My Jay Briscoe Rant.

[Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED!]

I just watched the match between Samoa Joe and Jay Briscoe for Supercard of Honor, and overall it was one of the worst matches I've ever seen. It just seemed to be very slow and plodding. I also couldn't stand the excessive Jay Briscoe dick sucking on Commentary. I mean every other line was rambling about how incredible Jay Briscoe is, and calling him the Greatest ROH Champion of all time. To quote Kevin Kelly at the end "How can you say Jay Briscoe is not the greatest ROH Champion of all time?"


I can say that very easily. For one thing in a detail they conveniently left off the broadcast of this match on their show, Briscoe had to throw a chair at Joe's head to win. Secondly there are other ROH champions who beat Joe using no chairs to the head or illegal actions whatsoever. Thirdly his "Unpinned streak" isn't as impressive as they're making it out to be as he has lost PLENTY in the past 2 years. He's just had his partners take the falls. Not to mention he has taken a fall very recently in a tables match.

Not to mention there is no logical reason he should be unbeatable. Joe could pull it off because he was much larger than everyone and just had the ability to wrestle every style. Danielson was unbeatable because he had 4 different ways he could put you away, and was positively ruthless. Nigel Mcguinness was a cheating Bastard with a ridiculously high pain threshold. Kevin Steen was absolutely ruthless and would do anything to win and had a ridiculously high pain threshold. What does Jay have? A large beard?

It's just not believable in the slightest that he could go this long without being pinned.

[lws]

funny you think they suck his dick on commentary considering he thinks men who suck dick deserve to die!

[Crappler El 0 M]

You think Jay Briscoe's streak of not being pinned is unrealistic? That's fine. Now try to teach his kids that? Whew! You don't want to know what he'll do!

[Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED!]

..... I knew it would go to this topic sooner or later I just didn't think it would go there this quickly.....

[lws]

for some people (myself included) its such a big important offensive issue that literally nothing else about him matters or is worth talking about

it'd be like saying you don't like north korea cause the food there isn't good

maybe, but there's a much bigger issue at hand here, and if you focus on the little issues, it seems like you're ignoring the actually incredibly important main issue

[Andrew is Good]

The World Champion should win all his matches due to him being the World Champion, which means he's the best. I despise the idea of, oh, he's unbeatable, or lol Briscoe wins. He's the World Champion. Other critiques, fine, didn't see the match so I can't comment. But complaining about how the World Champion doesn't lose is ridiculous.

[Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED!]

Apr 16, 2015 18:08:06 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

The World Champion should win all his matches due to him being the World Champion, which means he's the best. I despise the idea of, oh, he's unbeatable, or lol Briscoe wins. He's the World Champion. Other critiques, fine, didn't see the match so I can't comment. But complaining about how the World Champion doesn't lose is ridiculous.

I don't have a problem with a champion who's unbeatable so long as it makes sense. With Jay it really doesn't.

But a champion who doesn't always win isn't a problem either, many great champions have suffered non title losses, it's really finding the right balance.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I read the OP in Jay Briscoe's voice.

[Medicinal Thunder Liger]

I totally agree. I don't dislike dem boys, but man they have fallen leauges in quality the last 3-5 or so years.

[Saul Goodman]

Apr 16, 2015 18:08:06 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

The World Champion should win all his matches due to him being the World Champion, which means he's the best. I despise the idea of, oh, he's unbeatable, or lol Briscoe wins. He's the World Champion. Other critiques, fine, didn't see the match so I can't comment. But complaining about how the World Champion doesn't lose is ridiculous.

True, if you want to watch champions always losing then watch the WWE.

[Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED!]

Don't get me wrong I do believe champions should win a majority of their matches, but what annoys me is that they're trying to call him the greatest ROH Champion of all time.

Not to mention that this is starting to get to the point where when a title match happens it's getting hard to believe that Jay could actually lose the match. To be fair when he finally does lose the belt that'll make the moment all the better. But until then it becomes very boring, and stale.

I wouldn't actually be this irritated by it if this was a better in ring worker, if this was like Adam Cole or Michael Elgin getting this kind of a push I wouldn't mind it because they are worlds better than Jay Briscoe, in just about every way.

[The Summer of Muskrat XVII]

I was never a fan of the Briscoes, felt they were incredibly overrated personally. And this was before the whole "kill anyone who teaches my kids about equality" shit went down. Now, I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would want the face of their company to be this homophobic piece of shit. Only a matter of time before he tweets the world about how many fags there are in New York again, or worse.

