infrared
Don Corleone
Better than your favourite band.
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by infrared on Dec 18, 2007 18:21:36 GMT -5
This is not to mention that it'd kill any Georgia-based Indies. Yeah, it's true dat, ain't it? And the old WCW Power Plant is in Georgia, and beause of the new regulations, I probably won't be going there to train for wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 18, 2007 18:24:26 GMT -5
WWE and the BBC have a lot in common, what with fake competitions and all. I think you mean ITV. But still....
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Dec 18, 2007 18:27:46 GMT -5
WWE and the BBC have a lot in common, what with fake competitions and all. I think you mean ITV. But still.... The BBC were equally guilty, as Blue Peter will tell you.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 18, 2007 18:30:20 GMT -5
I think you mean ITV. But still.... The BBC were equally guilty, as Blue Peter will tell you. Ahh yes, forgot about that. But not to get too off topic Cheating Viewers out of thousands of pounds in live phone ins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheating people of naming a cat.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 18, 2007 18:32:25 GMT -5
I never said it was competition. I just said why we have to glamourise everything as 'fake'. It would be like acting. I just watched Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta showing emotion towards something she shouldn't have shown emotion to. Because it's all 'fake'. She's performing in front of a man in a mask voiced by Hugh Jackman and the room she is in is a studio in London or wherever it was filmed. But you have to get yourself in the right state of mind to be able to cry on queue. You have to be able to let down emotions, let down feelings, all just to have the perfect picture to show to the audience. If you said to her 'What you are doing is all fake', I'd think she'd be insulted. All she is doing is Films are not real. Wrestling is not real. The people who do it, who perform, who put their lives on the line are real. The risks they take can sometimes be very very real and I think this year, we've all seen what shape they can take. My question is not 'Why is Wrestling not a real sport?', all I'm asking is 'Why must we shun down what people do and what sacrifices they take all because what they do is not actually real to start off with?' Where did I say I should shun it? And how does me saying it's fake mean that actors shouldn't put any emotions into what they do? It's entertainment. They are putting on a show for others. They can make it as real or as cartoonish as they want. That doesn't mean it's easy. That doesn't mean they are lower than anyone else. You've somehow managed to not only miss the point, but to take what was said and completely bastardize it into something that wasn't ever implied. It isn't real competition. Thus, it isn't a sport. Because of this, it shouldn't be subject to rules by a board that monitors sporting events. That's the point. You can try to twist it into whatever you want to, but that's the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 18, 2007 18:36:00 GMT -5
I never said it was competition. I just said why we have to glamourise everything as 'fake'. It would be like acting. I just watched Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta showing emotion towards something she shouldn't have shown emotion to. Because it's all 'fake'. She's performing in front of a man in a mask voiced by Hugh Jackman and the room she is in is a studio in London or wherever it was filmed. But you have to get yourself in the right state of mind to be able to cry on queue. You have to be able to let down emotions, let down feelings, all just to have the perfect picture to show to the audience. If you said to her 'What you are doing is all fake', I'd think she'd be insulted. All she is doing is Films are not real. Wrestling is not real. The people who do it, who perform, who put their lives on the line are real. The risks they take can sometimes be very very real and I think this year, we've all seen what shape they can take. My question is not 'Why is Wrestling not a real sport?', all I'm asking is 'Why must we shun down what people do and what sacrifices they take all because what they do is not actually real to start off with?' Where did I say I should shun it? And how does me saying it's fake mean that actors shouldn't put any emotions into what they do? It's entertainment. They are putting on a show for others. They can make it as real or as cartoonish as they want. That doesn't mean it's easy. That doesn't mean they are lower than anyone else. You've somehow managed to not only miss the point, but to take what was said and completely bastardize it into something that wasn't ever implied. It isn't real competition. Thus, it isn't a sport. Because of this, it shouldn't be subject to rules by a board that monitors sporting events. That's the point. You can try to twist it into whatever you want to, but that's the bottom line. Sorry, this was too off topic but I really wasn't talking about the ruling thing. I know that's retarded. Nor was I trying to shun you. It's just that word. Fake. I just really cannot stand it being used to that context when people have broken their necks and busted their eyes open all for the sake of giving us something to watch Mondays, Thursday, Fridays, Sundays or whenever. And I absolutly cannot understand how it can be used by fans after everything we've seen. Chorographed, Predetermined, Rehersed, Acting, anything. Fake is a spit to the eye IMO.
