|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Dec 24, 2016 10:57:24 GMT -5
The lesson the WWE took away from the push to get Daniel Bryan to main event Wrestlemania wasn't to strike while the iron is hot with talent, it was to double down on their attempts limit the overness of talent before it becomes a problem.
People would be FAR more forgiving of Dynamite Kid being a crappy human being if his WWF run had happened in the 90s rather than the 80s because examples of him being great in the ring would be fresher in people's minds, being all across WWE DVDs and the network and many people are dazzled by workrate. We'd see a lot of the stories being dismissed as the word of bitter ex co-workers who were jealous of his success.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Dec 25, 2016 16:51:38 GMT -5
Savage/Steamboat was really good but not "The greatest match ever" I'd agree, but also feel like it's one of those cases where context is king. Yes, the average RAW main-event today has a far greater level of athleticism within it, but given the time in which it took place, it was genuine simulated combat in the age of the comic book 'rasslin hero. To me, it's like comparing Christopher Reeve's Superman to Henry Cavil's. Man of Steel has better special effects and grandiose finale, but where's the charm?
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Dec 26, 2016 14:18:52 GMT -5
Can't believe it's taken me this long to think of this one-
I truly, genuinely love the Orton/Christian 2011 feud and think it was the right decision having Orton win so quickly. It gave Christian an added aggression and facet to his character and he looked strong in all their matches, in a world title feud he was never going to get otherwise. Every match was excellent and they managed to keep the feud interesting and heated for a long time. Honestly one of my favourite in-ring feuds ever.
|
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Rican on Dec 26, 2016 15:37:38 GMT -5
I'm re-watching PPV's from that era and wanted to say I really enjoyed the Invasion angle. Yeah they should have tried to get some of the bigger WCW stars but what we got was fun too.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Dec 26, 2016 16:22:48 GMT -5
Watching some of his territory work, I kinda enjoy Mid-Atlantic/GCW Piper more than WWF piper.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Black on Dec 27, 2016 2:50:39 GMT -5
I haven't seen a movie that's better than a great wrestling match.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 27, 2016 3:28:58 GMT -5
Can't believe it's taken me this long to think of this one- I truly, genuinely love the Orton/Christian 2011 feud and think it was the right decision having Orton win so quickly. It gave Christian an added aggression and facet to his character and he looked strong in all their matches, in a world title feud he was never going to get otherwise. Every match was excellent and they managed to keep the feud interesting and heated for a long time. Honestly one of my favourite in-ring feuds ever. That was one of the first I mentioned in the earlier pages. No matter what way you slice it, the correct move was to have Orton take the belt. Christian got over much more than he would have as a fighting face champion which we already saw on ECW. That was the feud of the summer.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,203
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 27, 2016 3:47:49 GMT -5
I don't think it's an insult to call a title belt a prop. It's what it is, and it is used like any other prop in a play would.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Dec 27, 2016 4:31:46 GMT -5
I don't think it's an insult to call a title belt a prop. It's what it is, and it is used like any other prop in a play would. I would imagine that this sort of thinking separates the men from the boys, for the most part. The Rock, for example, always aimed to be World Champion. He said as much that you got to aim for the top, even in this non-competitive environment. Has John Cena called it a prop? Normally hear mid-carders refer to the title as a prop. Maybe to justify underwhelming careers?
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,203
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 27, 2016 4:38:49 GMT -5
I don't think it's an insult to call a title belt a prop. It's what it is, and it is used like any other prop in a play would. I would imagine that this sort of thinking separates the men from the boys, for the most part. The Rock, for example, always aimed to be World Champion. He said as much that you got to aim for the top, even in this non-competitive environment. Has John Cena called it a prop? Normally hear mid-carders refer to the title as a prop. Maybe to justify underwhelming careers? A wrestler's efforts are real, but they have title belts because their boss says "here you go, wear this". That's a prop.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Dec 27, 2016 12:34:23 GMT -5
I would imagine that this sort of thinking separates the men from the boys, for the most part. The Rock, for example, always aimed to be World Champion. He said as much that you got to aim for the top, even in this non-competitive environment. Has John Cena called it a prop? Normally hear mid-carders refer to the title as a prop. Maybe to justify underwhelming careers? A wrestler's efforts are real, but they have title belts because their boss says "here you go, wear this". That's a prop. Actors in TV shows don't go 'Well, I was given a starring role, but that's meaningless because acting is just playing pretend'. That's what a title is, a starring role, it means the producers/directors have faith in you, your ability to put on a good show and to sell tickets that they've promoted you to being a featured player, someone used heavily on television and to promote live shows, that matters. There are financial rewards for holding a title, even if they're not as immediate as some wrestlers would like, so they're more than just a prop.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,203
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 27, 2016 12:41:14 GMT -5
A wrestler's efforts are real, but they have title belts because their boss says "here you go, wear this". That's a prop. Actors in TV shows don't go 'Well, I was given a starring role, but that's meaningless because acting is just playing pretend'. That's what a title is, a starring role, it means the producers/directors have faith in you, your ability to put on a good show and to sell tickets that they've promoted you to being a featured player, someone used heavily on television and to promote live shows, that matters. I'm not saying it is meaningless, I am talking more about people getting offended at the use of the word "prop". Lightsabers are a pretty big deal, the Batmobile has a lot of emotional currency with fans, and they do matter. I am just saying that it's not disparaging in and of itself. It matters, but less than the actual part the wrestler is playing. Like, think about when Warrior was champion. The feud between Hogan and Earthquake was more important than Warrior's activity during that same period. The actual champion's push is more important than the belt itself, and when people talk about hot potato-ing and devaluing, I feel like that's often missing the point of the role the belt is playing to begin with.
