|
Post by JoshWoodrumGreaterThanHBK on Jan 22, 2007 14:01:18 GMT -5
thank you for admitting im right.... thats all I asked for! ;D
|
|
|
Post by #Classic Hi-Definition X on Jan 22, 2007 14:04:47 GMT -5
All right guys, knock it off. Don't attack someone just because he/she has a different opinion.
|
|
Shake A Leg
Team Rocket
PLEASE DEAR GOD, LET HIM KEEP THE STREAK!
Posts: 966
|
Post by Shake A Leg on Jan 22, 2007 14:58:09 GMT -5
IT WRESTLING! That's what it has been called and should be called forever! By calling it Sports Entertainment, Vince has made the WWE a joke. I still watch it because I've watched WWE my whole life and stay loyal to them and because they have the Undertaker. ITS CALLED WRESTLING DAMNIT!
|
|
|
Post by Harmonica on Jan 22, 2007 15:06:52 GMT -5
well I wouldn't say versus because it makes it seem like your trying to say one fan is better then the other because of the style of wrestling they prefer, which is not true.
The type of wrestling I prefer is pure style. But that does not mean I don't like "sports entertainment" It just means I rather watch a Angle/Benoit/Misawa type of match before I watch a Hogan/Cena/Batista type of match.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 22, 2007 15:18:20 GMT -5
I guess we should've known Hogan would come up in a wrestling VS sports entertainment thread sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Jan 22, 2007 16:03:10 GMT -5
I like both Sports Entertainment and good wrestling in a wrestling show. I like great Sports Entertainment more then great wrestling but I still want good wrestling no matter what...
|
|
|
Post by detroitpaul on Jan 22, 2007 16:09:43 GMT -5
I started this topic because I kept getting lit up for suggesting things that I liked and disliked. I wanted to know if there were more people in here who preferred one "type" of wrestling over the other so I knew what my comments would lead to. It was plainly answered on the first page that the majority of people in these forums are more of the "wrestling" side, but that is okay by me. You like chocolate, I like vanilla. We're both in the same league (liking wrestling) but on different teams (wrestling vs. entertainment). I liked the entertainment side simply because I like humor in my entertainment. The "attitude" era gave us hundreds of moments like that. The Rock was perfect for that aspect. I don't watch any of the prime time drams on regular tv, I usually watch sitcoms. So maybe that helps explain why I prefer the WWE and all of its' gimmicks and am not into telling a story during a match.
Or.... maybe I have ADD and can't keep up with something that takes up more than 30 minutes of my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Jan 22, 2007 16:12:46 GMT -5
Two names for the same thing.
Calling it (Pro-)Wrestling won't take away the fact it's SE anyway. You may not like the new label (I don't like it either, because it gives away its "fakeness"), but it's the same thing anyway.
But if we mean SE = gimmicky product and PW = technically sound product, I'll say I'm in the middle.
If a match between two "gimmick" Superstars has a nice buildup and a "special" feeling, I don't care if the more difficult move in it is a Powerbomb or a Scoop Slam.
If a technical masterpiece/an amazing high-flying display or a mat-wrestling clinic is provided by two (or more) generic, bland and uninteresting guys, I don't really care how many stars the match could get. It's boring to me.
In the end though an average match with a decent buildup/storyline between two "overpushed" Superstars will probably sell more then an awesome match with little buildup, no rhyme or reason behind it, involving two "superb" wrestlers.
But once again it's a matter of tastes, but we'd stop pretending our idea of "better" is gospel.
I don't want to be called a sheep or a dumb mark if I enjoyed Edge v Cena more than Styles v Daniels v Samoa Joe.
And anyway, when Austin and Rock were doing SE skits every other day, SE was cool and funny. Now we want Pro-Wrestling... I'm kinda lost there...
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Jan 22, 2007 16:18:41 GMT -5
"Pure" Wrestling, as it is started in the carnivals back in the 1800's, resembles what Sports Entertainment is today.
