|
Post by ________ has left the building on Apr 2, 2015 12:00:23 GMT -5
Like I said numerous times here, WWE should stick to layman terms or over the top injuries for kayfabe use to avoid grief. Anyone with access to Web MD will research everything mention on Raw. Just stick to "he's hurt" and leave it at that. Well, that too and the cervical fracture part is easy to find as it was ultimately what was said to have killed Perro on the official autopsy report. Actually it was a cervical stroke that lead to a massive heart attack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 12:01:35 GMT -5
But few are a business that is aired across many countries and in fact, has their own freaking doctors as people who could tell them the appropriate kayfabe injury for their situation. So they can never use a broken neck as a kayfabe injury anymore because of Perro? Cole landed nasty on his head. Saying he suffered a possible cervical injury wasn't a stretch. You can break your neck and not die from it. Perro had numerous other factors that played into his demise. Next time WWE should just stick to saying Cole is hurt instead of using medical terms so the lay folks won't get offended. I have nothing against them using medical terms, and of COURSE they can use a broken neck as a kayfabe injury again. It was just kind of dickish to use it as a fake injury a week after a huge name in the business actually died from it in the ring. Allow some time to pass out of respect before you use that injury. I can't say how long they should wait as it is subjective, but it should be almost universally agreed that a week is too damn soon. It would be akin to them having Cole clutch his chest and keel over the week after Warrior died. There's things you just don't do without backlash. I'm not saying they were making light of the tragedy, but they still should have taken it into account and showed respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 12:03:50 GMT -5
Well, that too and the cervical fracture part is easy to find as it was ultimately what was said to have killed Perro on the official autopsy report. Actually it was a cervical stroke that lead to a massive heart attack. The multiple fractures lead to the stroke which lead to the heart attack. In your layman's terms he "broke his neck in 3 places and died from his injuries".
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Apr 2, 2015 12:10:26 GMT -5
So they can never use a broken neck as a kayfabe injury anymore because of Perro? Cole landed nasty on his head. Saying he suffered a possible cervical injury wasn't a stretch. You can break your neck and not die from it. Perro had numerous other factors that played into his demise. Next time WWE should just stick to saying Cole is hurt instead of using medical terms so the lay folks won't get offended. I have nothing against them using medical terms, and of COURSE they can use a broken neck as a kayfabe injury again. It was just kind of dickish to use it as a fake injury a week after a huge name in the business actually died from it in the ring. Allow some time to pass out of respect before you use that injury. I can't say how long they should wait as it is subjective, but it should be almost universally agreed that a week is too damn soon. It would be akin to them having Cole clutch his chest and keel over the week after Warrior died. There's things you just don't do without backlash. I'm not saying they were making light of the tragedy, but they still should have taken it into account and showed respect. There's no middle ground with WWE. Say he suffered a concussion, backlash. Say he suffered a neck injury backlash. Say he's just shaken up, backlash. I rather they just had him attack JBL or Booker instead of Cole because wrestlers are expected to be tougher than regular folks so a simple "he's hurt and bruised" works. Using that for Cole would make Brock less of a force of nature which leads to backlash.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 12:11:22 GMT -5
I'm not reading through 6 pages of this, but is this really a problem? Neck injuries to use as an excuse to keep someone off of TV or to explain away any absence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 13:18:51 GMT -5
I'm not reading through 6 pages of this, but is this really a problem? Neck injuries to use as an excuse to keep someone off of TV or to explain away any absence. Yes and no, but I can be bothered explaining it again about as much as you can be bothered reading where it's already been explained half a dozen times (at least), so I guess we're at a stalemate. Read the thread if you're that interested man, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 14:45:09 GMT -5
It's not a problem. It's an excuse to bitch. Like I said, neck injuries have been used for years. Why stop now? Concussions played a role in what happened to Benoit. Let's ban all mentions of concussions.
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 2, 2015 14:54:43 GMT -5
It's not a problem. It's an excuse to bitch. Like I said, neck injuries have been used for years. Why stop now? Concussions played a role in what happened to Benoit. Let's ban all mentions of concussions. The issue wasn't the use of the injury at all, just the timing of it. There's a reason they killed the "Vince is dead" angle after Benoit.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 15:08:18 GMT -5
It's not a problem. It's an excuse to bitch. Like I said, neck injuries have been used for years. Why stop now? Concussions played a role in what happened to Benoit. Let's ban all mentions of concussions. The issue wasn't the use of the injury at all, just the timing of it. There's a reason they killed the "Vince is dead" angle after Benoit. Where do we draw the line? Do we start up after six months or a year? Three months? It was very tragic what happened, but do you really think it was done in a way that was being disrespectful?
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 2, 2015 15:24:18 GMT -5
The issue wasn't the use of the injury at all, just the timing of it. There's a reason they killed the "Vince is dead" angle after Benoit. Where do we draw the line? Do we start up after six months or a year? Three months? It was very tragic what happened, but do you really think it was done in a way that was being disrespectful? Oh no, it was done totally out of stupidity. But ignorance isn't a good excuse for a bad result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 17:06:46 GMT -5
The issue wasn't the use of the injury at all, just the timing of it. There's a reason they killed the "Vince is dead" angle after Benoit. Where do we draw the line? Do we start up after six months or a year? Three months? It was very tragic what happened, but do you really think it was done in a way that was being disrespectful? You said yourself that you're not reading the thread, how about doing so if you're going to be complaining about what's been said in it.
|
|