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Dec 18, 2007 18:37:48 GMT -5
The BBC were equally guilty, as Blue Peter will tell you. Ahh yes, forgot about that. But not to get too off topic Cheating Viewers out of thousands of pounds in live phone ins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheating people of naming a cat. BAH GAWD KANG, MR McMAHON JUST NAMED THAT CAT "VINNIE", AND HE DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE FANS WANTED! THIS IS NOT RIGHT!
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 18, 2007 18:49:59 GMT -5
Ahh yes, forgot about that. But not to get too off topic Cheating Viewers out of thousands of pounds in live phone ins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheating people of naming a cat. BAH GAWD KANG, MR McMAHON JUST NAMED THAT CAT "VINNIE", AND HE DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE FANS WANTED! THIS IS NOT RIGHT! I'd mark for that storyline.
|
|
General Zod
Samurai Cop
KNEEL!
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!
Posts: 2,163
|
Post by General Zod on Dec 18, 2007 18:58:23 GMT -5
I appreciate your opinion, but just because you think I'm wrong doesn't mean I am. When I watch Monday Night RAW on USA, and Jim Ross goes out of his way to use the word "compete" to describe what Ric Flair wants to do with the rest of his career, it's increasingly difficult for any of you to make an opposing point of view. True, it's "entertainment". I never said otherwise. But real or preformed, two men are still in the middle of the ring, competing. Jim Ross himself admits it. Vince McMahon has said it on many occasions himself. So has half the roster. Someone else said it earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating: It seems like a lot of pro wrestling's legacy and future is predicated on whichever perception is convienient for the debate at hand. It's real/not real, preformance, art/competition. Bullspit. Call it for what it is. The entire industry - McMahon-land, TNA, The Indies, Japan, Mexico, Europe, and anyone else who runs business under the guise of professional wrestling - has one interest in mind: Making money. And they make that money by providing you, the fans, what you want to see - competition between guys who take matters into their own hands. If you want entertainment, go to a movie. This is wrestling. And while yes, wrestling is supposed to be entertaining as well, I must admit to having different reasons for wanting to go to a movie than buying a ticket to go see a match. As long as the WWE (and all of pr wrestling) continues to use ring sports guidelines to conduct their business and showcase their in-ring product, they will be privy to any and/or all state athletic commissions who have rules regarding such issues. As I said before, I suspect this is going to get worse before it gets better. I'd expect to see even more states follow suit. Of course Jim Ross tries to pass it off as real, that's his job. If they treated it as a performance, rather than real combat, then they'd basically be undermining all of their matches, gimmicks, angles and, more importantly, titles. But calling a performance real doesn't make it so. They do it because they think those they're marketing to deem it a necessity to. Criss Angel can call his tricks real magic, that doesn't mean the spirits are causing him to levitate. The very essence of real competition is that the outcome and action is, more or less, uncertain. That's not the case n wrestling. They can call it professional wrestling ro sports entertainment all they want, but it holds far more in common with a circus than with any real sport. Most people realize that and don't try to put the same restrictions on it as real sports. That's all fine and well, and I'm not arguing with you. But we're not talking about magic tricks, TV sitcoms, or the like. We're talking about Pro Wrestling. What I'm saying is that as long as Pro Wrestling follows the in-ring guidelines for competition, real, fake, imagined, produced, performed, scripted, emulated, or whatever else you want to call it, as long as they refer to it as being 'competition' on television and on house shows, it will fall under the scrutiny of state atheltic boards. The marquee says "HHH vs. John Cena for the WWE Championship", not "HHH performs cordinated stunts in a fixed event for a meaningless title". Honestly, you can't split hairs on this. It is what it is. Maybe when HHH and John Cena start having tea parties in the ring to decide the WWE tea drinking championship, you'll have a point. But as long as there is physicality between two people being billed as combatants, and there is an organized structure to the level of success one can reach in the industry (i.e., titles, etc.,) any and all other arguments are moot. I realize that part of the allure of the industry is to suspend disbelief while watching the product. But in a sense, that *is* the product. Of course it would undermine the industry if they came out and said they weren't really competing. Why do you think that is? Because ticket sales and PPV buyrates and business (in general) is predicated on building rivalries that culminate in competition to see who the better man (or woman) is. Whether it's "real" or not, isn't the point. I could make a strong argument that many pro boxing is just as pre-determined these days. The punches might be legitimate (enough), but how many contests do you think you've seen where you know the bout was fixed for someone to get rich off of in Vegas? You'd be suprised how many sporting events that you think of as legitimate are thrown.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Dec 18, 2007 19:08:19 GMT -5
Some of you guys seem to think this has something to do with Benoit.
