|
|
Post by thestinger on Nov 16, 2007 15:54:23 GMT -5
Well you are my opposite number, you would have to be a commie.
One hundred percent? Come on.
EDIT: I'm actually growing a goatee. That means you'll have to shave yours within the few weeks, just FYI. Thanks.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Nov 16, 2007 15:58:07 GMT -5
If Vince hadn't won, WCW would have, and we'd be in the same situation, except with Bischoff or (gasp) Russo in charge of the wrestling world. Unfortunately, the territories were doomed either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 16, 2007 16:38:19 GMT -5
Here's my problem. Everyone keeps using the phrases "Vince's business practices" and "capitalism" to mean the same thing. They aren't. I believe in capitalism and the free market. It's no accident the United States is the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Vince screws over his own employees. That's not a 'requirement' of the free market. He betrays people like Wendi Richter and Bret Hart. So when I say that disapprove of Vince's business practices, I don't mean trying to drive the competition out of business. I am a capitalist. Vince is a liar. I would venture to say that virtually 100% of all capitalists as successful as Vince are liars. You're likely not far off, although Vince does get a nice little head start by basically being allowed to run a monopoly. Capitalism is meant to guard against things like monopolies. Your point is still valid, though. See, speaking for myself, there's a reason I don't like Vince McMahon. I LOVED the WWF from about 1991-1994, my early childhood, up until I was about 10 years old. I was too young at that stage to care about the steroid trial. I got back on board with both WCW and WWF in 1998...and quickly realized I didn't like them as much as I initially though I did. Focusing on Vince (my thoughts on WCW aren't relevant here), my problems with him as a human being grew over time. I started to resent the way he was presenting his shows (flash over substance to me...and I was thinking this at 14 years old or so), I resented what he had done to my favorite wrestler (you-know-who), and I resented him for making me begin to feel uncomfortable about watching wrestling. When I had stopped watching in the mid 90's, it was just out of some level of boredom. When I stopped watching around 1999-2000, it was more out of a feeling of discomfort and a feeling of "I'm not sure I want anyone to know I actually watch this". It grew from there as I got older, and I heard about the ways he'd circumvent the law, the way he brought down the territories (for good and ill), how he'd steal talent and raid markets and then cry "FOUL!" when Bischoff turned the tables, etc. etc. All of these faults, however, I probably could've seen past to some degree. It's just that the last straw for me was hearing how a multi-billion dollar company like WWE couldn't provide better services for it's wrestlers. Because of that, I stopped resenting Vince, and started just feeling disappointed in him. He made himself king of the wrestling world; fine, that's just how it is, gotta live with it. But he's the king, no competition to worry about, a mountain of money beneath him to cushion any slight fall the WWE might take...and his wrestlers still aren't insured or fully taken care of. So all the wars, all the territories being bought out, the deaths of the AWA, NWA, WCW, ECW, et. al., and our end result? The more things change, the more they stay the same. It's just disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Nov 16, 2007 16:44:55 GMT -5
I stopped watching WWF in 1991, just because the product was so awful. But when I did quit, my favorite wrestlers was that same you-know-who.
I had not watched WWF in many years before Nov. 97 but if I had been a fan, I would have quit after that on general principle.
I also think some people may be using the word 'capitalist' as a synonym for 'billionaire.'
The small business owners I know who own resturants and book stores are capitalists. And since I know many who are not liars, I know for a fact 100% of successful capitalists are not liars.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 16, 2007 16:46:54 GMT -5
I stopped watching WWF in 1991, just because the product was so awful. But when I did quit, my favorite wrestlers was that same you-know-who. I had not watched WWF in many years before Nov. 97 but if I had been a fan, I would have quit after that on general principle. I also think some people may be using the word 'capitalist' as a synonym for 'billionaire.' The small business owners I know who own resturants and book stores are capitalists. And since I know many who are not liars, I know for a fact 100% of successful capitalists are not liars. I think we're talking the capitalists who DO make it to the very top, the billionaires of the western world...a LOT of them didn't get there cleanly, and likely perverted the system somewhere along the way. Not 100%, obviously, but a nice chunk. |
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Nov 16, 2007 16:52:01 GMT -5
I think we're talking the capitalists who DO make it to the very top, the billionaires of the western world...a LOT of them didn't get there cleanly, and likely perverted the system somewhere along the way. Not 100%, obviously, but a nice chunk. I could concede that is possible. But I also think that whenever a person is THAT successful, even if they did get there honestly, they still earn the hatred and envy of all the people less successful. I don't agree with the people who insist it's not possible to accumulate wealth honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Pacman Khan (akkilla) on Nov 16, 2007 17:27:39 GMT -5
senshi the puero rican asian?
