|
Post by "Handsome" Whitey Fats on Aug 12, 2008 14:50:58 GMT -5
Of course it's Trips fault How come it's never {insert wrestler(s) here} fault, it's always Trips fault? It's never their dangerous wrestling style or laziness or lack of promo abililty, it alway them being held down
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Aug 12, 2008 15:07:28 GMT -5
Of course it's Trips fault How come it's never {insert wrestler(s) here} fault, it's always Trips fault? It's never their dangerous wrestling style or laziness or lack of promo abililty, it alway them being held down Triple H started the war in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by "Handsome" Whitey Fats on Aug 12, 2008 15:17:57 GMT -5
He's hiding the WMDs in his huge nostrils
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:27:39 GMT -5
As champion he was the standard bearer for the company, and as such is supposed to be a role model and one who follows the rules. Whether the rule is right or wrong, he broke it and deserved to be stripped, and not trusted with the mantle again. I don't like to see boring workers, but I do like clean, crisp workers who hit their moves reguarly and put on far more consistent matches. RVD to me is the epitomy of midcarder, tv main event occasionally, guy. Honestly, I think with the extreme anti-WWE attitude ECW was trying to present they should have played the bust off. ECW at this point was still anti-WWE and WWE is "clean" and "perfect" while ECW showed the darker, grittier sides of people. ECW was more about realism in terms that people were themselves, they weren't archetypes of people or "larger than life role models". ECW was people who loved to wrestle, whether they smoked pot, had drinking problems, or whatever. It was that factor that made it feel real. WWECW should have embrassed it. Maybe strip him of the titles, but acknowledge and work with it for entertainment's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:31:31 GMT -5
I like RVD. Always have. The one and only criticism that people have of him I'm inclined to agree with is that he didn't adapt well to WWE's safe style. His fans, myself included, tend to complain that the E's style watered down what he could do, and his work suffered. True, but he really should've tried to adapt somehow in order to fit the E's mold (they were his bosses, after all) and find a way to still be unique. He never really tried to do that, and just stuck with his own 3 moves of doom--Corkscrew Legdrop, Rolling Thunder, Five-Star Frog Splash--which just fueled the fire of his critics that he's just a spot monkey who flips and kicks. Let's clear one thing up, though. Jerry Lynn didn't "carry" RVD. That's simply false. And Lynn himself would say the same thing. Both men brought out the best in each other, much like Ricky Steamboat and Flair (and no, I have no qualms with comparing RVD/Lynn matches to Steamboat/Flair matches). In addition to great matches with Lynn, RVD had stellar matches against Sabu, Lance Storm, and Taz. Now, while Storm and Taz might be able to carry someone, Sabu couldn't to save his life, but he and Rob still had good matches. Anyway, I've always rolled my eyes at the "flippy/kicky" and "he smokes put! bust his ass!" accusations. I've just seen too many matches where Rob put on an awesome performance that involved great wrestling (like a title defense against Kurt on ECW), and people overreact waaayyy too much about marijuana. But his failure to adapt to WWE is a valid criticism. It would be one thing if it looked like he at least tried to adapt and still be unique, but it never appeared that way. It came across more like he figure out a handful of moves he could get away with and used them over and over. I'll always be a big fan of Rob's, but his WWE work was less than stellar. And it's unfair to put all the blame on the E for that. If there's one thing I admire about Rob, it's that he sticks to his beliefs. Call him stupid and tell him he f***ed himself over by not playing ball with WWE, but I admire the SHIT out of him for being himself. He doesn't compromise, and he does things his way. No one else's. He lives by his ideals and breaks his balls for no one. This makes RVD stand WAY the f*** out for me. Not only is he one of my favorite wrestlers, he's one of my favorite people. I mean, he's no Plato or Socrates, but there is something very noble and endearing about the way he sticks to his beliefs. I take that from him as my role model.