I think it's blatantly obvious that the Georgia Athletic Commission is just really pissed off about the blatant disregard of the tag rope, did no one read rule 25 e. ix.?
Clearly the centerpiece of the ruling, no?
It's also interesting that Georgia is more lenient than Vince is when it comes to illegal holds, Vince allows a 5 count, if these inconsiderate fat cats get their way, it'll be a 10 count! Clearly Vince cares more about the health of his wrestlers than the Georgia Athletic Commission
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Dec 18, 2007 19:10:18 GMT -5
not "HHH performs cordinated stunts in a fixed event for a meaningless title". Honestly, you can't split hairs on this. It is what it is. Maybe when HHH and John Cena start having tea parties in the ring to decide the WWE tea drinking championship, you'll have a point. . tell HHH that the title is meaningless. hell tell him the WWE tea drinking championship is meaningless.
|
|
General Zod
Samurai Cop
KNEEL!
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!
Posts: 2,163
|
Post by General Zod on Dec 18, 2007 21:01:08 GMT -5
I'm not making any claim that the WWE title is meaningless. Please try to keep up.
|
|
BrianZane
Team Rocket
The Finest Fibers All The Way From France
Host of Wrestling With Wregret
Posts: 972
|
Post by BrianZane on Dec 18, 2007 21:08:25 GMT -5
Not good. It doesn't look like either side will budge. The E will probably lose a lot of $$ for not holding shows in Georgia. That can't be good for the company. Something tells me WWE will do just fine in the other 49 states. Oregon used to have the same ridiculous rules in place for wrestling, which is why the state suffered a roughly 10-year drought of WWE shows from 1993 to 2003. One of those laws included that certain moves, such as the DROPKICK, were illegal. Thankfully, the Commission here decided to repeal those laws, and now wrestling promotions are easily found in Portland and elsewhere in the state (I happen to work for one based out of Salem, so I'm one of the many who benefit from the repeal). The fact that drug testing for every show is involved makes one raise eyebrows toward WWE for deliberately avoiding shows in Georgia, but at the same time, even going beyond the drug tests, so many other aspects of a wrestling show that make it what it is are being restricted as well, so no company, whether they're small indy feds or giants like WWE, can afford to do a show there. That is, unless you want about 300% more skits on Raw and Smackdown when they come to Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 18, 2007 21:37:07 GMT -5
That's all fine and well, and I'm not arguing with you. But we're not talking about magic tricks, TV sitcoms, or the like. We're talking about Pro Wrestling. What I'm saying is that as long as Pro Wrestling follows the in-ring guidelines for competition, real, fake, imagined, produced, performed, scripted, emulated, or whatever else you want to call it, as long as they refer to it as being 'competition' on television and on house shows, it will fall under the scrutiny of state atheltic boards. The marquee says "HHH vs. John Cena for the WWE Championship", not "HHH performs cordinated stunts in a fixed event for a meaningless title". Honestly, you can't split hairs on this. It is what it is. Maybe when HHH and John Cena start having tea parties in the ring to decide the WWE tea drinking championship, you'll have a point. But as long as there is physicality between two people being billed as combatants, and there is an organized structure to the level of success one can reach in the industry (i.e., titles, etc.,) any and all other arguments are moot. I realize that part of the allure of the industry is to suspend disbelief while watching the product. But in a sense, that *is* the product. Of course it would undermine the industry if they came out and said they weren't really competing. Why do you think that is? Because ticket sales and PPV buyrates and business (in general) is predicated on building rivalries that culminate in competition to see who the better man (or woman) is. Whether it's "real" or not, isn't the point. I could make a strong argument that many pro boxing is just as pre-determined these days. The punches might be legitimate (enough), but how many contests do you think you've seen where you know the bout was fixed for someone to get rich off of in Vegas? You'd be suprised how many sporting events that you think of as legitimate are thrown. You're right, it is what it is, you can't split hairs. What it is is not a sport. It's not competition. They call it that because they believe that's what their audience sees it as, but it isn't. Triple H vs. John Cena don't do any real competing. That's reality. It's scripted, staged, choreographed, fixed, whatever you want to call it. To compare it with a thrown baseball game is meaningless to the discussion. It doesn't make professional wrestling any more legit and it doesn't make it real competition any more than it makes Keifer Sutherland a real government agent or Zach Braff a real doctor. When Fox advertises House M.D., they're not advertising "Hugh Laughrie pretending