what about
Estraaada the PALESTINIAN CUBAN
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 16, 2007 18:02:38 GMT -5
Well you are my opposite number, you would have to be a commie. One hundred percent? Come on. EDIT: I'm actually growing a goatee. That means you'll have to shave yours within the few weeks, just FYI. Thanks. I'm not a red. Pink maybe, but not red.  Seriously, when it comes to men who became billionaires, I think it's a fair statement. It's virtually impossible to come by that kind of money honestly. Vince McMahon, Sam Walton, Bill Gates... I remember an old saying from the movie Tombstone: "I never met a rich man who didn't have a guilty conscience." And there's truth to that. It simply isn't possible to get THAT far ahead without being willing to step on anyone you have to. And Vince is just a classic example. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,480
|
Post by metylerca on Nov 16, 2007 18:24:17 GMT -5
If TNA brings in Angle and immediately jobs him out to an unknown like Samoa Joe, that's not gonna make Joe look strong as much as it's gonna make Angle looked washed up. The fact is, Joe's one win over Angle did more for his career than everything he had done prior, combined. Beating a bunch of guys in ROH and a bunch of X-Division guys is nice. Beating the guy booked as the biggest star in the WWE for the past 6 years is special. A fledgling company simply cannot afford to make a relative unknown (Joe) their franchise guy. It just wont work. Sure, us informed guys know Joe has talent, but for the uninformed, the non-IWC, they're gonna tune in and see a guy who looks like the Samoan version of fat Elvis as world champion and immediately dismiss TNA. WWE can push unknowns. WCW could as well. But they are/were established companies. TNA is not. Angle and Booker are getting main event pushes in TNA for the same reasons they got main event pushes in the WWE - they're good. Damn good. In fact, I'd happily take either over the 2 WWE world champions, Randy bOr eton and the absolutely horrid Batista, who's only pushed because he has really big muscles (what a genius concept). As for Christian Cage - the WWE dropped the ball on him, big time. I'd say he was the most misused performer of the past decade. The fans wanted to see him pushed to the main event, instead he was moved to the B show and demoted to a talk show host. He (rightfully so) wanted out, and the WWE's loss became TNA's gain. And TNA has done what the WWE wouldn't do - turn Christian into a bonafide star. I now see Carlito wants released. He's nowhere near as good as Christian, but he's another guy being misused in the WWE. I wouldn't be surprised to see TNA snatch him up and turn him into a star. Not because TNA is all about ex-WWE talent, but because TNA is smart enough to capitalize on the WWE's mistakes and lack of creativity. Rhino is another guy misused by the WWE. He was booked as a star in ECW and his early time in the WWE (beating Jericho on PPV for example). Yet suddenly and inexplicably his push is gone and he's a midcarder? A year later, he's fired for throwing a flower pot. Arguably less talented Randy Orton throws a sissy fit, does over $75,000 damage to a hotel room, and 6 months later is WWE Champion. Rhino is fired over a flower pot. Think about what a joke the WWE has turned into. Their ridiculous brand split makes me laugh. It's nothing more than watering down the roster and the product in order to milk more cash from their fanboys. They have almost 0 creativity or storylines. Their tag team division is a joke, as is the I.C. division. And they're deeply afraid to anything that breaks from the boring, predictable norm. It's like it's 1989 all over again. Of course 1989 was entertaining, because as a 6 year old my young mind was easily entertained and couldn't see through the boring, stale, predictable product. But I'm no longer a kid, and I see in the current product what the adults hated about the cartoony "Hulkamania" era. As a 20+ year WWE fan, I'm ashamed of the company the way it's currently ran. I'm now a converted TNA fan. Better wrestling, better storylines, less predictable, more entertainment. A few corrections... -Batista gets reactions from crowds, thats why he's pushed. He isn't 145lbs and can't do moonsaults every match; but he manages to get the crowd to their feet during his matches, which is really the point of being successful in wrestling. -Randy Orton is only boring to those who are all about ***** spotfests featuring anything not-WWE. As someone who's seen Orton's earlier pre-2004 work, i'd say he has come a long way as a talent. As far as TNA having better wrestling, thats something to really take to mind. I will agree that they have better capabilities than WWE in talent, but that doesn't mean they show it as much as they probably should. Better storylines, again, is something to take a look at. It seems as though TNA fans always tune in just as Hornswaggle comes onto the screen or something. WWE has plenty of upsides, you just gotta watch to see them. TNA has upsides of their own, but not everything that comes onto TNA programming is gold, like many TNA marks say really exists. Better Entertainment, I'll agree with you once you acknowledge their crappy announce team. The fact that Tenay and West talk over the segments as they happen, as well as mention Kurt Angle in just about every match, just takes away from the show. Their storylines have that WCW vibe to them, and I do notice how many people who are pro-TNA say that they stopped caring for wrestling in 2002, once the InVasion was over, and the Brand Split occured. That's not really being open minded towards the oppositions opinion if you ask me. I used to hate TNA to the point where everything they did was crap to me. But now I watch almost regularly because they have good shows. I still watch Raw and Smackdown and the occasional ECW if I get the chance, but I'm not favoring any company. I just find it offensive as a wrestling fan to see people brand WWE horrible because they don't feature run-ins and swerves 3 times a week, or because they have more money to spend on talent. TNA is still developing, and its evident that they need to do some serious work on their company once Scott Hall gives them the ratings spike they needed, and not their own world champion. -metylerca |