|
|
Ragnal
Game Genie
Yanno what they say: All toasters toast El Dandy
Posts: 8,677,836
|
Post by Ragnal on Jan 22, 2007 16:22:36 GMT -5
I guess I'll put some input other than a simple "versus" example. A few years ago, I would have said the skits over matches. Anymore, though, I've begun watching them more for the match rather than the gimmicky stuff. I'd still boo Triple H, but not because he's a bad wrestler, he's just not helping the talent. I wouldn't have minded if the Spirit Squad at least won one match against them, but with those six different matches against them, and the skits (Although I gotta admit, I liked that whole bounty they had a few months back) just made them look dumb. The worst part about that was that they were the World Tag Team champions, and in the eyes of someone like myself, it just makes the WWE tag team titles look better (Although hey, Londrick IS better than a good portion of the Squad). But I'm not necessarily only a fan of just wrestling. I like guys like Kane and Undertaker, despite others taking a dump on them, and even Mike Knox, but those are my acceptions to the rule. Plus, if you've ever seen an ROH Colt Cabana match, I'm sure everyone here could say that they like Colt because even he'll take time out of a match to screw around with his opponent. Same deal with Delirious. I think my point is, people have their acceptions, and don't just look to the next Benoit or RVD to save the promotion. Others'll disagree, but hey, if I have to get them to shut up about Kane being a bad worker, I'll agree to shut them up, and still like him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2007 16:56:03 GMT -5
To me, pro wrestling isn't pro wrestling unless it has both the wrestling and the sports entertainment, IMO you HAVE to have both to have me interested. An attitude that tends to set me off is when someone shuns John Cena and claims the answer to WWE's slump(if WWE is actually in a slump) is to stop doing storylines all together and just randomly pair WWE's workhorses in matches with no real reason other than it would be a good match, sure Chris Benoit vs Regal is a great pair up but with the right angle behind it, it can be even better, there's no denying it.
I really don't like the idea of passing pro wrestling off as if it were every other sport, ditching the element of sports entertainment erases a good part of what makes it unique. No sport or television show as far as I'm concerned can emulate the drama of a wrestling match that concludes a solid few months of build up, like the Eddie Guerrero/Rey Mysterio feud, they had TONS of matches together but every match had different circumstances surrounding it, first match at Wrestlemania was the competitive match just to have a moment at Wrestlemania and see who the better man is, and every match since then Eddie just got that much more obsessed and hungry for the win, to a point where he made things really personal, I loved that feud and if it wasn't booked with a sports entertainment mindset, it would just be a handful of Eddie Guerrero/Rey Mysterio matches nothing would make one match unique from the other, you gotta have elements of both to really make it worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Jan 22, 2007 17:41:27 GMT -5
Oh geez.someone doesn't like Hogan..burn him..
gimmie a break,I never liked Hogan, I just never saw what the deal with him was, he wasa balding roided up weirdo who talked (and still does) like someones dad trying to sound cool infront of his kids mates and you knew, and the Hulking up thing, as he got balder and balder, he looked like some crazy old man having some sorta fit, not pleasent, it may not be a "good" reason, what ya gonna do? strap me to a chair, make me watch Hogan matches till I like him?
anyway, the big problem I have with WWE is its downright cartoonyness
I mean WWE has Umaga whos gimmick is lifted outta "wild samoan stereotype 101", TNA have a Samoan to..Samoan Joe, who gets by on workrate and..ohmy god..hes a Samoan..but looks normal, who can that be?
its a similar thing with the Mexicools and LAX, the WWE attempt is a tired old stereotype and in the end isn't a real threat, TNA actually get it right
I'm not saying TNA is the best promoyion, it has its faults, but itsa good example of modern Pro Wrestling, WWE is a joke
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Jan 22, 2007 18:12:38 GMT -5
anyway, the big problem I have with WWE is its downright cartoonyness I mean WWE has Umaga whos gimmick is lifted outta "wild samoan stereotype 101", TNA have a Samoan to..Samoan Joe, who gets by on workrate and..ohmy god..hes a Samoan..but looks normal, who can that be? its a similar thing with the Mexicools and LAX, the WWE attempt is a tired old stereotype and in the end isn't a real threat, TNA actually get it right Sure, Umaga is just another take on the usual Samoan stereotype, while Samoa Joe isn't. And Joe is allowed to/capable of putting on better matches than Umaga. BUT to the "untrained" eye, Umaga can look somewhat interesting or intriguing, with his wild look, with his nosering, with his face tatoos and with his incoherent ramblings. Samoa Joe instead is there and looks like a guy you'd meet at the Post Office or at McDonald's. (A "regular guy" who'd kill you in a matter of seconds, but he still looks "regular") So, from a "first sight" perspective, which is the aspect that may bring in new people (at least in the beginning), the stereotyped, average worker Umaga can actually look better than the non-stereotyped, technically proficient Samoa Joe. I'm not saying Umaga is better than Joe, I just try to look at the "gimmicks=jokes" statement from another perspective
|
|