[Mozenrath]

They could stand to be more honest, true.

"He's better than Xavier, certainly."
"Yeah, I, umm, I guess that can probably be said without much contesting."
"He's a better world champ than Jimmy Rave!"
"I don't think he ever won it."
"See? What'd I tell ya!"

[Andrew is Good]

Apr 16, 2015 18:12:12 GMT -5 Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED! said:

Apr 16, 2015 18:08:06 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

The World Champion should win all his matches due to him being the World Champion, which means he's the best. I despise the idea of, oh, he's unbeatable, or lol Briscoe wins. He's the World Champion. Other critiques, fine, didn't see the match so I can't comment. But complaining about how the World Champion doesn't lose is ridiculous.

I don't have a problem with a champion who's unbeatable so long as it makes sense. With Jay it really doesn't.

But a champion who doesn't always win isn't a problem either, many great champions have suffered non title losses, it's really finding the right balance.

And they shouldn't have. Non-title losses like, if you beat the Champion, logically shouldn't you be the Champion? You don't see non-title losses in other sports. It's a bad way to build contenders, and it's too much of a lazy WWE style method of trying to create a contender. The IC Title was murdered by the concept and arguably shouldn't even exist because guys end up starting to get lazy and feel "well, he's the champion, we can beat him and he'll be fine. Well he won't. Or, they could say, well, maybe if we do it one time, then they see how things go and then they're like, well, maybe we could try it again, and then you have the IC Title. If you have to protect your champion like this, you start to get more creative and have to find ways in order to make contenders without taking the easy road. Plus, when that big moment happens that Jay is beaten for the title, man, what an epic ROH moment they've created

With Jay, it's mostly an agree to disagree whether it makes sense or not, I think he's fine as a World Champion, and I do like how ROH is at least trying to present their World Champion as the best instead of a fluke Champion like WWE or TNA have in the past. ROH should be praised for not only doing this, but protecting the ROH Title as a whole with minimal amount of multi time champions (and I hope NXT does this too). Because again, if you have to be strict with who gets the World Title and how they're not going to get the title multiple times (granted a lot of it was because they were leaving, but Daniel Bryan stayed for 3 or 4 years after he lost the title). You can't be like, oh, let's hot shot the belt, that will build some interest, and then you're like, wow, it built interest, let's do it again, and again, and then you have John Cena the 15 time Champion, Edge the 11 time Champion, Randy Orton the 11 or 12, or I just lost count.

[Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED!]

Apr 17, 2015 9:49:21 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

Apr 16, 2015 18:12:12 GMT -5 Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED! said:

I don't have a problem with a champion who's unbeatable so long as it makes sense. With Jay it really doesn't.

But a champion who doesn't always win isn't a problem either, many great champions have suffered non title losses, it's really finding the right balance.

And they shouldn't have. Non-title losses like, if you beat the Champion, logically shouldn't you be the Champion? You don't see non-title losses in other sports. It's a bad way to build contenders, and it's too much of a lazy WWE style method of trying to create a contender. The IC Title was murdered by the concept and arguably shouldn't even exist because guys end up starting to get lazy and feel "well, he's the champion, we can beat him and he'll be fine. Well he won't. Or, they could say, well, maybe if we do it one time, then they see how things go and then they're like, well, maybe we could try it again, and then you have the IC Title. If you have to protect your champion like this, you start to get more creative and have to find ways in order to make contenders without taking the easy road. Plus, when that big moment happens that Jay is beaten for the title, man, what an epic ROH moment they've created

With Jay, it's mostly an agree to disagree whether it makes sense or not, I think he's fine as a World Champion, and I do like how ROH is at least trying to present their World Champion as the best instead of a fluke Champion like WWE or TNA have in the past. ROH should be praised for not only doing this, but protecting the ROH Title as a whole with minimal amount of multi time champions (and I hope NXT does this too). Because again, if you have to be strict with who gets the World Title and how they're not going to get the title multiple times (granted a lot of it was because they were leaving, but Daniel Bryan stayed for 3 or 4 years after he lost the title). You can't be like, oh, let's hot shot the belt, that will build some interest, and then you're like, wow, it built interest, let's do it again, and again, and then you have John Cena the 15 time Champion, Edge the 11 time Champion, Randy Orton the 11 or 12, or I just lost count.

