|
Post by bobomcmuffin on May 9, 2005 10:05:44 GMT -5
If they would at least have some "Risky" stuff on PPV, then I wouldn't dislike the Safe-Style too much. But I guess it does make whenever crazy stuff does happen something special. Like Orton-Foley at Backlash 04.
And I never really liked the hardcore to the extreme ECW matches, but I truly enjoyed some of the actual wrestling and Feuds, such as Malenko-Guerrero, Raven-Dreamer, Taz-Sabu, and Sandman-Raven.
|
|
|
Post by propaganda on May 9, 2005 12:16:43 GMT -5
So other companys can't use them, duh. Oh, like WCW and ECW..oh wait..they're no longer around. No one can finacially compete with WWE now so that arguement doesn't hold.
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on May 9, 2005 12:41:35 GMT -5
Oh, like WCW and ECW..oh wait..they're no longer around. No one can finacially compete with WWE now so that arguement doesn't hold. Yeah, but TNA is making an art form of pissing money down the toilet, and I'm guessing that they would have loved to have those guys if they could.
|
|
|
Post by propaganda on May 9, 2005 12:54:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but TNA is making an art form of pissing money down the toilet, and I'm guessing that they would have loved to have those guys if they could. TNA is not going to be anywhere close to competing with the WWE.
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on May 9, 2005 12:59:52 GMT -5
TNA is not going to be anywhere close to competing with the WWE. Because...survey says...they don't have the guys that the casual fan recognizes! Because...they're on Vinny Mac's payroll!
|
|
|
Post by tripleh on May 9, 2005 13:26:16 GMT -5
i grew up in the ultra safe style. before Superfly Snuka started flying off the top rope. i personally don't care for the ECW style. there's no story or psychology behind it. it's just glorified stuntwork and self mutilation. when the story is turned up all the way from the start, how do you create any dynamic tension in the story. at one pitch, it gets boring. real quick. nothing means anything. if you're telling a ring story with the safe style, the outstanding moves are that much more so. they MEAN something in the story. one of the greatest matches i ever witnessed was Bruno v. Ken Patera. each was billed as the strongest man in wrestling at the time. Patera used to have the intensity of Arn Anderson. anyway the match started and they locked up in a test of strength. honest togawd it musta gone on for 10 minutes, 2 guys in the middle of the ring just pushing on each other. and it was insane. the crowd just kept getting louder and louder. until Bruno put Patera down and the Garden exploded. no insanity, no blood, no risk. but damn it sold. I agree and disagree. I like the safe style myself. I think it's better to keep everyone healthy and active. I enjoy in-ring stroytelling. I think wrestling safer overall is better than a wild garbage wrestling stlye. However, you shouldn't knock on ECW. While it was very violent, there was some great wrestling, some of the best wrestling in America in it's heyday. Violence has is place in wrestling. WWE delivers some very violent PPV matches. WWE gives us a few big bumps a RAW. I don't see this whole safe style thing? I mean what's the difference if I don't see 5 piledrivers a show. It's not like WWE is low impact. WWE bolsters some serious high impact wrestling. There is no need for Ultra Violence. Wrestling by nature is a violent attraction, the key is picking your spots. The WWE picks its spots nicely. It usually uses it's PPV's to deliver the big moments. Foley v. Orton HHH v. Michaels Angle v. Brock These were all great high impact matches. One used tacks, one used a ladder, one used nothing. All were great high impact matches. Do the people who support risky moves just want to see people get hurt for no reason? Do you just want carnage?
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on May 9, 2005 13:39:56 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between "risky moves" and "ultra-violence" (I feel like Alex from A Clockwork Orange...). Risky moves to me is just that, you're taking a risk, but that's what separates you from everyone down on the indie cards: you are willing to take a risk, for if it pays off, you're a huge winner. Look at what JR says whenever HBK does a higher risk move: "This is what brought Michaels to the dance."