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Nov 16, 2007 19:50:15 GMT -5
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day where someone tried to argue that WWE doesn't have the stupidest gimmicks in wrestling. No, you totally missed my point. I didn't say the WWE didn't have the stupidest gimmicks (that's a given) - but that TNA also has it's fair share of dumb gimmicky characters. You know, I completely agree with you. If you're going to do a gimmick character, keep it simple. The WWE ruined Kane when they tried to build a 'secret backstory' for him to make him seem more 'human'. The Undertaker works for most people because they haven't really tried that (besides the 'American Badass' phase), and his whole presentation is 'what you see is what you get'. And I still say Trytan was TNA's stupidest endeavor. I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with a system that died out long before I was born, but I highly doubt everything was the giant wealthy paradise that it seems. That sounds exactly like the indy system that's around right now - if I get bored in Masschusetts, I'll just tour the Midwest, etc. And indy wrestlers don't make much money (how many wrestlers got into the business expecting to become rich anyway?) because there's just so goddamn many indy workers out there now. If anything, McMahon helped create a HUGE surge of backyarders-turned-pro after the Attitude Era, and now the market is just filled with more wrestlers than most promotions know what to do with. And there are plenty of indy promotions out there that aren't in danger of going out of business. McMahon isn't 'killing' them, it's just an oversaturated market and/or a promoter's stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by I Graduated Warrior University on Nov 16, 2007 20:30:35 GMT -5
Whoa, a comment about Joe's look and marketability of said look has turned into a debate about capitalism. BEHOLD THE POWERS OF THE INTERNET!
|
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 16, 2007 22:15:38 GMT -5
Whoa, a comment about Joe's look and marketability of said look has turned into a debate about capitalism. BEHOLD THE POWERS OF THE INTERNET! Nah, that's just how good Joe is. The Nikkei Index rises and falls depending almost entirely on what salad dressing the man chooses. FYI, if he goes with the house dressing, sell. |
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 16, 2007 23:53:40 GMT -5
Whoa, a comment about Joe's look and marketability of said look has turned into a debate about capitalism. BEHOLD THE POWERS OF THE INTERNET! i still say Joe's character would be 100x more effective with a beard. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 17, 2007 14:28:13 GMT -5
Ok, Orton's probably better than he was in 2004, but that's definitely not true.
Its cool for anyone to enjoy his work, but the guy's been known as a boring worker to many people for a long time, and it doesn't have anything to do with "spotfests".
|
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Nov 17, 2007 15:46:43 GMT -5
I like how its called a myth like the Mythbusters are gonna make a ballistics gel RVD and send him into TNA to see what happens...
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Nov 17, 2007 15:48:29 GMT -5
So either Joe is "too large" or "not large enough". What an open-minded attitude  |
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 17, 2007 16:09:55 GMT -5
I like how its called a myth like the Mythbusters are gonna make a ballistics gel RVD and send him into TNA to see what happens... I can't be the only person here who thinks that would be awesome?  |
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Nov 17, 2007 16:24:41 GMT -5
Ok, Orton's probably better than he was in 2004, but that's definitely not true. Its cool for anyone to enjoy his work, but the guy's been known as a boring worker to many people for a long time, and it doesn't have anything to do with "spotfests". By all accounts, he's actually had a pretty good year. His matches with The Undertaker, Jeff Hardy, John Cena, Triple H and Shawn Michaels have all been pretty good. Most people have really liked him since his "I'm gonna kick you right in the face" thing started. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Pacman Khan (akkilla) on Nov 17, 2007 16:55:07 GMT -5
I like how its called a myth like the Mythbusters are gonna make a ballistics gel RVD and send him into TNA to see what happens... I can't be the only person here who thinks that would be awesome? ur not alone |
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by The OP on Nov 17, 2007 18:22:45 GMT -5
Ok, Orton's probably better than he was in 2004, but that's definitely not true. Its cool for anyone to enjoy his work, but the guy's been known as a boring worker to many people for a long time, and it doesn't have anything to do with "spotfests". By all accounts, he's actually had a pretty good year. His matches with The Undertaker, Jeff Hardy, John Cena, Triple H and Shawn Michaels have all been pretty good. Most people have really liked him since his "I'm gonna kick you right in the face" thing started. I think it's just a personal taste thing. Me, I like him because I think he's great at selling and is a great heel. I enjoyed all the matches you named, but if somebody doesn't like watching him wrestle I'm not gonna cry about it. As for the original topic, I think the poster has a point. Sure, some of the ex-WWE guys have gotten pushes, but for the most part they deserved it IMO. I mean really, how are you not gonna push Kurt Angle or Christian? |
|