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Aug 12, 2008 15:32:24 GMT -5
As champion he was the standard bearer for the company, and as such is supposed to be a role model and one who follows the rules. Whether the rule is right or wrong, he broke it and deserved to be stripped, and not trusted with the mantle again. I don't like to see boring workers, but I do like clean, crisp workers who hit their moves reguarly and put on far more consistent matches. RVD to me is the epitomy of midcarder, tv main event occasionally, guy. Honestly, I think with the extreme anti-WWE attitude ECW was trying to present they should have played the bust off. ECW at this point was still anti-WWE and WWE is "clean" and "perfect" while ECW showed the darker, grittier sides of people. ECW was more about realism in terms that people were themselves, they weren't archetypes of people or "larger than life role models". ECW was people who loved to wrestle, whether they smoked pot, had drinking problems, or whatever. It was that factor that made it feel real. WWECW should have embrassed it. Maybe strip him of the titles, but acknowledge and work with it for entertainment's sake. I understand what you're getting at, and its very like the sort of thing Paul Heyman would have booked in the old ECW, however with the cleaner presentation WWE are trying to present with Wellness, they needed to make an example of him to show it was taken seriously. To make an angle would have been making light of it and would have given Wrestling critics ammo.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:36:46 GMT -5
Honestly, I think with the extreme anti-WWE attitude ECW was trying to present they should have played the bust off. ECW at this point was still anti-WWE and WWE is "clean" and "perfect" while ECW showed the darker, grittier sides of people. ECW was more about realism in terms that people were themselves, they weren't archetypes of people or "larger than life role models". ECW was people who loved to wrestle, whether they smoked pot, had drinking problems, or whatever. It was that factor that made it feel real. WWECW should have embrassed it. Maybe strip him of the titles, but acknowledge and work with it for entertainment's sake. I understand what you're getting at, and its very like the sort of thing Paul Heyman would have booked in the old ECW, however with the cleaner presentation WWE are trying to present with Wellness, they needed to make an example of him to show it was taken seriously. To make an angle would have been making light of it and would have given Wrestling critics ammo. Or they could have been revolutionary and have RVD advocate pot on national television. I do understand that they couldn't because of stock holders and being a public company, but it would have made for AWESOME tv. Besides, the offense for pot is a fine. What I don't get is, that That 70's Show wasn't ridiculed for having kids advocate pot, but if RVD did, WWE is all of a sudden pro-pot, when everyone knows its fake...and just his character.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Aug 12, 2008 15:51:13 GMT -5
I understand what you're getting at, and its very like the sort of thing Paul Heyman would have booked in the old ECW, however with the cleaner presentation WWE are trying to present with Wellness, they needed to make an example of him to show it was taken seriously. To make an angle would have been making light of it and would have given Wrestling critics ammo. Or they could have been revolutionary and have RVD advocate pot on national television. I do understand that they couldn't because of stock holders and being a public company, but it would have made for AWESOME tv. Besides, the offense for pot is a fine. What I don't get is, that That 70's Show wasn't ridiculed for having kids advocate pot, but if RVD did, WWE is all of a sudden pro-pot, when everyone knows its fake...and just his character. The public doesn't care about any of that. They never talk about the good things Vince and the WWE do, only the bad things. Storyline or not, people would have POUNCED on the fact that a show with young children as viewers is "advocating" using pot. Old ECW could get away with stuff the WWE never could as they had more of a niche audience and were on later at night. It's the problem professional wrestling always faces. As far as "That 70's Show" goes (one of my favorite shows), I watched a show where, I believe it was the director said that they never used the words "pot" or "marijuana" because that would be going too far for the networks.
|
|
|
Post by "Handsome" Whitey Fats on Aug 12, 2008 16:06:25 GMT -5
Or they could have been revolutionary and have RVD advocate pot on national television. I do understand that they couldn't because of stock holders and being a public company, but it would have made for AWESOME tv. Besides, the offense for pot is a fine. What I don't get is, that That 70's Show wasn't ridiculed for having kids advocate pot, but if RVD did, WWE is all of a sudden pro-pot, when everyone knows its fake...and just his character. The public doesn't care about any of that. They never talk about the good things Vince and the WWE do, only the bad things. Storyline or not, people would have POUNCED on the fact that a show with young children as viewers is "advocating" using pot. Old ECW could get away with stuff the WWE never could as they had more of a niche audience and were on later at night. It's the problem professional wrestling always faces. As far as "That 70's Show" goes (one of my favorite shows), I watched a show where, I believe it was the director said that they never used the words "pot" or "marijuana" because that would be going too far for the networks. And thay never actually show the pot either...
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 16:28:41 GMT -5
The public doesn't care about any of that. They never talk about the good things Vince and the WWE do, only the bad things. Storyline or not, people would have POUNCED on the fact that a show with young children as viewers is "advocating" using pot. Old ECW could get away with stuff the WWE never could as they had more of a niche audience and were on later at night. It's the problem professional wrestling always faces. As far as "That 70's Show" goes (one of my favorite shows), I watched a show where, I believe it was the director said that they never used the words "pot" or "marijuana" because that would be going too far for the networks. And thay never actually show the pot either... No, they don't. But, a lot of comedy shows have comedians admit to it. Don't get me wrong, I know where the WWE was coming from (and dont say anything about Wellness, because at this point they were lax on it) and they couldn't have done anything about it. Just sucks that they couldn't have. And I still don't blame Rob for what he did. He believes in the legalization of pot, and doesn't let anyone stand in the way of that. How many people do you know that freely speak their mind and stick to their individualism like RVD? He's truly my role model. I'm old enough to realize what to take from him and what not to. I won't get into the pot issues here, but what I take away from him is his individualism and his boldness. Two elements missing from the corporate mass this country has become.
|
|
Mayhem
Don Corleone
BANNED.