Then you have ultra-violent. Violence for the sake of violence. Ten-thousand tack, no-roped barbed wired, exploding ring death matches. To me, that is going to far. It's one thing to have a gimmick match (table match, ladder match, or ever barb wire match), but it's another thing to go off the deep end and put on a match that endangers human life above and beyond any normal gimmick match.
|
|
|
Post by squaredcircle on May 9, 2005 13:53:09 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between "risky moves" and "ultra-violence" (I feel like Alex from A Clockwork Orange...). Risky moves to me is just that, you're taking a risk, but that's what separates you from everyone down on the indie cards: you are willing to take a risk, for if it pays off, you're a huge winner. Look at what JR says whenever HBK does a higher risk move: "This is what brought Michaels to the dance." Then you have ultra-violent. Violence for the sake of violence. Ten-thousand tack, no-roped barbed wired, exploding ring death matches. To me, that is going to far. It's one thing to have a gimmick match (table match, ladder match, or ever barb wire match), but it's another thing to go off the deep end and put on a match that endangers human life above and beyond any normal gimmick match. i agree with this 100% there is a place for high risk. it should be there to put an exclamation point on a match (with the caveat that the grapplers are skilled enough to do the maneuvers). but if everything is highrisk, then nothing is. it's just a stunt show. i'm going to use Foley/Taker HIAC as an example. great match with the incredible "holy crap" factor of Mick being thrown off the cage. but it went over the top at the end with the tacks and barbed wire. it crossed the line from highrisk to ultra violence. the end diminished the beginning. IMHO of course.
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on May 9, 2005 13:59:14 GMT -5
There wasn't barbed wire in the HITC. Just the tacks. I personally thought the tacks helped the match, for it showed just how much of a crazy bastard Foley was. After all the abuse he took, he was STILL STANDING at the end of the match. That put him over fully in my book when I saw the match.
|
|
|
Post by invaderdave on May 9, 2005 14:00:04 GMT -5
That's actually right.
A lot of people have said that Hell in a Cell was the greatest match ever. No, it's not really the greatest match ever, but it was amazing that a man survived both a fall off a cage (which was pretty scary) and a fall through the cage. (which scared me more than the fall off) Foley, of course, has made a career out of doing some pretty crazy stuff. I actually love him for it. There's a difference between him and all the crazy, bloody, ultra violent guys: A. He was one of the firsts to do that stuff. B. He had psychology behind it, while the other guys just bash away.
That's just me trying to be the wrestling professor though.
|
|
|
Post by squaredcircle on May 9, 2005 14:08:01 GMT -5
There wasn't barbed wire in the HITC. hmm. i coulda sworn they pulled out the barbed wire stick, but it's been a while since i've watched that match. Foley didn't need to be put over at all after the tumble off the cage. there was no doubt we were watching a certifiable crazy person. ( i assume the first fall was planned. the second one was scarier because it was an equipment failure and the risk of horrible injury came into play) but even with just tacks, i think the match illustrates where i draw the line. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by hakushi on May 9, 2005 14:10:31 GMT -5
You know what, those Germans and Belly to back suplexes sure aren't good for the neck...
|
|
The Happnin' Mojo
Dennis Stamp
Comedy is the last refuge of a nonconformist mind......just make sure it's really funny.
Posts: 4,216
|
Post by The Happnin' Mojo on May 9, 2005 14:14:22 GMT -5
hmm. i coulda sworn they pulled out the barbed wire stick, but it's been a while since i've watched that match. Foley didn't need to be put over at all after the tumble off the cage. there was no doubt we were watching a certifiable crazy person. ( i assume the first fall was planned. the second one was scarier because it was an equipment failure and the risk of horrible injury came into play) but even with just tacks, i think the match illustrates where i draw the line. YMMV. You're probably thinking about the Trips/Foley HITC match..... If they can perform well within the style (Angle, Hbk, Benjamin, Guerrero, Rey) then it's fine and esp. violent stuff looks even more vicious. But if every match were a Shane McMahon bumpfest I'm sure people would expect it all the time and become desensitized and with the schedule WWE has plus no competion it's not really that bad of a decision. No one could take that type of abuse on that schedule for long without some major "help".....
|
|