Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 16:25:27 GMT -5
Seriously, it's SO weird. Wrestling's one of the few industries where being good at it makes people suspicious you'll STILL BE GOOD AT IT. So friggin' weird.
Oh, and no one needs to feel bad about wrong about Seth Rollins. Tons of us indy geeks HATED Tyler Black. He got a lot of Cena comparisons, as in everyone's mind he was overpushed everywhere he went. There was a ton of hate for that dude and a ton of people who thought he'd be Justin Gabriel in WWE because he was such a bad promo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 16:29:49 GMT -5
I prefer the chocolate ones on Easter but i will take vanilla if i have to.
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,279
|
Post by Woo on Aug 29, 2015 16:43:02 GMT -5
I think Vanilla Midget only applied to Daniel Bryan, Austin Aries, Davey Richards, probably could say Finn Balor would have been one. No one was calling Jon Moxley, Tyler Black, Kevin Steen, El Generico, or Claudio Castagnoli vanilla midgets. These are all big, pro athlete sized men. They were. The terms Vanilla Midgets and Spot Monkeys were used for anybody on the indie scene. The people using those terms used them as blanket statements to describe the whole thing. They didn't look at size or whether they actually had chraisma or did high spots they used assumed with their pre-conceived notions that everyone who wasn't in the WWE was bland and flippy.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,083
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Aug 29, 2015 20:01:54 GMT -5
I think Vanilla Midget only applied to Daniel Bryan, Austin Aries, Davey Richards, probably could say Finn Balor would have been one. No one was calling Jon Moxley, Tyler Black, Kevin Steen, El Generico, or Claudio Castagnoli vanilla midgets. These are all big, pro athlete sized men. They were. The terms Vanilla Midgets and Spot Monkeys were used for anybody on the indie scene. The people using those terms used them as blanket statements to describe the whole thing. They didn't look at size or whether they actually had chraisma or did high spots they used assumed with their pre-conceived notions that everyone who wasn't in the WWE was bland and flippy. Honestly, to me, "Vanilla Midget" only applied to Dynamite Kid/Chris Benoit clones. And even then, I was a fan of some of them (Jamie Noble, for instance).
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 29, 2015 20:04:38 GMT -5
They were. The terms Vanilla Midgets and Spot Monkeys were used for anybody on the indie scene. The people using those terms used them as blanket statements to describe the whole thing. They didn't look at size or whether they actually had chraisma or did high spots they used assumed with their pre-conceived notions that everyone who wasn't in the WWE was bland and flippy. Honestly, to me, "Vanilla Midget" only applied to Dynamite Kid/Chris Benoit clones. And even then, I was a fan of some of them (Jamie Noble, for instance). I liked the RoH "Clone Saga". *ducks*
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 29, 2015 20:39:21 GMT -5
Hoo boy, do I ever remember those days. I got into ROH pretty big time back around 2004-2010 or so, and had joined the earlier version of this board just a handful of months earlier. The "spot monkey/vanilla midget" whatever stuff felt like it was everywhere, particularly during an era where WWE seemed particularly infamous for hiring oversized muscular guys. A lot of folks who hadn't seen more than maybe a couple of ROH matches would make blanket statements like "AJ Styles is a spot monkey", or "Bryan Danielson has no personality", or whatever other nonsense that anybody following the company for even just a few shows would be able to tell you was invalid. You'd also get people saying "WWE just gets storytelling better", and then you'd watch an episode of Raw or a 2005-era pay per view and be able to pretty safely say "yeah, that's bullshit". Not that WWE was always bad or what have you, but it wasn't like it was regularly engaging in high-end psychology and intelligent wrestling, either.
I do think there is a type of indy criticism that is fairer to use - a lot of guys on the indies are committed to working hard match-in, match-out, going all out to get attention and thus get future bookings. It's fair to look at that and criticize the state of the industry when guys who are in opening matches on a card feel compelled to nearly kill themselves to get attention and bookings. Some of those guys also don't yet have a full grasp of how effective storytelling and psychology can be, so "wrestling to look good" or "killing the crowd before the main event" can be a reasonable critique. Plus, let's not forget: a lot of older wrestlers came up in the industry during a time when, yeah, a lot of people were at least somewhat aware that wrestling was fake, but it was still a time when kayfabe was alive, and you absolutely did not need to do nearly as much to get a heavy crowd reaction as modern guys do in a post "We think you're tired of getting your intelligence insulted!" death-of-kayfabe world. Now that the crowds are smarter (and, subsequently, smaller), the wrestlers have no choice but to work themselves a lot harder in terms of workrate.
