Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,152
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Sept 19, 2011 13:03:41 GMT -5
She has some cool moves, but the vast majority of them just have a very choreographed feel to them. Obviously they are, but they shouldn't LOOK like it. That's my problem with her too, I think she’s the worst on the roster for that although she's far from being alone, almost all wrestlers have suffered from that at some point and it's more or less an inevitable part of wrestling for as long as moves like the 619 exist. You can see it when two wrestlers blow a spot; many immediately go for exactly the same spot again with very little logic behind it but the best performers do something else that results in the same outcome or if it's meant to be a long match maybe go back to that spot later. Conversely I think Orton is the best at making matches seem organic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2011 13:09:16 GMT -5
Having this match in Beth's hometown was just odd. It would be like having Mark Henry vs. Evan Bourne in Silsbee, Texas. Or imagine if Cena wasn't getting booed, and WWE started booking him to defeat heels in their hometowns without planning to turn Cena heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by e1987p on Sept 19, 2011 13:37:24 GMT -5
www.rajah.com/base/node/24316- After Beth Phoenix lost to Kelly Kelly in her hometown (Buffalo), there was a huge "bullshit" chant from the crowd for over a minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Sept 19, 2011 13:41:57 GMT -5
I understand why Kelly won the first time. It makes sense as a story: Beth writes off the other Divas as useless eye candy, and then pays for her arrogance.
But doing it twice in a row makes the storyline go from "Beth underestimated Kelly" to "Beth is just freaking stupid".
|
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Sept 19, 2011 15:37:33 GMT -5
That's a whole lot of mental gymnastics to basically say that Kelly being bad is okay because it fits her character. That's not what I'm saying. If you don't purposely misunderstand what I'm saying you should see that I was talking about what would be considered "good" or "bad" subjectively, not taking a side of "bad" objectively and then trying to justify it. I don't believe that Kelly Kelly is objectively "bad". Not that I do and think that it's "ok". And what the heck do you mean by "OK"? On this same token though, would it be mental gymnastics to conclude that Beth having slight difficulty slamming Santino make her "bad", but my pointing out that it's not damaging her character means that I'm "justifying her being bad"? Would CM Punk dropping an F-bomb make him "bad", and thus, if he still has a job because it didn't cost him anything, would that be attempting justifying him as being "bad"? |
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Sept 19, 2011 16:20:20 GMT -5
No, Kelly seemed 5 seconds off the pace and Beth seemed to have to take time to allow her to set up. Kelly Kelly flat out sucks. I dont give a shit if shes over. Psycho Sid was over and he sucked ass too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Sept 19, 2011 17:18:20 GMT -5
No, Kelly seemed 5 seconds off the pace and Beth seemed to have to take time to allow her to set up. Kelly Kelly flat out sucks. I dont give a s*** if shes over. Psycho Sid was over and he sucked ass too. You take that back!! Okay, Kelly's terrible. And she sure as hell shouldn't have walked out of NoC as champion. But that's no reason to bring Sid into this!  |
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Sept 19, 2011 17:25:13 GMT -5
No, Kelly seemed 5 seconds off the pace and Beth seemed to have to take time to allow her to set up. Kelly Kelly flat out sucks. I dont give a s*** if shes over. Psycho Sid was over and he sucked ass too. You take that back!! Okay, Kelly's terrible. And she sure as hell shouldn't have walked out of NoC as champion. But that's no reason to bring Sid into this! Haha, I suppose it would be unfair to lump in Sid with Kelly Kelly. Her strongest asset was her point, and now with Sin Cara around, she looks second rate doing that. She sucks so much ass it hurts. |
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 19, 2011 17:43:26 GMT -5
www.rajah.com/base/node/24316- After Beth Phoenix lost to Kelly Kelly in her hometown (Buffalo), there was a huge "bulls***" chant from the crowd for over a minute. The quoted may or may not have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Sept 19, 2011 18:30:08 GMT -5
