|
|
Post by sdoyle7798 on Mar 23, 2012 13:55:44 GMT -5
I don't wanna know what kind of submission hold that is!!! Nor do I. *stupid Andre-esque missing the letter "o"* It's ok, I've done it myself. Twice at work, we had leaks, and I was putting in maintenance orders so they could get fixed the next day. I had turned off the water to the leaky pipes, and meant to type in "I shut off the water." What I actualy typed was "I shit off the water." Everyone had a good laugh at that.  |
|
|
|
Post by 2CSultan on Mar 23, 2012 14:21:57 GMT -5
-The belts mean nothing anymore. Earning a championship belt used to be a big deal. "I'm a 5 time world champion!" ...Yeah this year alone. - Tag teams are going extinct (WWE) these used to be some of the most well thought out and intense matches. All but dead now in the larger promotions. - Lack of real heels. People used to HATE these guys. They had to worry about fans after a show when leaving the building. HHH despite my opinions on him was great in this role. He would hit people with sledgehammers, run people over with cars. Etc. All of these things! As far as the tag teams go, I can't understand why there isn't more emphasis on it. During both boom periods for the tag team divisions were absolutely loaded. I really think a strong tag team division leads to better business. |
|
|
|
Post by clashofchampains on Mar 26, 2012 9:26:19 GMT -5
Big impact moves that are part of a wrestler's repertoir that always lead to a pin but is never counted to three. What's the point? The Viewer know he's not gonna win on that move since it's not his finisher. I remember Mike Awesome had about 5 or so impact moves like these but it never worked. Because they were not his finisher. doh!
|
|
|
|
Post by clashofchampains on Mar 26, 2012 9:32:54 GMT -5
Hated Heel with a long title reign is in a long feud with top babyface. Come the final decisive match on a big PPV event, shockingly the face doesn't win the match as everyone was expecting. The following show on free tv, a new arrival face shows up and beat heel champ for the belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Mar 26, 2012 12:25:44 GMT -5
I somewhat agree with the booking on the fly thing but I actually like the tights/gear thing because I'd expect people showing up to work to be in uniform so to speak unless told otherwise. Watching some football (soccer) just now, an when the teams arrived to the stadium, they weren't wearing their kits, they would have changed into the kits in the dressing room. If it's say less then half an hour before their match, then yeah they should be in their gear. Otherwise, especially if they aren't on the card, then they should just wear normal stuff. Okay but the last man on the bench should be in uniform because there might be some possible chance they might be in a match. I 2nd the WWE not knowing what they want their backstage segments to be. I admit sometimes it works when its funny but a serious moment to stupid moment just annoys me. I haven't watch TNA regularly in forever but when they went to the sneak camera man when Bischoff started they also got a little ridiculous when it seemed like no one closed the damned door just closed it over when discussing things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2012 12:46:33 GMT -5
Guys who don't FIGHT. Instead, they stand and stare, and then hit their finishing maneuver, and stand and stare more, as music plays.
Cody Rhodes and Randy Orton got it right with their feud, they didn't just take turns doing finishing moves and "getting the upperhand psychologically" or whatever, they actually got into some heated brawls with fists flying everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 28, 2012 2:27:23 GMT -5
- Lack of real heels. People used to HATE these guys. They had to worry about fans after a show when leaving the building. HHH despite my opinions on him was great in this role. He would hit people with sledgehammers, run people over with cars. Etc. This is a big one. People can say how great someone like Dolph Ziggler is (he is awesome in the ring) but he'll never be a believable main eventer until people actually care about his character. Any minor heat he has pretty much comes entirely from Vickie. What does he do that's heelish? A headstand? I haven't liked HHH for years but he was an awesome heel, especially from 99-2001. We need more heels that are just plain bad, vile people, not just arrogant pretty boy jerks. Frustrating part is when they won't stick with a true heel. When Anderson first hit TNA he was absolutely killing it as a ruthless heel, best thing going in either company. He gets way over and before you know it they have him totally playing to the crowd. |
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,789
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Mar 28, 2012 12:03:39 GMT -5
Add me to the "titles mean nothing camp"
The fact that everyone and their mother is a former world champion, due to having 2 world titles.
The Attitude Era also deserves a TON of blame too. There was only win title then, but about 35 title changes between 1999 an 2001
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Mar 28, 2012 13:28:37 GMT -5
Big impact moves that are part of a wrestler's repertoir that always lead to a pin but is never counted to three. What's the point? The Viewer know he's not gonna win on that move since it's not his finisher. I remember Mike Awesome had about 5 or so impact moves like these but it never worked. Because they were not his finisher. doh! They pop the crowd and a lot of people DO buy those false finishes. It's funny that you mention Mike Awesome because his false finishes were great. Granted, that's mostly because he had like 10 different Awesome Bomb variations, but I remember his Awesome Splash always got a big reaction too. Wrestling would be really boring if guys only tried to win after their finisher. A more apt complaint would be that wrestlers rarely win with stuff other than their finish or a school boy. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 28, 2012 14:34:58 GMT -5
To clarify something about the "it needs to be more realistic" argument, people need to distinguish between which aspects of wrestling need to feel more "real" and which are better off being more fantastical and over the top.