|
|
The Blue Nova
Don Corleone
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,396
|
Post by The Blue Nova on Dec 27, 2016 13:36:08 GMT -5
I'd agree, but also feel like it's one of those cases where context is king. Yes, the average RAW main-event today has a far greater level of athleticism within it, but given the time in which it took place, it was genuine simulated combat in the age of the comic book 'rasslin hero. To me, it's like comparing Christopher Reeve's Superman to Henry Cavil's. Man of Steel has better special effects and grandiose finale, but where's the charm? I think the thing is for a WWF match at the time it was probably was the best match ever in there company because they relied on more characters and such where people just did not have great matches compared to the NWA product at the time
|
|
|
Post by Adam Black on Dec 28, 2016 12:54:04 GMT -5
Nepotism is so closely tied into wrestling, I really don't get that upset about it anymore, provided they're good. Bear in mind, Terry Funk and Dory Funk, Jr. got their start in their father's territory. When people rail on about second, third, etc, generation stars being a bad thing or all duds, I have to wonder if they are aware they're including Ted DiBiase, Jake Roberts, Terry Funk, and many more in that heap of supposed shit, in addition to more obvious ones such as Goldust, The Rock, Bret and Owen, and others who obviously justified their paycheck. Most of those names had nearly a decade of experience under their belt before they got anywhere near a title in the WWF, had worked for WCW for a long stretch or had travelled the world to perfect their craft so had more experience than non legacy names. The Rock was a once in a life time find for the WWE and every other time they've tried to push someone to the moon with very little experience, it just hasn't worked, they've effectively hung a generation of kids out to dry because they built up expectations they simply don't have the experience needed to fulfil, by the time they've started to find themselves the crowds are sick of them and management have newer, shinier toys. In the modern era, 'second/third generation' has become synonymous with 'Pushed before they're ready' in the eyes of the fans. Ted Jr. wasn't ready, Roman wasn't ready, Cody wasn't ready, Joe Hennig wasn't ready, Randy Orton wasn't ready, they were bog standard developmental guys with higher expectations from the audience because of who they're related to, it's not their fault, but here we are. The Rock wasn't ready too. Well atleast initially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 17:14:33 GMT -5
Watching some of his territory work, I kinda enjoy Mid-Atlantic/GCW Piper more than WWF piper. "People are gonna find out how much Rod they can handle."
|
|
|
Post by Rudy Gobert Fadeaway on Dec 29, 2016 1:46:11 GMT -5
No matter how hard I try, John Cena does nothing for me because he still comes off like a total douchebag on screen.
Also, the majority of his matches are overly-spotty snoozefests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 3:30:06 GMT -5
Eli Drake is a better promo than anybody in WWE right now.
Kane after unmasking (including before he unmasked and was being asked to be a monster again), until he turned babyface in 2004 is way better than what he was doing prior. That angle in the summer of '03 is freaking amazing and Kane was just an absolute scary monster.
RAW wasn't all around bad during the first brand split. Only bad things really were the Reign of Terror and HLA. Everything was pretty cool.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,203
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 29, 2016 3:44:07 GMT -5
Matt Morgan would have probably had a better career if TNA could have booked him to his strengths. He was not all that great, but they booked him like he was 6'2, and that did him no favors. They have never been particularly good at booking big men, anyway, even in the best of times, so I am not too shocked.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Dec 29, 2016 8:11:34 GMT -5
Matt Morgan would have probably had a better career if TNA could have booked him to his strengths. He was not all that great, but they booked him like he was 6'2, and that did him no favors. They have never been particularly good at booking big men, anyway, even in the best of times, so I am not too shocked. They built Ring Ka King around Matt Morgan with Dutch Mantell given free reign to book the show without interference and he was boring there too. He was very much a WWE developmental guy, he could perform moves well but at the end of the day he was a giant Rene Dupree, great look but something was missing.
|
|
|
Post by Ted Sheckler on Dec 29, 2016 8:23:58 GMT -5
First, on the belt being a prop thing I can't compare it to say a lightsaber or a gun or what have you. The belts have meaning and value to the fans and in some circumstances the belt can actually draw people to a building. Nobody is buying a movie ticket because Luke Skywalker is going to use a lightsaber but a hell of a lot of people have bought tickets just because "NWA World Heavyweight Championship Match" was written on a poster. Even today a handful of fans will pay to see NWA World Heavyweight Champion Regional Indy Guy simply because of what the belt meant 30 years ago.
As for my sacrilegious opinion...I've always been an attitude wrestling guy until I started watching more old school territory wrestling and I honestly think the territory days are the way wrestling should be. Everything from the 5-7 day a week tours to the keeping kayfabe and offering a realistic approach to wrestling that actually makes people say to themselves "Oh, this is for real".
Instead in modern wrestling today we have outlandish stuff that isn't believable at all and is clearly a work. Why would I drop 20 dollars to see Matt Hardy at an independent where he does a gimmick that isn't realistic? Why would I get into a match between two guys who are doing crazy spot after crazy spot for absolutely no reason just to pop a crowd? How can I get into two guys hitting 15 superkicks in a match with not one of them meaning anything?
No thanks. I'll go back to the days where a superplex meant something and could finish a match.
|
|