The whole storyline is intended to put Kelly over as the new centerpiece. I think they finally figured out that McCool is really gone, and Trish is never coming back. So they need a new "golden girl" to push. Might as well go with the young blonde that is actually over with the crowd. If Beth could get consistent pops like she did tonight in Buffalo, she would be pushed stronger. Kelly will drop the title soon. She might be their centerpiece, but they are not going to build the entire division around her. They don't want any one diva becoming bigger than the division because they've been burned too many times in the past when they tried to create that "female Cena", for lack of a better term. Watch Maryse come back tonight and lay Kelly out. It would not only be hilarious, but is entirely possible. So which is it? I'm geniunely confused as to your mindset here. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Sept 19, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
The whole storyline is intended to put Kelly over as the new centerpiece. I think they finally figured out that McCool is really gone, and Trish is never coming back. So they need a new "golden girl" to push. Might as well go with the young blonde that is actually over with the crowd. If Beth could get consistent pops like she did tonight in Buffalo, she would be pushed stronger. Kelly will drop the title soon. She might be their centerpiece, but they are not going to build the entire division around her. They don't want any one diva becoming bigger than the division because they've been burned too many times in the past when they tried to create that "female Cena", for lack of a better term. Watch Maryse come back tonight and lay Kelly out. It would not only be hilarious, but is entirely possible. So which is it? I'm geniunely confused as to your mindset here. Documented doubletalk? GOTCHA!  |
|
bob
Backup Wench
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 80,557
|
Post by bob on Sept 19, 2011 18:47:33 GMT -5
It makes the whole "Divas of Doom" angle pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Sept 19, 2011 18:57:39 GMT -5
That's a whole lot of mental gymnastics to basically say that Kelly being bad is okay because it fits her character. That's not what I'm saying. If you don't purposely misunderstand what I'm saying you should see that I was talking about what would be considered "good" or "bad" subjectively, not taking a side of "bad" objectively and then trying to justify it. I don't believe that Kelly Kelly is objectively "bad". Not that I do and think that it's "ok". And what the heck do you mean by "OK"? On this same token though, would it be mental gymnastics to conclude that Beth having slight difficulty slamming Santino make her "bad", but my pointing out that it's not damaging her character means that I'm "justifying her being bad"? Would CM Punk dropping an F-bomb make him "bad", and thus, if he still has a job because it didn't cost him anything, would that be attempting justifying him as being "bad"? To be honest you've completely lost me here, not really sure what you're saying in this post. But your earlier post came across like you were basically saying it's okay that she screws up a lot in the ring and is awkward, because that fits a "princess" character. If that's not what you meant, then sorry. But honestly, Kelly is objectively a bad wrestler. It has nothing to do with her style, it's her execution. Nearly everything she does comes across as sloppy, robotic, and just plain poor. She's a good seller, and can play her role okay enough, but she very rarely executes anything well. She can't even run the ropes properly. That's not playing a character, that's just a lack of skill. That being said, she's at least capable of being carried to a watchable match, which is more than you could probably say about most of the other "model" Divas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2011 18:57:43 GMT -5