Look back at the WWF in the late 80's and early 90's; it was a giant cartoon show with loud, big, brash personalities, outlandish gimmicks and outfits, guys talking with voices that sounded like they gargled with gravel, people getting into feuds over simplistic things, etc.
However, the production of the show still sought to portray things as being somewhat more like a legitimate competition.
Guys cutting promos didn't talk backstage in front of an invisible cameraman: they got interviewed by guys like Gene Okerlund in official spots that you knew were scheduled to happen. Matches rarely happened out of nowhere: cards were constructed ahead of time, and very often title matches were decided by people filling more realistic authority figure roles ("President" Jack Tunney, some sort of committee, etc.). Announcers like Monsoon and Ventura emphasized that you had to win, and win regularly, if you wanted the "winner's share" of the purse and to make your name. Authority figures didn't automatically go mad with power: they just did their jobs, by and large, and if they appeared you knew it was because something major was happening.
In other words: the characters, feuds, and all those things were big and unrealistic, but the world and rules they existed in still sought to play by somewhat real-world, competition-based logic.
...Ok, "logic" might be a strong word, but still.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Mar 28, 2012 14:41:44 GMT -5
To clarify something about the "it needs to be more realistic" argument, people need to distinguish between which aspects of wrestling need to feel more "real" and which are better off being more fantastical and over the top. Look back at the WWF in the late 80's and early 90's; it was a giant cartoon show with loud, big, brash personalities, outlandish gimmicks and outfits, guys talking with voices that sounded like they gargled with gravel, people getting into feuds over simplistic things, etc. However, the production of the show still sought to portray things as being somewhat more like a legitimate competition. Guys cutting promos didn't talk backstage in front of an invisible cameraman: they got interviewed by guys like Gene Okerlund in official spots that you knew were scheduled to happen. Matches rarely happened out of nowhere: cards were constructed ahead of time, and very often title matches were decided by people filling more realistic authority figure roles ("President" Jack Tunney, some sort of committee, etc.). Announcers like Monsoon and Ventura emphasized that you had to win, and win regularly, if you wanted the "winner's share" of the purse and to make your name. Authority figures didn't automatically go mad with power: they just did their jobs, by and large, and if they appeared you knew it was because something major was happening. In other words: the characters, feuds, and all those things were big and unrealistic, but the world and rules they existed in still sought to play by somewhat real-world, competition-based logic. ...Ok, "logic" might be a strong word, but still. No, I get what you're saying. I get annoyed by the fact that in modern WWE, the wrestlers and the audience don't exist in the same universe. Like, R-Truth can survive an explosion, Hornswoggle has a whole midget world under the ring, etc. That's going too far into the "it's just television" realm of thinking. I agree that the wrestlers shouldn't be just like real people, they need to be larger than life...but the rules and physics of their universe should be exactly the same as the people that they're performing for, IN THE SAME GOD DAMN BUILDING. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 28, 2012 14:50:39 GMT -5
Well, there are certainly things that defy logic that wrestling has always adhered to just because it builds drama (e.g. ref being knocked out, certain moves that look great but would never work in a real fight), or something like that.
But yeah, too often today the "over the top" stuff is SO over the top that it's meant as a wink-and-nod to the crowd, saying "Heh, yeah, this is sooooo fake, right?", rather than just being something fun and entertaining.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,149 
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Mar 28, 2012 15:00:23 GMT -5
The 5 count with punches in the corner. It's designed to make the guy doing look like a ruthless monster, but he really just looks like an idiot who can't count.
"You're disqualified for whipping too much ass."
