out that I reached the same conclusion on the previous page (Page 3), so there's really no call to be condescending. Now you're asking me to read it again. I am not going to bother. Why do you watch and defend TNA nonstop and bash WWE constantly? That's ALL you've done since you've been a member here. You are wrong. I am a fan of TNA. I come here to talk about TNA with other fans of TNA. I don't want to talk about WWE, so I never go to the WWE boards -- ever. I have never once brought up WWE and would be very happy to never touch the subject again. The problem is that every single time, I'm trying to discuss TNA, WWE fans have to post every ten second to say, "Who care's about what you're discussing? TNA sucks!" Well, when that happens, I point out that they are fans of a company that has a senior citizen owner as the world champion or exploding limos, or Britney's ex, or Trump/Rosie or whatever BS is going on that week. I will continue to do so. Maybe Wrestlecrap should have a seperate TNA board, where TNA fans can discuss their company without constant annoyances, and anyone not there to discuss that company will be told to knock it off?
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 13, 2007 17:52:17 GMT -5
He never said anything about a midget. He said a "GIMMICK." Read it again. I've read it several times. At first, I didn't know what "gimmick" he was referring to. It happens sometimes. I don't watch WWE, so I didn't get what reference he was making so I didn't respond. Then you responded to him by bringing up Oklahoma. I didn't understand what that had to do with anything, so I didn't respond. Then you chimed back in with, "I like how my comment was completely ignored" as though you were expecting a response from someone about something. So I responded and said I didn't get what point you were trying to make. Then YOU responded and said your point was, "there's no possible way that anyone could argue that one is better than the other since the exact same thing happened." So I pointed out that I reached the same conclusion on the previous page (Page 5), so there's really no call to be condescending. Now you're asking me to read it again. I am not going to bother. Why do you watch and defend TNA nonstop and bash WWE constantly? That's ALL you've done since you've been a member here. You are wrong. I am a fan of TNA. I come here to talk about TNA with other fans of TNA. I don't want to talk about WWE, so I never go to the WWE boards -- ever. I have never once brought up WWE and would be very happy to never touch the subject again. The problem is that every single time, I'm trying to discuss TNA, WWE fans have to post every ten second to say, "Who care's about what you're discussing? TNA sucks!" Well, when that happens, I point out that they are fans of a company that has a senior citizen owner as the world champion or exploding limos, or Britney's ex, or Trump/Rosie or whatever BS is going on that week. I will continue to do so. Maybe Wrestlecrap should have a seperate TNA board, where TNA fans can discuss their company without constant annoyances, and anyone not there to discuss that company will be told to knock it off? I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- WCW at it's worst (Russo's second run) was better than WWE. You've never brought up WWE? Funny.....maybe I need glasses. In fact, I'm done with you. It's always the same thing again and again. I even gave you a second chance but it's pointless.
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Sept 13, 2007 17:55:14 GMT -5
You must need glasses because I didn't bring it up. You didn't bother responding to the rest of my thread either because you can't without looking like a jack@ss.
Pointless is right.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Sept 13, 2007 18:01:21 GMT -5
Funny how a WCW thread turned into another WWE fanboy vs. TNA fanboy thread...
Can't we all agree that the WWE, TNA, and WCW have/had the same level of crap? Or are we all too bias?
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 13, 2007 18:04:01 GMT -5
You must need glasses because I didn't bring it up. You didn't bother responding to the rest of my thread either because you can't without looking like a jack@ss. Pointless is right. And yet again, you proved that you can't do anything without flaming someone. Thanks for playing.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Sept 13, 2007 18:12:34 GMT -5
You must need glasses because I didn't bring it up. You didn't bother responding to the rest of my thread either because you can't without looking like a jack@ss. Pointless is right. And yet again, you proved that you can't do anything without flaming someone. Thanks for playing. And you prove that you can't say anything to anyone without a smart-ass, smary comment on the end of it...no offense...
|
|