|
|
Post by Chris Decker-The Wild Rover on Jul 28, 2007 0:26:58 GMT -5
I can't believe we have forgotten this one considering its the most overused and i hear it now more bout ufc than wrestling anymore.
wrestling/MMA=2 guys rolling around on the mat hugging
|
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jul 28, 2007 0:54:03 GMT -5
The misinterpretation of the term "resthold". Randy Orton is probably the best wrestler in the WWE right now I would say to be honest. Just, the way he walks, talks, moves, slides around the ring like a snake, his facial expressions, he just has a lot of unlikeable qualities. Orton puts on the chinlocks and headlocks a lot of the time so he can wear down his opponent. He also beats on down on his opponents and grinds down on his opponent. He's rarely ever actually "resting" in a "rest hold". So yeah, Randy Orton and that "resthold" nonsense. I mean, seriously. He's smarter then most wrestlers when it comes to wrestling, he knows how to get the crowd to hate him and to react. He's smarter then all the wrestlers who do so many crazy things, and just get the fireworks reaction. *glass cieling breaks* thank you! Yes. Andrew is correct here. I used to post extremly large posts about "rest-holds" and their misinterpretation, but I just kind of stopped. I'm glad this was said. I agree with how smart Orton is on screen. There are no complaints by any other wrestlers that I know of. That's for a reason. Why should we say he's doing something wrong? Do we know more than WWE guys? Instead of explaining why Orton is good, I'll just say that guys like Undertaker, Cena, HHH, and others of the elete class, including legends, have put over Orton immensely as an on screen charactor. Anyone who disagrees would be arguing with the likes of Undertaker, Cena, HHH, Bret Hart, Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, Hogan, Dusty Rhodes and Shawn Michaels. |
|
|
|
Post by Asics Johnson on Jul 28, 2007 1:00:59 GMT -5
I hate Randy Orton quite a bit... but you guys are right.
Rest holds were called "working" an area of the body at one point.
|
|
|
|
Post by G✇JI☈A on Jul 28, 2007 1:13:44 GMT -5
Some will believe that RVD once got so high he thought he was a glass of orange juice but they will refuse to believe that Vince Russo is booking the crap the stuff in TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Fox -1017 Bricksquad on Jul 28, 2007 1:50:02 GMT -5
Here's one. Anytime HHH pins someone clean he's trying to bury the guy. Some of it is deserved though. (see Booker at WM)
And yes, Sometimes I'm guilty of saying and believing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrwednesdaynight on Jul 28, 2007 2:24:42 GMT -5
*glass cieling breaks* thank you! Yes. Andrew is correct here. I used to post extremly large posts about "rest-holds" and their misinterpretation, but I just kind of stopped. I'm glad this was said. I agree with how smart Orton is on screen. There are no complaints by any other wrestlers that I know of. That's for a reason. Why should we say he's doing something wrong? Do we know more than WWE guys? Instead of explaining why Orton is good, I'll just say that guys like Undertaker, Cena, HHH, and others of the elete class, including legends, have put over Orton immensely as an on screen charactor. Anyone who disagrees would be arguing with the likes of Undertaker, Cena, HHH, Bret Hart, Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, Hogan, Dusty Rhodes and Shawn Michaels. Thank you for saying what needed to be said! Not to repeat you guys but what I would like to add is that the lack luster announcers are to blame. When I was a kid watching wrestling Gorilla Monsoon, Gorden Solie, heck even Vince McMahon would let the audience know why a wrestler is putting on a specific "rest hold" i.e setting up his finisher, taking away the impact of the opponents finisher. Now we have a whole generation of wrestling fans who haven't been told how a wrestling match works or why a wrestler does what he does in the ring. Also I think certain audiences have been spoiled by fast paced cruiserweight/x division/hardcore matches were rest holds arent neccessary because it's just one amazing stunt after another. Then again, maybe im just old and out of touch. |
|
Smark
AC Slater
Posts: 202
|
Post by Smark on Jul 28, 2007 2:28:37 GMT -5
I get irritated when anyone uses the term "workrate." As far as I know, none of the agents or guys in the back use this term. A person's push is not determinant on "workrate."
In fact, a lot of the wrestlers with good "workrate" get Conway pops because all they care about is putting on "technically sound" matches and the crowd doesn't give a damn. Working the crowd is what counts.
One's moveset doesn't mean much AT ALL compared to working a crowd. For example: Hulk Hogan, John Cena, Batista, Lashley, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show. What do this guys have in common? Very limited movesets, but over like crazy. Regal, Dean Malenko, David Taylor, Finlay pre-Hornswoggle, Perry Saturn pre-moppy/You're Welcome. What do these guys have in common? They have great "Workrate" but get Conway pops because the average fan doesn't care.