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior on Mar 28, 2012 15:39:19 GMT -5
Natalya toots
DAMN I HATE IT
|
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 28, 2012 23:48:42 GMT -5
Big impact moves that are part of a wrestler's repertoir that always lead to a pin but is never counted to three. What's the point? The Viewer know he's not gonna win on that move since it's not his finisher. I remember Mike Awesome had about 5 or so impact moves like these but it never worked. Because they were not his finisher. doh! They pop the crowd and a lot of people DO buy those false finishes. It's funny that you mention Mike Awesome because his false finishes were great. Granted, that's mostly because he had like 10 different Awesome Bomb variations, but I remember his Awesome Splash always got a big reaction too. Wrestling would be really boring if guys only tried to win after their finisher. A more apt complaint would be that wrestlers rarely win with stuff other than their finish or a school boy. That is the thing. It would add to the excitement of matches if something other than "the" finisher ends a match sometimes. It would also make the cover make more sense. If experience shows no move other than "the" finisher ends the match why keep going for covers with the "close but no cigar" moves? Would make more sense to just keep beating on the guy. |
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Mar 29, 2012 1:08:28 GMT -5
They pop the crowd and a lot of people DO buy those false finishes. It's funny that you mention Mike Awesome because his false finishes were great. Granted, that's mostly because he had like 10 different Awesome Bomb variations, but I remember his Awesome Splash always got a big reaction too. Wrestling would be really boring if guys only tried to win after their finisher. A more apt complaint would be that wrestlers rarely win with stuff other than their finish or a school boy. That is the thing. It would add to the excitement of matches if something other than "the" finisher ends a match sometimes. It would also make the cover make more sense. If experience shows no move other than "the" finisher ends the match why keep going for covers with the "close but no cigar" moves? Would make more sense to just keep beating on the guy. Every time I watch a PPV with my friends it's always the same story.  "They each take turns on offense, and usually the first finishing move wins the match. Unless it's a main event, in that case it might take 2-3." Can't say I argue with them though, cause it's mostly true. |
|
|
|
Post by clashofchampains on Mar 29, 2012 2:03:33 GMT -5
Big impact moves that are part of a wrestler's repertoir that always lead to a pin but is never counted to three. What's the point? The Viewer know he's not gonna win on that move since it's not his finisher. I remember Mike Awesome had about 5 or so impact moves like these but it never worked. Because they were not his finisher. doh! They pop the crowd and a lot of people DO buy those false finishes. It's funny that you mention Mike Awesome because his false finishes were great. Granted, that's mostly because he had like 10 different Awesome Bomb variations, but I remember his Awesome Splash always got a big reaction too. Wrestling would be really boring if guys only tried to win after their finisher. A more apt complaint would be that wrestlers rarely win with stuff other than their finish or a school boy. But they do win their matchs mostly with their finish. If anything it would be interesting if wrestlers would win more often with random moves. So that when one uses his finisher it means he can't beat the guy and boy he has to use it because there's nothing else he can do. Maybe Mike Awesome was a bad example because he did end his matchs with his other moves. The guy almost had 5 finishes. What I was talking about was guys who have a few impact moves and some of them never ends with them winning the matchs. I would love if Joe won with his Exploder suplex that he does all the time. That's a great move and then he pins his opponants but never win with it. Useless pin. |
|
|
|
Post by clashofchampains on Mar 29, 2012 2:08:28 GMT -5
To clarify something about the "it needs to be more realistic" argument, people need to distinguish between which aspects of wrestling need to feel more "real" and which are better off being more fantastical and over the top. Look back at the WWF in the late 80's and early 90's; it was a giant cartoon show with loud, big, brash personalities, outlandish gimmicks and outfits, guys talking with voices that sounded like they gargled with gravel, people getting into feuds over simplistic things, etc. However, the production of the show still sought to portray things as being somewhat more like a legitimate competition. Guys cutting promos didn't talk backstage in front of an invisible cameraman: they got interviewed by guys like Gene Okerlund in official spots that you knew were scheduled to happen. Matches rarely happened out of nowhere: cards were constructed ahead of time, and very often title matches were decided by people filling more realistic authority figure roles ("President" Jack Tunney, some sort of committee, etc.). Announcers like Monsoon and Ventura emphasized that you had to win, and win regularly, if you wanted the "winner's share" of the purse and to make your name. Authority figures didn't automatically go mad with power: they just did their jobs, by and large, and if they appeared you knew it was because something major was happening. In other words: the characters, feuds, and all those things were big and unrealistic, but the world and rules they existed in still sought to play by somewhat real-world, competition-based logic. ...Ok, "logic" might be a strong word, but still. That's not a "things that you like in wrestling" thread.  |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,627
|
Post by The Ichi on Mar 30, 2012 14:20:56 GMT -5
Guys who don't FIGHT. Instead, they stand and stare, and then hit their finishing maneuver, and stand and stare more, as music plays. Cody Rhodes and Randy Orton got it right with their feud, they didn't just take turns doing finishing moves and "getting the upperhand psychologically" or whatever, they actually got into some heated brawls with fists flying everywhere. That's a good one, I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by austinariesfan88 on Mar 30, 2012 16:04:22 GMT -5
Add me to the "titles mean nothing camp" The fact that everyone and their mother is a former world champion, due to having 2 world titles. The Attitude Era also deserves a TON of blame too. There was only win title then, but about 35 title changes between 1999 an 2001 Completely agree, it sucks when guy are like 5 and 7 time champions within two years. |
|
"They each take turns on offense, and usually the first finishing move wins the match. Unless it's a main event, in that case it might take 2-3."