No dreams breed in breathless sleep...
Posts: 1,590
|
Post by Mayhem on Aug 12, 2008 16:29:10 GMT -5
Speaking of his run as Hardcore Champ, I thought it was great. I think that's when the belt felt like a real title and he wore it well. He didn't make a joke out of it or bring a bunch of toy weapons down to the ring (sorry, Raven). He wrestled normal matches, and he reminded people what hardcore was supposed to be about. If he used a chair in the match, it was just to add to what he was already doing. On the other hand, WWF had been tossing lame asses in the ring and saying they were hardcore because there were weapons around. RVD's time with the title (which was quite lengthy, compared to other reigns) was probably the only time it really meant anything.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Aug 12, 2008 16:32:52 GMT -5
Of course it's Trips fault How come it's never {insert wrestler(s) here} fault, it's always Trips fault? It's never their dangerous wrestling style or laziness or lack of promo abililty, it alway them being held down Well, it's far more complicated than "he's being berried!" Triple H defeated RVD at Unforgiven in 2002. He would then lose the title to Shawn Michaels at the Survivor Series of that year, to gain it back about a month later or so. Triple H would then lose the title to Goldberg in '03, Unforgiven, I believe, but would get the title back a couple of months later. And I think we all now how lacklustre Goldberg's run was with the belt. He lost the title to Benoit in '04, and Benoit's title run was a glorified victory lap. Benoit would lose the title to the upstart Randy Orton at Summerslam '04, just for Triple H to win the title again at Unforgiven. There was something involving a vacant title that Triple H won AGAIN in early '05. From WM 21 until No Mercy last year, Triple H didn't hold a heavyweight title. Now, after that history lesson, what does it all mean? Do I think Triple H was politicking to stay on top? Not really. But he WAS on top nonetheless. Didn't he have any good opponents that could credibly defeat him? Yeah, he did. RVD, Booker T, and Kane to me were all credible, and Goldberg DID defeat him, but not like a Goldberg win really put WWE back on the map. I feel Triple H for almost a 3 year period was dominant on Raw because management felt they didn't have anyone reliable to carry the show (I don't have proof of this, obviously, this is just an opinion). Triple H is a marquee name since 1998, but for 2002-2005ish Raw with him on top was boring, boring, boring. Whomever decided to keep him on top should be blamed, and not just Triple H "berrying" people. NOW, as to RVD, he was over in 2002 by the time of Unforgiven, but not as hot as he was in 2001, but could have been a title holder as CM Punk is now, and could have been a fresh main event face ("face" as well) who could have had a good 4 month or so reign before dropping the title back to someone else. He had the potential and the fans then, but after 2002, he stopped being interesting, to me. After his loss to Triple H, I couldn't take him seriously as a contender, and I felt the same way after Booker T at WM 19 and Kane later in 2003. Why would WWE book faces that I can't get behind? So, no, it's not a big H conspiracy, but rather some bad booking decisions coupled with people who stopped caring about getting ahead when they weren't given the ball (and somewhat justifiably so, although if you go back and read my post, I do lay blame at RVD's feet as well for why it took so long for him to get the big title win).
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Aug 12, 2008 19:06:29 GMT -5
Just an interesting trend I notice in RVD hate posts is that *at least* 50 percent of the people who make their "arguments" against him could (and should?) turn those same arguments around to WWE overrated heaps of trash that they often support on the boards because those wrestlers are guilty of those arguments to the nth power.
Don't get me wrong, I agree to disagree with many of you and you make valid points. But, like I said, it's just that at least half of the so-called complaints from *some* people are pretty weak when you see them praising other pitiful workrates in the biz on the WWE boards.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 12, 2008 19:36:27 GMT -5
I am an RVD fan, but I do not think he is a top five wrestler.
I am well aware that he is a lot of flash, and that's fine with me. That's prolly why he translated as well as he did to WWE. I am also well aware that he sucks on the mike, but I also realize that he is hardly the first guy to suck on the mike.
I don't recall any matches where he was carried. Whomever said this is probably just being a hater.
RVD is also not a top 5 wrestler. Whomever says this is a fanboy (and that's fine). But there are at least 20 other guys I would rather build a program around.
And the whole getting busted with weed thing isn't a huge deal, but RVD knew what he was getting himself into. I think he was a fool for setting himself up like that, but at the same time there are dead guys who are very much beloved and yet did worse.
|
|
Mayhem
Don Corleone
BANNED.
No dreams breed in breathless sleep...
