|
Post by Bubble Lead on Jun 30, 2010 8:55:54 GMT -5
It's obviously uninspired and generic.
I haven't been this unenthusiastic about PW since the mid-nineties. This is like the mid-90s "holdover pattern" period, except with no competition, no random possibilities(I don't see Evan Bourne ever hitting a Shawn Michaels breakout period anytime soon), no fire.
Yes, the wrestling is better than in the past but WWE can't compete with indies, puro, etc. in wrestling quality for many reasons. Most of their featured wrestlers utilize the same cookie cutter, boring style. The ones who don't are typically restricted to make the chosen ones look good. It's an old argument, but nobody can tell me that the NXT Rookies could make one hopeful or excited for the future. Just another symptom, if you ask me.
The last thing in WWE I was interested in was Daniel Bryan. I didn't watch the main shows anymore due to the drudgery, but still watched NXT because of him. I wasn't really a big fan of him on the indies but his NXT story was fascinating and relevant to me because it felt more rooted in real emotion and was complex enough to go anywhere. We saw what happened there.
It's essentially WWE admitting they are not going to do anything interesting in the near future. If that's the case, I still won't be watching. That was the last time I got excited over any WWE happenings only to see things return to the status quo. It's happened constantly over the past six or so years, but that was simply 168 times too many for me.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 7, 2010 1:13:57 GMT -5
I didn't read past the unprotected chairshot rant. Why? Storm was in ECW. Hell, I remember watching Sandman/Sabu or Awesome/Tanaka and losing count of the unprotected chairshots. I'm sure Storm has more reasoning beyond the chairshot issue, but him citing that as a reason is just lame and hypocritical. Because changing your mind on a subject after 15 years and seeing many of your friends die makes you a hypocrite. No sir. Once you have an opinion, you have to stick with it for life! :rolleyes: Not really. I just think he is overreacting. One unprotected chairshot on a show does not equate to what, as a hardcore ECW viewer, I can average out to probably at least 5-10 unprotected chairshots per ECW show. Yes, time changes perspectives and views. Yet, should WWE ban the Superplex? Should I be sickened by WWE continuing to use it? One Superplex put Chris Benoit out for almost a year less than a decade ago.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 7, 2010 1:08:32 GMT -5
You can read and re read Lance's post over and over and pick up everything except for what I believe is the key to it all. At the bottom of the post is a long, way too long, list of dead wrestlers. Not just any list of dead people, a list of people that Lance had worked with and who he considered to be his friends. Think about that for a minute. Then, troubling as it may be, try and make a list of all your own friends who have ever died. Done that? Ok. Now highlight everyone on it who died "too young", or at an earlier age than you would reasonably have expected. Ok, now look at that list of highlighted names and put a highlight, next to the people who all died as a result of the business that they worked in. Finally, if there are any names left, highlight all the ones that you yourself worked in the same business with. Now if everyone who posts on this entire board puts all of the names they have left together in one list, I'm willing to bet that it still wouldn't have as many names on it as the list Lance Storm has posted. With that thought in mind, re read Lance's comments. There's a perspective in his post that is right there in plain sight, yet so easy to miss if you aren't looking for it specifically. I understand Lance's perspective. Keep in mind, I do not advocate unprotected chairshots. Stuff like the Foley vs. Rock I Quit Match make me cringe, even if it was entertaining to me when it happened. I just think that things like the traveling lifestyle, the nature of the business and drug abuse contribute a lot more to wrestling deaths than unprotected chairshots. If a wrestler is doing them every night, there is an issue and that definitely shouldn't be happening. However, the occasional one, if the wrestler really wants to go through with it? I can't see an issue anymore than a wrestler agreeing to take a dangerous table bump or a Burning Hammer. There's danger involved, but that's the profession. I've taken unprotected chairshots and they hurt like hell. I wouldn't want to take them very often if I could avoid it. However, I see why a wrestler would agree to take one if he thought it was worth a hot angle (see Dreamer vs. Raven chairshot around the world). These things shouldn't be happening frequently and should only be done when needed, but for all the wrestling deaths I can point to a guy like Raven that took tons of chairshots and abused drugs and is relatively fine now. He isn't out to kill his family or himself. Then I can point to a guy like Renegade from WCW who, to my knowledge never took a sick bump or chairshot yet ended up killing himself.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 7, 2010 0:57:50 GMT -5
I grew up in the Hogan/New Generation era and knew it was fake. It was obvious to me, even without access to dirtsheets or internet.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 7, 2010 0:55:00 GMT -5
I didn't read past the unprotected chairshot rant. Why? Storm was in ECW.
Hell, I remember watching Sandman/Sabu or Awesome/Tanaka and losing count of the unprotected chairshots.
I'm sure Storm has more reasoning beyond the chairshot issue, but him citing that as a reason is just lame and hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 7, 2010 0:50:27 GMT -5
I dislike most of WWE's modern booking strategies, but this is one they are doing very right.