I think the upsetting thing here with most people is the notion of the "Kelly Kelly is bad" thing. If you don't regard Kelly Kelly as bad, then the idea's expressed in this thread don't make any sense. Kelly Kelly being bad is an absolute must as a prerequisite. Give the woman a break. What I really think is going on here is what usually goes on with most people, that is: People use whatever knowledge (or lack thereof) that they have to justify their own subjective personal tastes. People try to pretend that their own subjective personal tastes are objectively true. You like person A, then OK. But as soon as someone finds out that Person A holds a marathon title, they say "yeah, my favorite is person A, because this person has a marothon title". Essentially, what they're really saying is "I like person A, because this person has a marathon title, and so there is something objectively valuable about this person, and that's the reason why I like them, and so my subjective personal tastes are better than your subjective personal tastes because my subjective personal tastes are only applied to those who have objectively valuable things to them, and therefore my reasoning is smarter than your reasoning because my subjective personal tastes happen to match up with those things out there that are objectively valuable, and your subjective personal tastes do not". A person with this mind set tries to make it apparent that they are absolutely incapable of having subjective personal tastes that are not based off of their belief that this view is objectively the best. Case in point, one could probably make a poll right here in this forum and ask everyone who their favorite wrestler or diva is, and I'd reckon that most would try to give some explanation as to why their favorite is really objectively better than all the rest and that's why that's their favorite. So Beth vs Kelly. I think Beth has a certain role, and I think Kelly Kelly has a certain role. I think that Kelly Kelly is really good at the type of role that she has, and I don't think that she can get much better unless she changes completely. I think that Beth Phoenix is the best female wrestler in the WWE. Also, Beth Phoenix is my favorite female wrestler in the WWE, because I happen to like the types of female wrestlers that have alot to offer athletically, and I believe that in this regard, that Beth is the best. This does not mean that I think that my personal tastes are objectively better than others, not in entertainment. Kelly Kelly is a diva type, which really means, that if she's beautiful, and if her being beautiful is actually going to be a part of her character rather than just an interesting side effect, than that means that she has to wrestle......like a beautiful princess. No elbow drops, no knee drops, no headbutts, no backbreakers ect, her moves have to be......cute. Like rolls and flips, and twirls and tricks. All of which I think Kelly Kelly is very good at and very athletic at. Plus, Kelly Kelly is IMO good at having facial expressions and characteristics that match her character. It's not like she's wrestling like a beauty queen but when she gets hurt she yells like a monster. Kelly could even make a mistake or two, and she'd get away with it, because she could sell her princess character well and she could afford it. As far as mistakes, I don't think it's all bad. I think It's doing things that mess up your persona that's what's bad. Bobby Heenan was a goofball as a character, so if he slipped on a banana peel and it was unscripted, Heenan would get away with it. Heenan could screw up alot and it would always still be a part of his character somehow. People might just say "well, it's still Bobby" and not much might be done because not much would be taken away from his character, and then not the show overall. Now, If Mr. Perfect slipped on a banana peel, that's another story, or if John Morrison messed up a parkour spot, he might suffer for it. If Kelly Kelly dropped the F bomb, she would suffer for it much more than CM Punk ever would. That's how I view mistakes in WWE, and I think history supports it. So Beth Phoenix is more in line with my subjective personal tastes than Kelly Kelly, but that doesn't mean that I believe that my subjective personal tastes are objectively true, and so definitely not objectively true enough for me to bash Kelly Kelly as if she's objectively bad at all these things. TL;DR |
|
|
|
Post by thecrocksays on Sept 19, 2011 18:58:51 GMT -5
My point was Kelly is their top girl right now, but they won't book her to look bigger than the division. If this was Trish or even McCool, they would probably have the next opponent set up already. But this storyline isn't over, and will likely still end with Beth winning the title. Kelly is by no means "Super Diva". I think WWE learned that it's a mistake to build one woman up that way, since the shelf life for the divas is very short (regardless of how they leave).