I agree about the not hotshotting the title thing (Weird how we've been having an arguement yet I've not entirely disagreed with anything you've said huh?) After all if we have 27.5 times world champions it means that many deserving stars will never get a chance to be champion.

But I disagree mostly with the non title loss thing. Think about this for a second in other sports there are no nontitle matches for champions. By that logic there should be no nontitle matches. I mean a non title victory like they do with the IC title is incredibly stupid, If the champion is never able to win outside of a title match, that's some dumb shit and makes them look terrible.

But once in a while if that happens to build a contender it's not really that bad.

For instance when Danielson was champion, he won most of his non title matches, only losing twice in singles competition by pin or submission to Kenta and Joe. That still had some effect because it doesn't happen much with a champion in ROH. Those were done to build those defenses up as being bigger and more important and built drama.

So it can be done well.

I however agree when Briscoe loses it should be a title match.

[Andrew is Good]

Apr 17, 2015 16:49:55 GMT -5 Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED! said:

Apr 17, 2015 9:49:21 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

And they shouldn't have. Non-title losses like, if you beat the Champion, logically shouldn't you be the Champion? You don't see non-title losses in other sports. It's a bad way to build contenders, and it's too much of a lazy WWE style method of trying to create a contender. The IC Title was murdered by the concept and arguably shouldn't even exist because guys end up starting to get lazy and feel "well, he's the champion, we can beat him and he'll be fine. Well he won't. Or, they could say, well, maybe if we do it one time, then they see how things go and then they're like, well, maybe we could try it again, and then you have the IC Title. If you have to protect your champion like this, you start to get more creative and have to find ways in order to make contenders without taking the easy road. Plus, when that big moment happens that Jay is beaten for the title, man, what an epic ROH moment they've created

With Jay, it's mostly an agree to disagree whether it makes sense or not, I think he's fine as a World Champion, and I do like how ROH is at least trying to present their World Champion as the best instead of a fluke Champion like WWE or TNA have in the past. ROH should be praised for not only doing this, but protecting the ROH Title as a whole with minimal amount of multi time champions (and I hope NXT does this too). Because again, if you have to be strict with who gets the World Title and how they're not going to get the title multiple times (granted a lot of it was because they were leaving, but Daniel Bryan stayed for 3 or 4 years after he lost the title). You can't be like, oh, let's hot shot the belt, that will build some interest, and then you're like, wow, it built interest, let's do it again, and again, and then you have John Cena the 15 time Champion, Edge the 11 time Champion, Randy Orton the 11 or 12, or I just lost count.

I agree about the not hotshotting the title thing (Weird how we've been having an arguement yet I've not entirely disagreed with anything you've said huh?) After all if we have 27.5 times world champions it means that many deserving stars will never get a chance to be champion.

But I disagree mostly with the non title loss thing. Think about this for a second in other sports there are no nontitle matches for champions. By that logic there should be no nontitle matches. I mean a non title victory like they do with the IC title is incredibly stupid, If the champion is never able to win outside of a title match, that's some dumb shit and makes them look terrible.

But once in a while if that happens to build a contender it's not really that bad.

For instance when Danielson was champion, he won most of his non title matches, only losing twice in singles competition by pin or submission to Kenta and Joe. That still had some effect because it doesn't happen much with a champion in ROH. Those were done to build those defenses up as being bigger and more important and built drama.

So it can be done well.

I however agree when Briscoe loses it should be a title match.

That is good logic. No non-title matches sounds like an excellent idea, keeps the Champion important. I think normally it would be fine, but again, people use it as a crutch, and once it's a good idea one time, it becomes a so called "good idea" a million more times. Same goes with WWE's consistent use of distraction/roll up finishes. I'm sure once in awhile it's a good idea, but they beat it into the ground. Maybe it's also being jaded by WWE and how there needs to be a moratorium on a lot in WWE, such as beating champions, distraction/roll up finishes, evil authority figures, etc. So it's almost refreshing and going against the grain to actually not beat a World Champion in non-title matches. Hell, you mentioned Bryan only lost twice and did have a long reign. With Briscoe in giving up the title the first time around, maybe this is their way of trying to make him as strong as possible with his relatively shorter 2nd reign, especially in comparison to what Bryan's was.

