FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,417
|
Post by FinalGwen on Dec 23, 2012 12:31:17 GMT -5
Doesn't that exact same description work for both Austin and The Rock now?
And this'll probably keep getting chanted, probably by the same idiots who chant "You can't wrestle" at Cena, despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 23, 2012 12:32:48 GMT -5
Big, well-built guy. Bald. Goatee. Limited move set. Kills guys dead in the ring with little offense from opponents. Plenty of similarities between the two in the very limited gene pool that is WWE. With the exception of the last one, that all describes Stone Cold Steve Austin as well. If Ryback's a Goldberg ripoff, then the argument could be made that Goldberg's an Austin ripoff. And that's not even getting into how Ryback hasn't squashed opponents in weeks. Even Cesaro got plenty of offense on him in their last match. There are similarities, but the "monster face who destroys opponents" character doesn't begin and end with Goldberg. Others have done it before him, others will continue to do it afterwards.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,274
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 23, 2012 13:27:28 GMT -5
People still do "What?" chants. No. Wrestling fans will always try and show how snarky and smarter than thou they are. I think it's more that wrestling fans will always try to have a good time. It's us who are snarky for making these threads.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Dec 23, 2012 13:31:30 GMT -5
Big, well-built guy. Bald. Goatee. Limited move set. Kills guys dead in the ring with little offense from opponents. Plenty of similarities between the two in the very limited gene pool that is WWE. With the exception of the last one, that all describes Stone Cold Steve Austin as well. If Ryback's a Goldberg ripoff, then the argument could be made that Goldberg's an Austin ripoff. And that's not even getting into how Ryback hasn't squashed opponents in weeks. Even Cesaro got plenty of offense on him in their last match. There are similarities, but the "monster face who destroys opponents" character doesn't begin and end with Goldberg. Others have done it before him, others will continue to do it afterwards. Bah, they all stole the gimmick from Bad News Brown.
|
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,461
|
Post by Rican on Dec 23, 2012 13:58:05 GMT -5
Are the Goldberg chants REALLY hurting him, though? They still chant Feed Me More and he's pretty over anyway. I wonder how many people are just chanting Goldberg for the hell of it since everyone else is doing it.
|
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Dec 23, 2012 14:01:08 GMT -5
With the exception of the last one, that all describes Stone Cold Steve Austin as well. If Ryback's a Goldberg ripoff, then the argument could be made that Goldberg's an Austin ripoff. And that's not even getting into how Ryback hasn't squashed opponents in weeks. Even Cesaro got plenty of offense on him in their last match. There are similarities, but the "monster face who destroys opponents" character doesn't begin and end with Goldberg. Others have done it before him, others will continue to do it afterwards. Bah, they all stole the gimmick from Bad News Brown. Damn beer belly sharecroppers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 17:30:40 GMT -5
Big, well-built guy. Bald. Goatee. Limited move set. Kills guys dead in the ring with little offense from opponents. Plenty of similarities between the two in the very limited gene pool that is WWE. With the exception of the last one, that all describes Stone Cold Steve Austin as well. If Ryback's a Goldberg ripoff, then the argument could be made that Goldberg's an Austin ripoff. And that's not even getting into how Ryback hasn't squashed opponents in weeks. Even Cesaro got plenty of offense on him in their last match. There are similarities, but the "monster face who destroys opponents" character doesn't begin and end with Goldberg. Others have done it before him, others will continue to do it afterwards. It's not a 2 out of 3 thing. Austin was a bald guy with a goatee, but he also wasn't huge and actually wrestled matches which is enough to differentiate. People see those key defining traits and make the connection. Like I said, the character "gene pool" in WWE is limited so it takes very little for people to go "Hey, that guy is pretty much like this other guy!" If Ryback had some kind of character it wouldn't be so easy to make it. Or if he a different look. With his previous gimmick, no one thought "Oh hey, Goldberg." Now I wasn't a fan of "Skip Sheffield" but that character would have NEVER been associated Goldberg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 17:35:18 GMT -5
If 'Back hits some kind of disgusting spot one time, it might.