Finally, on the argument of "less people watch today's indy darlings than did </whatever older dudes> in the 90s", that's a clear cut case of correlation =/= causation. WWE's numbers began to decline well before the rise of talents like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan, back when WWE was still trotting out a lot of jacked up green dudes, and back when WCW wasn't around to create competition to gin up interest.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,083
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Aug 29, 2015 20:46:14 GMT -5
Hoo boy, do I ever remember those days. I got into ROH pretty big time back around 2004-2010 or so, and had joined the earlier version of this board just a handful of months earlier. The "spot monkey/vanilla midget" whatever stuff felt like it was everywhere, particularly during an era where WWE seemed particularly infamous for hiring oversized muscular guys. A lot of folks who hadn't seen more than maybe a couple of ROH matches would make blanket statements like "AJ Styles is a spot monkey", or "Bryan Danielson has no personality", or whatever other nonsense that anybody following the company for even just a few shows would be able to tell you was invalid. You'd also get people saying "WWE just gets storytelling better", and then you'd watch an episode of Raw or a 2005-era pay per view and be able to pretty safely say "yeah, that's bullshit". Not that WWE was always bad or what have you, but it wasn't like it was regularly engaging in high-end psychology and intelligent wrestling, either. I do think there is a type of indy criticism that is fairer to use - a lot of guys on the indies are committed to working hard match-in, match-out, going all out to get attention and thus get future bookings. It's fair to look at that and criticize the state of the industry when guys who are in opening matches on a card feel compelled to nearly kill themselves to get attention and bookings. Some of those guys also don't yet have a full grasp of how effective storytelling and psychology can be, so "wrestling to look good" or "killing the crowd before the main event" can be a reasonable critique. Plus, let's not forget: a lot of older wrestlers came up in the industry during a time when, yeah, a lot of people were at least somewhat aware that wrestling was fake, but it was still a time when kayfabe was alive, and you absolutely did not need to do nearly as much to get a heavy crowd reaction as modern guys do in a post "We think you're tired of getting your intelligence insulted!" death-of-kayfabe world. Now that the crowds are smarter (and, subsequently, smaller), the wrestlers have no choice but to work themselves a lot harder in terms of workrate. Finally, on the argument of "less people watch today's indy darlings than did </whatever older dudes> in the 90s", that's a clear cut case of correlation =/= causation. WWE's numbers began to decline well before the rise of talents like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan, back when WWE was still trotting out a lot of jacked up green dudes, and back when WCW wasn't around to create competition to gin up interest. I've said it before, and you may or may not agree; hell, it might not even be relevant. But I think that Punk and Bryan really changed the game in where you need to have an outside-the-ring personality that fans will gravitate towards (Punk as the outspoken iconoclast with views that match the 16-35 generation, Bryan as the soft-spoken hippie with an unmatched dedication to his craft). In the days of heavy Kayfabe, people didn't really pay attention to the "real life" Ric Flair, the "real life" Iron Shiek, the "real life" Superstar Billy Graham. A lot of indie, or even TNA guys now, I can't say I know ANYTHING about their outside-the-ring personality. I don't know much of anything about Davey Richards, for one example.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 29, 2015 20:49:27 GMT -5
Hoo boy, do I ever remember those days. I got into ROH pretty big time back around 2004-2010 or so, and had joined the earlier version of this board just a handful of months earlier. The "spot monkey/vanilla midget" whatever stuff felt like it was everywhere, particularly during an era where WWE seemed particularly infamous for hiring oversized muscular guys. A lot of folks who hadn't seen more than maybe a couple of ROH matches would make blanket statements like "AJ Styles is a spot monkey", or "Bryan Danielson has no personality", or whatever other nonsense that anybody following the company for even just a few shows would be able to tell you was invalid. You'd also get people saying "WWE just gets storytelling better", and then you'd watch an episode of Raw or a 2005-era pay per view and be able to pretty safely say "yeah, that's bullshit". Not that WWE was always bad or what have you, but it wasn't like it was regularly engaging in high-end psychology and intelligent wrestling, either. I do think there is a type of indy criticism that is fairer to use - a lot of guys on the indies are committed to working hard match-in, match-out, going all out to get attention and thus get future bookings. It's fair to look at that and criticize the state of the industry when guys who are in opening matches on a card feel compelled to nearly kill themselves to get attention and bookings. Some of those guys also don't yet have a full grasp of how effective storytelling and psychology can be, so "wrestling to look good" or "killing the crowd before the main event" can be a reasonable critique. Plus, let's not forget: a lot of older wrestlers came up in the industry during a time when, yeah, a lot of people were at least somewhat aware that wrestling was fake, but it was still a time when kayfabe was alive, and you absolutely did not need to do nearly as much to get a heavy crowd reaction as modern guys do in a post "We think you're