And not to just rag on WWE, TNA does it all the time with factions, brawling on the outside of the ring (to the point where it would probably be a good idea to get new agents with how bad it is), tag teams splitting, and I think one year, someone turned heel or face once a week on average, in either 2011 or 2012 and even this year, turns have been a little rough, reliance on former WWE stars, etc.

[Super Nintenjoe KBD]

Apr 17, 2015 7:22:06 GMT -5 The Summer of Muskrat XVII said:

Now, I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would want the face of their company to be this homophobic piece of shit.

Yeah, it's so weird. I mean I could see it in like CZW or IWA:MS in like 2004 but in ROH and in 2015? Seems most bizarre.

[Johawn]

Apr 17, 2015 17:01:24 GMT -5 Andrew is Good said:

Apr 17, 2015 16:49:55 GMT -5 Some Baritone guy IS REDEEMED! said:

I agree about the not hotshotting the title thing (Weird how we've been having an arguement yet I've not entirely disagreed with anything you've said huh?) After all if we have 27.5 times world champions it means that many deserving stars will never get a chance to be champion.

But I disagree mostly with the non title loss thing. Think about this for a second in other sports there are no nontitle matches for champions. By that logic there should be no nontitle matches. I mean a non title victory like they do with the IC title is incredibly stupid, If the champion is never able to win outside of a title match, that's some dumb shit and makes them look terrible.

But once in a while if that happens to build a contender it's not really that bad.

For instance when Danielson was champion, he won most of his non title matches, only losing twice in singles competition by pin or submission to Kenta and Joe. That still had some effect because it doesn't happen much with a champion in ROH. Those were done to build those defenses up as being bigger and more important and built drama.

So it can be done well.

I however agree when Briscoe loses it should be a title match.

That is good logic. No non-title matches sounds like an excellent idea, keeps the Champion important. I think normally it would be fine, but again, people use it as a crutch, and once it's a good idea one time, it becomes a so called "good idea" a million more times. Same goes with WWE's consistent use of distraction/roll up finishes. I'm sure once in awhile it's a good idea, but they beat it into the ground. Maybe it's also being jaded by WWE and how there needs to be a moratorium on a lot in WWE, such as beating champions, distraction/roll up finishes, evil authority figures, etc. So it's almost refreshing and going against the grain to actually not beat a World Champion in non-title matches. Hell, you mentioned Bryan only lost twice and did have a long reign. With Briscoe in giving up the title the first time around, maybe this is their way of trying to make him as strong as possible with his relatively shorter 2nd reign, especially in comparison to what Bryan's was.

And not to just rag on WWE, TNA does it all the time with factions, brawling on the outside of the ring (to the point where it would probably be a good idea to get new agents with how bad it is), tag teams splitting, and I think one year, someone turned heel or face once a week on average, in either 2011 or 2012 and even this year, turns have been a little rough, reliance on former WWE stars, etc.

To butt in with my tuppence, if I had things my way there would be 3-4 categories of matches:

Title matches (obviously)
Moving up the contendership ranking matches (most matches should be part of this category)
Showcase matches (either squash-esque matches or between two wrestlers not in direct competition who have no issue)
Grudge matches (for wrestlers who have personal beef)

And showcase matches should be used in the correct way. To build up a new guy, or keep a contender busy while waiting for the champion. Interference and disqualifications would be fine, because every match means something, even if it's just "If I beat this guy, I move up to 14th in the contendership rankings." That way, interfering in any given match costs someone something. This is just giving it two seconds' thought, I'm sure there issues with this.

What really makes this difficult is that, in most wrestling today (at least the wrestling I have access to), there's too much mix and match. Title matches are also grudge matches (which can be fine, if not used for every single feud) and showcase matches are between two guys who should have nothing to do with each other unless they're trying to improve their standing. It's such a simple and small point that really changes very little in the grand scheme of things and costs nothing, but makes it feel like a sport and makes it easier to make people pay for matches.

I also think it's harder to present titles as "I'm the champion of the world/I'm the champion of Europe/I'm the champion of the US/whatever" when all of the titles are in the same company than it is to give the titles different functions. Like weight classes that are presented as equally important (as in boxing or MMA) or even different styles of wrestling. Like, what I'd do is have something called the Showcase Title, which would be for people who have a high flying or technical style, or maybe one for brawlers or have a martial arts style. It makes each title seem like less of a stepping stone. I can't remember why I brought this last paragraph up here, but I think it warrants discussion somewhere, so eh