GOLDBERG GOLDBERG GOLDBERG *Out of nowhere he leaps straight up on the top rope and hits a 1080 splash. GOLDBER-ER RYBACK RYBACK RYBACK
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 23, 2012 17:48:30 GMT -5
It's not a 2 out of 3 thing. Austin was a bald guy with a goatee, but he also wasn't huge and actually wrestled matches which is enough to differentiate. People see those key defining traits and make the connection. Like I said, the character "gene pool" in WWE is limited so it takes very little for people to go "Hey, that guy is pretty much like this other guy!" If Ryback had some kind of character it wouldn't be so easy to make it. Or if he a different look. With his previous gimmick, no one thought "Oh hey, Goldberg." Now I wasn't a fan of "Skip Sheffield" but that character would have NEVER been associated Goldberg. Ryback wrestles matches too, and he's months past the point where all he was doing was squashing jobbers. If wrestling actual matches, not squashes, is enough to differentiate Austin and Goldberg, then it should be enough to differentiate Goldberg and Ryback. If that's still not enough, then Ryback's ability to work different matches like the ones at Hell in a Cell and TLC should be. And I wouldn't suggest that Ryback doesn't have a character. He does. It's not a blatant gimmick like Sandow's, and it's very basic, but his promos and mannerisms in the ring are unlike anyone else's currently. In fact, I'd argue that he's displayed more of a unique personality than someone like Cody Rhodes, Wade Barrett, or Dolph Ziggler. I'll admit that Ryback and Goldberg do draw from the same "monster face who dominates opponents with power" source. The issue I have is that kind of character never started with Goldberg, and to act of as if it does doesn't speak very highly for the people who chant it. Especially since Ryback's started to move on from that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 17:53:24 GMT -5
Are the Goldberg chants REALLY hurting him, though? They still chant Feed Me More and he's pretty over anyway. I wonder how many people are just chanting Goldberg for the hell of it since everyone else is doing it. I don't see how they could be hurting him. People are chanting SOMETHING for him and he obviously has gotten some big pops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 19:53:40 GMT -5
It's not a 2 out of 3 thing. Austin was a bald guy with a goatee, but he also wasn't huge and actually wrestled matches which is enough to differentiate. People see those key defining traits and make the connection. Like I said, the character "gene pool" in WWE is limited so it takes very little for people to go "Hey, that guy is pretty much like this other guy!" If Ryback had some kind of character it wouldn't be so easy to make it. Or if he a different look. With his previous gimmick, no one thought "Oh hey, Goldberg." Now I wasn't a fan of "Skip Sheffield" but that character would have NEVER been associated Goldberg. Ryback wrestles matches too, and he's months past the point where all he was doing was squashing jobbers. If wrestling actual matches, not squashes, is enough to differentiate Austin and Goldberg, then it should be enough to differentiate Goldberg and Ryback. If that's still not enough, then Ryback's ability to work different matches like the ones at Hell in a Cell and TLC should be. And I wouldn't suggest that Ryback doesn't have a character. He does. It's not a blatant gimmick like Sandow's, and it's very basic, but his promos and mannerisms in the ring are unlike anyone else's currently. In fact, I'd argue that he's displayed more of a unique personality than someone like Cody Rhodes, Wade Barrett, or Dolph Ziggler. I'll admit that Ryback and Goldberg do draw from the same "monster face who dominates opponents with power" source. The issue I have is that kind of character never started with Goldberg, and to act of as if it does doesn't speak very highly for the people who chant it. Especially since Ryback's started to move on from that. Well, in all fairness, Goldberg starting wrestling matches too, but there was a LOT more differentiating Austin and Goldberg in that Austin had personality. The thing about Barrett is that he's at least established himself as a former-bare-knuckle brawler, which in itself has enough connotative power to give him a character. Ziggler's the show off. Rhodes - I'll agree on. I'm not sure what kind of personality or character Ryback is right now. The announcers even say he's a "monster" which is again, similar to how Goldberg was billed. I think the larger point though is that when people are chanting "Goldberg" it's not saying, "Hey this guy is EXACTLY like Goldberg." Anymore than chants of "Walrus" are saying Paul Heyman is indeed a water dwelling obese mammal. Their chants of "GOLDBERG" reflects more on their dislike of what little character they've given Ryback so far. And not to put too fine a point on it, but "Feed me more!" and "Who's Next!?!" are basically the same thing.