tired of getting your intelligence insulted!" death-of-kayfabe world. Now that the crowds are smarter (and, subsequently, smaller), the wrestlers have no choice but to work themselves a lot harder in terms of workrate. Finally, on the argument of "less people watch today's indy darlings than did </whatever older dudes> in the 90s", that's a clear cut case of correlation =/= causation. WWE's numbers began to decline well before the rise of talents like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan, back when WWE was still trotting out a lot of jacked up green dudes, and back when WCW wasn't around to create competition to gin up interest. Wrestlers on the indies going all out has actually caused a shift in fan opinions in the opposite direction. Right now it seems like wrestlers who go all out in the ring are deemed "good" wrestlers and the ones who don't are labeled "green" (even if they're experienced veterans) and people say that they "can't wrestle". And because of WWE's tendency to only have the main event guys go full stop in the ring while guys further down the card are mandated to wrestle on cruise control, the wrestlers can't really do much to disprove that opinion unless WWE randomly decides they want to push that particular wrestler up the card. I feel that if certain guys in WWE were allowed to be quote unquote "spot monkeys" it would change the fans' perception of them for the better.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,083
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Aug 29, 2015 21:00:49 GMT -5
Hoo boy, do I ever remember those days. I got into ROH pretty big time back around 2004-2010 or so, and had joined the earlier version of this board just a handful of months earlier. The "spot monkey/vanilla midget" whatever stuff felt like it was everywhere, particularly during an era where WWE seemed particularly infamous for hiring oversized muscular guys. A lot of folks who hadn't seen more than maybe a couple of ROH matches would make blanket statements like "AJ Styles is a spot monkey", or "Bryan Danielson has no personality", or whatever other nonsense that anybody following the company for even just a few shows would be able to tell you was invalid. You'd also get people saying "WWE just gets storytelling better", and then you'd watch an episode of Raw or a 2005-era pay per view and be able to pretty safely say "yeah, that's bullshit". Not that WWE was always bad or what have you, but it wasn't like it was regularly engaging in high-end psychology and intelligent wrestling, either. I do think there is a type of indy criticism that is fairer to use - a lot of guys on the indies are committed to working hard match-in, match-out, going all out to get attention and thus get future bookings. It's fair to look at that and criticize the state of the industry when guys who are in opening matches on a card feel compelled to nearly kill themselves to get attention and bookings. Some of those guys also don't yet have a full grasp of how effective storytelling and psychology can be, so "wrestling to look good" or "killing the crowd before the main event" can be a reasonable critique. Plus, let's not forget: a lot of older wrestlers came up in the industry during a time when, yeah, a lot of people were at least somewhat aware that wrestling was fake, but it was still a time when kayfabe was alive, and you absolutely did not need to do nearly as much to get a heavy crowd reaction as modern guys do in a post "We think you're tired of getting your intelligence insulted!" death-of-kayfabe world. Now that the crowds are smarter (and, subsequently, smaller), the wrestlers have no choice but to work themselves a lot harder in terms of workrate. Finally, on the argument of "less people watch today's indy darlings than did </whatever older dudes> in the 90s", that's a clear cut case of correlation =/= causation. WWE's numbers began to decline well before the rise of talents like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan, back when WWE was still trotting out a lot of jacked up green dudes, and back when WCW wasn't around to create competition to gin up interest. Wrestlers on the indies going all out has actually caused a shift in fan opinions in the opposite direction. Right now it seems like wrestlers who go all out in the ring are deemed "good" wrestlers and the ones who don't are labeled "green" (even if they're experienced veterans) and people say that they "can't wrestle". And because of WWE's tendency to only have the main event guys go full stop in the ring while guys further down the card are mandated to wrestle on cruise control, the wrestlers can't really do much to disprove that opinion unless WWE randomly decides they want to push that particular wrestler up the card. I feel that if certain guys in WWE were allowed to be quote unquote "spot monkeys" it would change the fans' perception of them for the better. That's why I'm so surprised they're letting Owens basically dig out every move in the book. WWE has always liked having everyone have 3 or 4 memorable spots that everyone can see coming for miles away. And with Owens, for all his massive moveset, he only really has two signature spots (not counting his finisher), and that's the Corner Cannonball and the Apron Bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Non Banjoble Tokens on Aug 30, 2015 2:37:06 GMT -5
"Vanilla Midgets" sounds like a breakfast cereal akin to Lucky Charms.
|
|
|
Post by wwfmark on Aug 30, 2015 8:07:30 GMT -5
Bayley, "The Godmother". She pimps out "Too Sexy" Sami Zayn and "Beefcake" Bull Dempsey to get free victories over divas. Book it right now Bayley: Now, Tamina, you look like you could use a better outlet to release your pent up anger. So, instead of fighting me, how about you take ride on the BBBBRRRROOOOOO-TRAIN!? Tamina: I'll take them both. More like..... Tamina: Can I have the Ho-Train instead?
|
|