to be a cynical doctor", they're advertising "House attempts to figure out why a 12 year old girl had a heart attack". Under your logic, the fact that they're advertising him as a doctor would make it reasonable for the AMA to control what he can do on screen. Hate to break it to you, it's not the same thing. Yes, whether it is a real competition is the point. It's the exact point. You can try to dance around that all you want, but just because they say they're pitting one against another doesn't mean the matches are legit, the hatred is real, they are really their gimmicks, or anything. They make money putting on a show and that's it. They're not really competing for anything, they're putting on a show. The "guidelines" are meaningless, they're just there for show. People only get disqualified for breaking them if that's the predetermined result. That's why some performers cna get away with things others can't, that's the scthick, that's the show. Just because you can stick your hands in your ears and go "LALALA" doesn't make you right.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 18, 2007 21:39:06 GMT -5
Sorry, this was too off topic but I really wasn't talking about the ruling thing. I know that's retarded. Nor was I trying to shun you. It's just that word. Fake. I just really cannot stand it being used to that context when people have broken their necks and busted their eyes open all for the sake of giving us something to watch Mondays, Thursday, Fridays, Sundays or whenever. And I absolutly cannot understand how it can be used by fans after everything we've seen. Chorographed, Predetermined, Rehersed, Acting, anything. Fake is a spit to the eye IMO. And IMO, it's perfectly legit to call it a fake competition. Competition implies that the they are truly competing to win, which they aren't. That doesn't mean they aren't really knocking each other to the mat or jumping off of ladders or whatever, it means that the competition isn't real. If you take some personal affront to that, that sounds like a personal problem.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 19, 2007 6:31:41 GMT -5
Sorry, this was too off topic but I really wasn't talking about the ruling thing. I know that's retarded. Nor was I trying to shun you. It's just that word. Fake. I just really cannot stand it being used to that context when people have broken their necks and busted their eyes open all for the sake of giving us something to watch Mondays, Thursday, Fridays, Sundays or whenever. And I absolutly cannot understand how it can be used by fans after everything we've seen. Chorographed, Predetermined, Rehersed, Acting, anything. Fake is a spit to the eye IMO. And IMO, it's perfectly legit to call it a fake competition. Competition implies that the they are truly competing to win, which they aren't. That doesn't mean they aren't really knocking each other to the mat or jumping off of ladders or whatever, it means that the competition isn't real. If you take some personal affront to that, that sounds like a personal problem. If it's personal to want people not to call something fake when they're's evidence it's not as fake as people make out, then yes, I have personal problems. But if you see my posts from around here, in this thread even, I don't let it eat me up inside as others would. Let's just agree to disagree. You have your views and I have mine and it appears as though noone will change them. Deal?
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Dec 19, 2007 7:08:13 GMT -5
I think Ted Turner is behind all of this.
He's always up to no good.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 19, 2007 7:09:30 GMT -5
I think Ted Turner is behind all of this. He's always up to no good. I don't think even Ted Turner, a wrestling fan himself, would approve stupid crap like this.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 19, 2007 7:15:20 GMT -5
I don't think the proposed law is so outlandish...
Most of it is either administrative basic stuff or some kind of very old school rulebook for the match. Nothing really wrong IMO.
And no matter how WWE call it, pro-wrestling or sports-entertainment, what goes on is still portrayed as "competition", so the rules still apply in a way
Pro wrestling is in a dangerous limbo, it's fake but it's promoted as real and vice-versa, depending on the occasion
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 19, 2007 10:52:07 GMT -5
If it's personal to want people not to call something fake when they're's evidence it's not as fake as people make out, then yes, I have personal problems. But if you see my posts from around here, in this thread even, I don't let it eat me up inside as others would. Let's just agree to disagree. You have your views and I have mine and it appears as though noone will change them. Deal? When you can find evidence that the competition of the matches are legit at least the majority of the time, then I won't call that aspect of it fake. And as long as it is, it's dumb to treat it the same as real sport. Other than that, I'm fine if you don't like it, but it's not really any skin off my bones if someone doesn't want to accept it.
|
|