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 23, 2012 21:54:20 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, Goldberg starting wrestling matches too, but there was a LOT more differentiating Austin and Goldberg in that Austin had personality. The thing about Barrett is that he's at least established himself as a former-bare-knuckle brawler, which in itself has enough connotative power to give him a character. Ziggler's the show off. Rhodes - I'll agree on. I'm not sure what kind of personality or character Ryback is right now. The announcers even say he's a "monster" which is again, similar to how Goldberg was billed. There was a lot more emphasis placed on Goldberg's streak and there was Ryback, Goldberg's streak went for much longer, and he certainly wasn't losing clean to rookies not even a year after debuting. For as much similarities there are between the two, there are differences that separate them. And I don't watch many Barrett matches, but I don't really remember the bare-knuckle brawling really playing a significant part in anything Wade's done since his return. Ditto Ziggler. I've never seen his "Show Off" gimmick really amount to any more than t-shirts or the occasional handstand/sit-ups he does in the ring. Ryback's character is a pretty basic "monster who destroys opponents with power" with the added bonus of talking in food metaphors to express his desire to destroy people, but he plays to that a lot better than anyone listed. And it sets him apart from anyone else currently on the roster. As said before, Goldberg does come from the same mold, but so do a lot of people. If people want to express their dislike of Ryback, fine, even if simply not responding to a guy would get rid of him faster. But the "Goldberg" chants are simply silly, and give off the false implication that every face who destroys opponents with power is automatically a Goldberg ripoff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 22:21:41 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, Goldberg starting wrestling matches too, but there was a LOT more differentiating Austin and Goldberg in that Austin had personality. The thing about Barrett is that he's at least established himself as a former-bare-knuckle brawler, which in itself has enough connotative power to give him a character. Ziggler's the show off. Rhodes - I'll agree on. I'm not sure what kind of personality or character Ryback is right now. The announcers even say he's a "monster" which is again, similar to how Goldberg was billed. There was a lot more emphasis placed on Goldberg's streak and there was Ryback, Goldberg's streak went for much longer, and he certainly wasn't losing clean to rookies not even a year after debuting. For as much similarities there are between the two, there are differences that separate them. And I don't watch many Barrett matches, but I don't really remember the bare-knuckle brawling really playing a significant part in anything Wade's done since his return. Ditto Ziggler. I've never seen his "Show Off" gimmick really amount to any more than t-shirts or the occasional handstand/sit-ups he does in the ring. Ryback's character is a pretty basic "monster who destroys opponents with power" with the added bonus of talking in food metaphors to express his desire to destroy people, but he plays to that a lot better than anyone listed. And it sets him apart from anyone else currently on the roster. As said before, Goldberg does come from the same mold, but so do a lot of people. If people want to express their dislike of Ryback, fine, even if simply not responding to a guy would get rid of him faster. But the "Goldberg" chants are simply silly, and give off the false implication that every face who destroys opponents with power is automatically a Goldberg ripoff. I mean, "monster who destroys people with power" and talks in food metaphors isn't a character or personality really, just giving him some throwaway lines to say. I haven't seen his PPV matches, but all his RAW and Smackdown matches have been glorified squash matches (the Cesaro match being the exception), so I'm hesitant to really say he can even work a longer match. I don't think people necessarily want him gone, but something beyond "Goldberg-esque clone." Hopefully the Goldberg chants encourage management to actually give him a personality that gives him something unique. Give him motivation beyond "ME SMASH!" y'know? As far as Barrett goes, most of his promos were about how he needed to go back to his roots of bareknuckle brawling to find his desire and passion and how being in the WWE coddled him to the point he lost his edge. Which is a pretty good place for a character to start anew from. Ziggler's whole thing was that he's a showoff - which he shows off a lot and most recently he actually STOLE John Cena's sorta girlfriend, which is perfectly in line with Ziggler's character.
|
|
|
Post by flatsdomino on Dec 23, 2012 22:33:46 GMT -5
Better question: think they'll ever have Goldberg come in for a one-shot against Ryback?
Because now that Ryback's blown up so much, they can't even have Goldberg show up for a promo or cameo with that elephant in the room, so if he ever shows up on WWE TV again (and he should at some point, he's one of the biggest stars ever and isn't on bad terms) it'll have to be, in some capacity, interacting with Ryback.