Posts: 1,590
|
Post by Mayhem on Aug 12, 2008 20:48:40 GMT -5
Of course it's Trips fault How come it's never {insert wrestler(s) here} fault, it's always Trips fault? It's never their dangerous wrestling style or laziness or lack of promo abililty, it alway them being held down Well, it's far more complicated than "he's being berried!" Triple H defeated RVD at Unforgiven in 2002. He would then lose the title to Shawn Michaels at the Survivor Series of that year, to gain it back about a month later or so. Triple H would then lose the title to Goldberg in '03, Unforgiven, I believe, but would get the title back a couple of months later. And I think we all now how lacklustre Goldberg's run was with the belt. He lost the title to Benoit in '04, and Benoit's title run was a glorified victory lap. Benoit would lose the title to the upstart Randy Orton at Summerslam '04, just for Triple H to win the title again at Unforgiven. There was something involving a vacant title that Triple H won AGAIN in early '05. From WM 21 until No Mercy last year, Triple H didn't hold a heavyweight title. Now, after that history lesson, what does it all mean? Do I think Triple H was politicking to stay on top? Not really. But he WAS on top nonetheless. Didn't he have any good opponents that could credibly defeat him? Yeah, he did. RVD, Booker T, and Kane to me were all credible, and Goldberg DID defeat him, but not like a Goldberg win really put WWE back on the map. I feel Triple H for almost a 3 year period was dominant on Raw because management felt they didn't have anyone reliable to carry the show (I don't have proof of this, obviously, this is just an opinion). Triple H is a marquee name since 1998, but for 2002-2005ish Raw with him on top was boring, boring, boring. Whomever decided to keep him on top should be blamed, and not just Triple H "berrying" people. NOW, as to RVD, he was over in 2002 by the time of Unforgiven, but not as hot as he was in 2001, but could have been a title holder as CM Punk is now, and could have been a fresh main event face ("face" as well) who could have had a good 4 month or so reign before dropping the title back to someone else. He had the potential and the fans then, but after 2002, he stopped being interesting, to me. After his loss to Triple H, I couldn't take him seriously as a contender, and I felt the same way after Booker T at WM 19 and Kane later in 2003. Why would WWE book faces that I can't get behind? So, no, it's not a big H conspiracy, but rather some bad booking decisions coupled with people who stopped caring about getting ahead when they weren't given the ball (and somewhat justifiably so, although if you go back and read my post, I do lay blame at RVD's feet as well for why it took so long for him to get the big title win). You know, I always thought RVD should have been the one to end Jericho's Undisputed Title reign. Of course, Jericho's reign should have lasted longer, so RVD should have taken the strap at Summerslam 2002. Think about it, all the reigns after Jericho were short and pointless (HHH, Hogan, Taker, Rock) and that time would have been suitable for giving Jericho more credibility as a main eventer and working a nice long feud with RVD.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Aug 13, 2008 0:25:32 GMT -5
I am an RVD fan, but I do not think he is a top five wrestler. I am well aware that he is a lot of flash, and that's fine with me. That's probably why he translated as well as he did to WWE. I am also well aware that he sucks on the mike, but I also realize that he is hardly the first guy to suck on the mike. I don't recall any matches where he was carried. RVD is also not a top 5 wrestler. There are at least 20 other guys I would rather build a program around. And the whole getting busted with weed thing isn't a huge deal, but RVD knew what he was getting himself into. I think he was a fool for setting himself up like that, but at the same time there are dead guys who are very much beloved and yet did worse. That pretty much sums up my feelings. I always wanted him to get a run with a top belt, but also never felt he should hold more the 2-3 months. As for the pot thing, I've said many times before that the fact that he was DRIVING while high was a piss poor decision. Wait till you reach your hotel, or house, or wherever you were going. Smoking up while driving is a very irresponsible decision, and he deserved what he got.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Aug 13, 2008 10:28:29 GMT -5
As for the pot thing, I've said many times before that the fact that he was DRIVING while high was a piss poor decision. Wait till you reach your hotel, or house, or wherever you were going. Smoking up while driving is a very irresponsible decision, and he deserved what he got. If I'm not mistaken, he wasn't high, according to police reports. He was only cited for possession, not driving under the influence--a charge that includes marijuana, alcohol, and any number of other narcotics. I'm not defending his actions. I'm just pointing out that, according to police (who deal with this sort of thing a LOT), he wasn't high while driving.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Aug 13, 2008 14:43:23 GMT -5
RVD has always been one of my favorites, but his style in WWE was way too watered down, especially after his first few months with the company. It's not that his matches were boring, it's just that he stopped being innovative and just relied on a moveset that we saw in all of his matches.
Of course, RVD proved that he could still go during the new ECW angle. He had a good showing against Rey Mysterio, and put on a good match with Cena at ONS. He then had an awesome match with Edge at Vengeance. Then he got busted with weed and was back to his normal self.
I don't blame RVD for falling into this "rinse, wash, repeat" style, but I wonder if he has what it takes to make it outside of WWE now. He would be trying to make it with an indy style that's 10 years old.
|
|