Smarks want Bryan to win, and are wondering when/if he will, up in arms because he hasn't yet, but still tuning in.
Marks are behind Bryan because he is an obvious underdog/everyman character, is great in the ring and has been capable on the mic.
This is basically Colin Delaney booked right, with the crowd actually caring and Bryan being made to look good the whole time. WWE is doing a good job of getting him over, and how many wins he gets on NXT doesn't matter. It's more what happens after NXT.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 5, 2010 14:21:27 GMT -5
Nah, I loved him.
He had great, exciting matches. He wasn't a technical wizard, but as with most main eventers his skills have been downplayed. He could bust out moves like the Mahistral Cradle, I have never seen Cena pull that one off.
Rock could also have an entertaining match with just about anyone, and even his matches with wrestlers lower on the card were exciting because he would sell well for them and also could potentially lose. He reamed people on the mic but would always make them look good in the ring.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 5, 2010 14:12:22 GMT -5
This would an uber elevation for Shelton, and one his mic skills can't warrent. We need to be able to buy Swagger as a champ, which means he needs to work with someone who can not only help in the ring, but help with his promo and mic skills as well. Shelton cannot do that. At all. So Shelton cant feud with the Champion because his mic skills arent good enough, but the Champion is a guy who needs help with his promo ability?
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 5, 2010 13:00:35 GMT -5
Jarrett gets a lot of undue hate. He is a good upper midcarder who could easily have held a WWF Title.
Certainly worse people have held a top strap.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 5, 2010 11:46:45 GMT -5
Swagger vs. Shelton would play out exactly like Sheamus vs. Bourne; they'd get five minutes in matches somewhere in the middle of the card while the "real" main eventers still had the show built around them. The Swagger/Shelton segments would play out exactly like any other midcard feud, except that Swagger would be carrying around an extra prop. A Swagger/Shelton feud at this time wouldn't elevate either of them, and would make the championship look even more unnecessary than it already does. No thanks. He spent the past few months feuding with a guy known for dressing like whatever the RAW guest GM played last week on the Lifetime Movie, then someone realized he still existed and arbitrarily put the title on him. A feud with Benjamin can only be a step up.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 4, 2010 11:32:47 GMT -5
They push new people, just people can get rather whiny it's not the new guys they have a hard-on for. This is really my problem with it more than anything. It's hypocritical looking of some to clamor for WWE to push new guys, but when they new guys they push aren't people they like, it suddenly 'doesn't count.' Another thing about the whole 'push the new guys' cries is that apparently it isn't okay for WWE to have programs and matches with already established stars facing off, as it should ALWAYS be about giving a young star 'the rub.' I never understood that line of thought. Its not that it isn't OKAY, just that the main event scene has been the same guys facing off for so long that its beyond stale, thus people are desperate for someone new to be pushed. For me it isn't even about who they push, but how they push them. They give Sheamus the title and that is supposed to be enough. He needs ore of a character than an accent and red hair, and more credibility than throwing a guy through a table on a fluke and beating up Evan Bourne. They never go all the way with anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 16:20:32 GMT -5
Maybe if Lesnar was secretly into Star Wars and shrunk in the dryer.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 16:18:34 GMT -5
He should use a Border Toss.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 14:21:40 GMT -5
Shelton has at least as much charisma as Swagger, and is better in the ring. Plus he doesn't have a lisp.
So sure. I would be lying if I said I wouldn't like him to win, but he certainly doesn't have to. The matches would be great either way.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 1:51:02 GMT -5
No way to tell until the draft, really.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 1:46:42 GMT -5
So essentially when Orton got kicked out of Evolution?
That was the closest beat down that comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 1:37:35 GMT -5
Horrible, just horrible. They were a very good tag team, an actual team. They were over and should have had the tag titles years ago when they were up against Priceless or Jerishow. You can't break up a tag team that has had virtually no success. There is no impact if two jobbers break up. See the Colons. I like them both but prefer JTG. I don't think this will end up well though. Eh, the Rockers were basically a jobber tag team and they broke up to huge impact. So it CAN work if booked properly. The Colons didn't work because they broke up and went nowhere with it. If they had a long feud with PPV matches and such it may have created interest. Anyway, I agree they have a much bigger chance of fizzling out.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 3, 2010 1:30:13 GMT -5
Obvious: burial via Punk followed by beatdown to explain disappearance.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 2, 2010 13:36:37 GMT -5
Nah.
Snitskys problem was he was really bad in the ring. His offense didn't look credible, something even Kozlov can manage to do. His matches were generally dull, consisting of Snitsky displaying his plodding, unconvincing offense before he invariably lost to a couple poorly sold moves.
Theres way better big men out there WWE could snatch up.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Apr 1, 2010 12:53:09 GMT -5
Tatanka coming back a few years ago. It was truly a WTF moment. He would actually fit in better NOW than he did back then.
It was also really forgettable.
|
|