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Dec 23, 2012 22:57:51 GMT -5
Are the Goldberg chants REALLY hurting him, though? They still chant Feed Me More and he's pretty over anyway. I wonder how many people are just chanting Goldberg for the hell of it since everyone else is doing it. I don't see how they could be hurting him. People are chanting SOMETHING for him and he obviously has gotten some big pops. He has. Last Monday the "GOLDBERG!!" chants and the "FEED ME MORE!!" chants were both pretty loud. I bet there are people chanting both so it's not like people hate the guy. It feels like, while some people are airing displeasure or being jerks, a lot of people are just having fun and messing with him but they still support him killing people and devouring their souls and everything else a Ryback does. It's like how fans continued to chant "YOU SUCK!" at Kurt Angle even after he became a face again.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 24, 2012 5:14:53 GMT -5
I mean, "monster who destroys people with power" and talks in food metaphors isn't a character or personality really, just giving him some throwaway lines to say. I haven't seen his PPV matches, but all his RAW and Smackdown matches have been glorified squash matches (the Cesaro match being the exception), so I'm hesitant to really say he can even work a longer match. I don't think people necessarily want him gone, but something beyond "Goldberg-esque clone." Hopefully the Goldberg chants encourage management to actually give him a personality that gives him something unique. Give him motivation beyond "ME SMASH!" y'know? As far as Barrett goes, most of his promos were about how he needed to go back to his roots of bareknuckle brawling to find his desire and passion and how being in the WWE coddled him to the point he lost his edge. Which is a pretty good place for a character to start anew from. Ziggler's whole thing was that he's a showoff - which he shows off a lot and most recently he actually STOLE John Cena's sorta girlfriend, which is perfectly in line with Ziggler's character. Most of Ryback's recent Raw appearances haven't been matches, the one with Cesaro being the only one I've seen him work in quite some time. But Hell in a Cell and TLC show that, yes, he can work regular matches as well. And then there's his match with Alberto del Rio on Main Event that went about 16 minutes. Ryback has shown that not only can he work 10-20 minute matches, but he can work different kinds of them of as well. The "monster face who likes to beat people up" is about as much a character as "bare-knuckle brawler" or "the guy who does handstands in the ring", and Ryback's just managed to make it his own (whether or not he's entertaining in the long run remains to be seen). And, unlike Wade Barrett, it's not just a thing commentators mention or a bunch of hype videos said about him months ago, but something that actually plays a part in his storylines and matches. That's why I think Ryback shows more of a personality than Wade (or Ziggler or Cody). If a non-fan were to see Ryback in the ring, they'd get the point of his character right away. If they were to see Barrett, would they really think "bare-knuckle brawler"? Of course not. A character doesn't need to be complex or original to work, he just needs to be played well. And I really doubt the "Goldberg" chants will really encourage anything from management, because 1) comparing every dominant monster face character to Goldberg is ridiculous. When Mark Henry turned heel last year and started destroying people, we didn't compare him to any of the hundreds of monster heels who'd come before, did we? And 2) Ryback's plenty over in spite of them.
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Dec 24, 2012 5:42:01 GMT -5
The set-up of running Clothesline and Samoan Drop is very similar to the set-up of Spear and Jackhammer I feel..people didn't just wake up and all make these realizations at the same time for no reason. Ryback fans act like the whole audience is organizing a massive troll when really it's just blatantly obvious what they were originally intending this character to be. Even his entrance is a different take on what Goldberg already did.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Dec 24, 2012 11:04:24 GMT -5
Goldberg doesn't hold the patent on bald, muscular, goatee monsters who destroy their opponents in the ring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2012 12:07:44 GMT -5
I mean, "monster who destroys people with power" and talks in food metaphors isn't a character or personality really, just giving him some throwaway lines to say. I haven't seen his PPV matches, but all his RAW and Smackdown matches have been glorified squash matches (the Cesaro match being the exception), so I'm hesitant to really say he can even work a longer match. I don't think people necessarily want him gone, but something beyond "Goldberg-esque clone." Hopefully the Goldberg chants encourage management to actually give him a personality that gives him something unique. Give him motivation beyond "ME SMASH!" y'know? As far as Barrett goes, most of his promos were about how he needed to go back to his roots of bareknuckle brawling to find his desire and passion and how being in the WWE coddled him to the point he lost his edge. Which is a pretty good place for a character to start anew from. Ziggler's whole thing was that he's a showoff - which he shows off a lot and most recently he actually STOLE John Cena's sorta girlfriend, which is perfectly in line with Ziggler's character. Most of Ryback's recent Raw appearances haven't been matches, the one with Cesaro being the only one I've seen him work in quite