|
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Sept 19, 2011 19:01:32 GMT -5
My point was Kelly is their top girl right now, but they won't book her to look bigger than the division. If this was Trish or even McCool, they would probably have the next opponent set up already. But this storyline isn't over, and will likely still end with Beth winning the title. Kelly is by no means "Super Diva". I think WWE learned that it's a mistake to build one woman up that way, since the shelf life for the divas is very short (regardless of how they leave). I see. I was just thrown by the whole "They'll make her the centrepiece but won't build the division around her." That seems like a weird definition of the word "centrepiece" to me. |
|
|
|
Post by thecrocksays on Sept 19, 2011 19:21:24 GMT -5
Maybe "centerpiece" is the wrong word. Lead babyface is more like it. She's their golden girl, but not dominant like past divas have been. Trying to make a female Cena/Orton has blown up in their face time and time again. It's like as soon as their established, they leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Sept 19, 2011 19:22:36 GMT -5
Maybe "centerpiece" is the wrong word. Lead babyface is more like it. She's their golden girl, but not dominant like past divas have been. Trying to make a female Cena/Orton has blown up in their face time and time again. It's like as soon as their established, they leave. No, I get what you mean now. |
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Sept 20, 2011 0:40:34 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. If you don't purposely misunderstand what I'm saying you should see that I was talking about what would be considered "good" or "bad" subjectively, not taking a side of "bad" objectively and then trying to justify it. I don't believe that Kelly Kelly is objectively "bad". Not that I do and think that it's "ok". And what the heck do you mean by "OK"? On this same token though, would it be mental gymnastics to conclude that Beth having slight difficulty slamming Santino make her "bad", but my pointing out that it's not damaging her character means that I'm "justifying her being bad"? Would CM Punk dropping an F-bomb make him "bad", and thus, if he still has a job because it didn't cost him anything, would that be attempting justifying him as being "bad"? To be honest you've completely lost me here, not really sure what you're saying in this post. But your earlier post came across like you were basically saying it's okay that she screws up a lot in the ring and is awkward, because that fits a "princess" character. If that's not what you meant, then sorry. But honestly, Kelly is objectively a bad wrestler. It has nothing to do with her style, it's her execution. Nearly everything she does comes across as sloppy, robotic, and just plain poor. She's a good seller, and can play her role okay enough, but she very rarely executes anything well. She can't even run the ropes properly. That's not playing a character, that's just a lack of skill. That being said, she's at least capable of being carried to a watchable match, which is more than you could probably say about most of the other "model" Divas. Ok, I'm going o try and clarify. #1. Different fans have different personal tastes. Some people like chocolate, and some people like vanilla. Whether or not a car is really inside a garage or not is objective, it either is, or it isn't. Logically, you cannot say "well, the car may be inside the garage for you, but it isn't for me" because you are talking about something outside of yourself, ie objective. However, you can speak this way when you are talking about personal tastes, because that is inside people. A valid statement would be "chocolate may be better for you, but it isn't for me", because that is subjective. The entertainment industry is 100% subjective. You have different people with different styles. They appeal differently to different people. It is wrong to say that if someone likes vanilla more than chocolate that they have a problem because vanilla tastes bad. You said that nearly everything Kelly Kelly does comes across as sloppy, robotic, and just plain poor. Subjective, subjective, and subjective. Kelly Kelly is a "good" seller? Subjective. Can play her role "OK"? Subjective. Can't execute anything "well"? Subjective. She can't run the ropes properly? Subjective. She's showing a lack of skill? Subjective. She can be carried to a "watchable" match? Subjective. That's my point. I can make a page and a half long post about how subjective all of these things are, yet, you're using these very arguments to boldly claim that this shows that Kelly Kelly is objectively a bad wrestler. You have an image of what a good wrestler is supposed to be, what a good move is supposed to look like, what good selling is supposed to be, what running the ropes is supposed to look like, what good execution is supposed to be, and the farther anyone goes from that image, you say the more objectively bad that they are. You have your idea of what a good cake is supposed to be, with chocolate icing, and vanilla interior with chocolate sprinkles, and the more a cake goes from that standard, the more you dislike it, sure, but also, the more you try to say that it's objectively bad just because you don't like it. #2. As to the point I was making in my second post, I was merely exposing a fallacy of selective reasoning, usually applied by those who inject their subjective personal tastes as if objective fact but supported with only subjective arguments. Also, when I speak of Kelly Kelly having a princess character, I'm not saying that her making alot of mistakes would be encouraged. I'm saying that people are overly nit-picky when they don't have to be. I'm saying that when Kelly does make a mistake that doesn't really matter, people throw a big fuss about it, but when CM Punk makes a mistake that doesn't really matter, people don't make a big fuss about it. Selective reasoning. I'm saying that a mistake made by one person can really matter alot, but that same exact mistake made by another person may not matter at all, thus again, showing the very subjective nature of the business. |
|
|
|
Post by e1987p on Sept 20, 2011 6:23:54 GMT -5
|
|