some time. But Hell in a Cell and TLC show that, yes, he can work regular matches as well. And then there's his match with Alberto del Rio on Main Event that went about 16 minutes. Ryback has shown that not only can he work 10-20 minute matches, but he can work different kinds of them of as well. The "monster face who likes to beat people up" is about as much a character as "bare-knuckle brawler" or "the guy who does handstands in the ring", and Ryback's just managed to make it his own (whether or not he's entertaining in the long run remains to be seen). And, unlike Wade Barrett, it's not just a thing commentators mention or a bunch of hype videos said about him months ago, but something that actually plays a part in his storylines and matches. That's why I think Ryback shows more of a personality than Wade (or Ziggler or Cody). If a non-fan were to see Ryback in the ring, they'd get the point of his character right away. If they were to see Barrett, would they really think "bare-knuckle brawler"? Of course not. A character doesn't need to be complex or original to work, he just needs to be played well. Actually Barrett's & Ziggler's personalities both play major roles in how their matches play out and their storylines. Barrett worked as a 'hired gun' for Paul Heyman and Ziggler actually stole John Cena's girlfriend - which is a big part of his personality (showing off, stealing girlfriends). I don't think anyone would get Ryback's personality instantly just from seeing him the ring. In fact, I think most people would see him as the bad guy because of his demeanor. When I forward youtube clips to friends who don't watch wrestling of Ryback, that's what they always say. They're genuinely surprised when I tell them he's supposed to be the good guy. I agree that a character doesn't need to be complex to work, but original - yes. More to the point if you expect audiences to NOT chant 'Goldberg' at Ryback you have to make him an original character that's more complex than what Goldberg was. You've got a guy who you admit isn't complex or original and has a look and personality similar to early Goldberg and you're honestly can't understand why people would chant the dudes name?
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 24, 2012 13:04:58 GMT -5
Actually Barrett's & Ziggler's personalities both play major roles in how their matches play out and their storylines. Barrett worked as a 'hired gun' for Paul Heyman and Ziggler actually stole John Cena's girlfriend - which is a big part of his personality (showing off, stealing girlfriends). I don't think anyone would get Ryback's personality instantly just from seeing him the ring. In fact, I think most people would see him as the bad guy because of his demeanor. When I forward youtube clips to friends who don't watch wrestling of Ryback, that's what they always say. They're genuinely surprised when I tell them he's supposed to be the good guy. I agree that a character doesn't need to be complex to work, but original - yes. More to the point if you expect audiences to NOT chant 'Goldberg' at Ryback you have to make him an original character that's more complex than what Goldberg was. You've got a guy who you admit isn't complex or original and has a look and personality similar to early Goldberg and you're honestly can't understand why people would chant the dudes name? I can't understand why they chant his name because doing so would imply that Goldberg is original, or that he's the only one allowed to do the whole "monster face" shtick. As you can see from this very thread, he isn't. In fact, you can go through a good amount of people on the roster and find that they draw inspiration from what someone else has already done. You don't see Brodus Clay getting "Flash Funk" chants. Yet Ryback is the only one who gets chants about a guy who's not even original himself? That's dumb. And judging by Goldberg's popularity, originality obviously isn't what's important. How well you play the character is what's important. When you see Ryback headed to the ring to destroy a whining champion it's incredibly easy to see who he is and what he does, especially when the commentators are singing his praises the entire time. That's why fans pop every time Ryback destroys CM Punk. If we're going to tell personal stories, then I've seen non-fans who understood that way back when Ryback was still squashing jobbers and hadn't feuded with anybody. As far as Wade Barrett and Dolph Ziggler go? Here's my question, when Ziggler fought Cena at TLC, where did the "Showing Off" really come into play? How did it contribute to the match, other than a meaningless flips of the hair that don't mean anything? What would have been different about his matches if his character were any different? Judging by the fact that he's still working the same kind of matches he was before the whole "Show Off" gimmick started taking hold, I don't think it contributes a lot. I know he references it, and it's something commentators like to mention, but I haven't seen it have any real effect on anything he's done. Even in the current storyline with AJ, her betrayal (or at least her explanation on SmackDown) seemed to have more to do with her anger towards Cena than Ziggler (and yes, I'm aware she ended the segment with the words "Showing Off", which made next to no sense given that Langston was the one who laid out Miz). Same applies for Barrett. Admittedly, I missed whatever segment he had with Heyman where he worked as a hired gun, but I haven't seen or heard any of his bare-knuckle boxing really accomplishing anything in the last few weeks. As someone who can't be bothered with watching many of Barrett's matches, does he even act like one?
|
|