Also, I hate when people act as if technical wrestling ability is what makes someone a great wrestler or not, as if guys like Show and Kane have to do armbars and stuff in every match to show how capable they are. NEWSFLASH: technical style is one of MANY styles. High-flying, brawling, power. These are 3 more. Big Show was just as good at his style as Malenko was at his, and in my eyes, that makes him JUST AS GOOD IN THE RING.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 28, 2007 2:32:35 GMT -5
Yes. Andrew is correct here. I used to post extremly large posts about "rest-holds" and their misinterpretation, but I just kind of stopped. I'm glad this was said. I agree with how smart Orton is on screen. There are no complaints by any other wrestlers that I know of. That's for a reason. Why should we say he's doing something wrong? Do we know more than WWE guys? Instead of explaining why Orton is good, I'll just say that guys like Undertaker, Cena, HHH, and others of the elete class, including legends, have put over Orton immensely as an on screen charactor. Anyone who disagrees would be arguing with the likes of Undertaker, Cena, HHH, Bret Hart, Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, Hogan, Dusty Rhodes and Shawn Michaels. Thank you for saying what needed to be said! Not to repeat you guys but what I would like to add is that the lack luster announcers are to blame. When I was a kid watching wrestling Gorilla Monsoon, Gorden Solie, heck even Vince McMahon would let the audience know why a wrestler is putting on a specific "rest hold" i.e setting up his finisher, taking away the impact of the opponents finisher. Now we have a whole generation of wrestling fans who haven't been told how a wrestling match works or why a wrestler does what he does in the ring. Also I think certain audiences have been spoiled by fast paced cruiserweight/x division/hardcore matches were rest holds arent neccessary because it's just one amazing stunt after another. Then again, maybe im just old and out of touch. I just realized that crusierweights have to go with bells and whistles because of their size. I just now got that their rest holds will get a boring chant faster because people want to see them flip around. The most glaring example is any host of Velocity matches. James Gibson vs. Spanky from late 2002 was one I was watching the other day. It was a great technical match but the crowd was DEAD. |
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 28, 2007 2:34:10 GMT -5
I get irritated when anyone uses the term "workrate." As far as I know, none of the agents or guys in the back use this term. A person's push is not determinant on "workrate." In fact, a lot of the wrestlers with good "workrate" get Conway pops because all they care about is putting on "technically sound" matches and the crowd doesn't give a damn. Working the crowd is what counts. One's moveset doesn't mean much AT ALL compared to working a crowd. For example: Hulk Hogan, John Cena, Batista, Lashley, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show. What do this guys have in common? Very limited movesets, but over like crazy. Regal, Dean Malenko, David Taylor, Finlay pre-Hornswoggle, Perry Saturn pre-moppy/You're Welcome. What do these guys have in common? They have great "Workrate" but get Conway pops because the average fan doesn't care. Also, I hate when people act as if technical wrestling ability is what makes someone a great wrestler or not, as if guys like Show and Kane have to do armbars and stuff in every match to show how capable they are. NEWSFLASH: technical style is one of MANY styles. High-flying, brawling, power. These are 3 more. Big Show was just as good at his style as Malenko was at his, and in my eyes, that makes him JUST AS GOOD IN THE RING. This is also wahy crusierweights have to rely on those bells and whistles and why restholds get a bad name. The crowd cares less about what's going on in a match and more about the bells. |
|
VKMTV
Team Rocket
Hoorah!
Posts: 795
|
Post by VKMTV on Jul 28, 2007 4:38:14 GMT -5
I just hate the Internet cutting of a guy before he get's some real experience.
Such as
- Morrison on the Mic
- Miz in the Ring
- Dykstra
And the 'holier than thou' attitude that doesn't want to give a chance to anything that isn't pure wrestling. Personally I hated how new DX, Mcmahon Material, and Trump/KFeds angles all got instant crap
Oh, and the generaliztation that people really want Mcmahons off there TV. Everyone I talk wrestling with really dig and worship the Mcmahons.
Also the bandwagonness of Wrestlecrap is quite frustrating. People just seem to really want to build and tear apart guys just for sport and than turn around and call themselfs fans of the guy *Cough HHH/CENA/UMAGA/WARRIOR Cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jul 28, 2007 9:11:32 GMT -5
Kennedy once alluded to smark cliches - thinking every clean loss is a burial or result of backstage politics/heat on whoever.
One aspect of smarkism that gets me is that people will hate a guy as soon as he is pushed, even if they liked him before. Calling it a 'superman push' just because the WWE is trying to establish a truly unbeatable character, setting up memorable matches for the future because the wrestler they have created is now believable as a champion, or just as a bloody good wrestler. See Batista and Lashley and Cena for this, I actually really wanted to see Cena/Lashley, as it was billed as too bloody good wrestlers going at it. If they had been built up as reasonable, solid wrestlers would anyone care as much?
Anything being HHH's fault. I remember this from like 2002 and you still get bits of it now. Guys, he is built as 'The Game, because he is that damn good'. Now how could he seriously call himself that if he didn't have a few long title reigns or win matches clean? When he does win a match clean, he isn't trying to bury anyone, it is WWE furthering/continuing his character because he is firmly established as a guy who is really tough to beat.
Vince only liking big guys is another one. People really have to realise wrestling is about bigger guys, and if cruserweights/indy built guys were maineventing to a mainstream audience it wouldn't draw as well.
Any big guy who is well built, probably works out every day of the week and eats like a saint is automatically 'roidy', failing to realise that even guys under 200 pounds could have taken steroids.
|
|
Smark
AC Slater
Posts: 202
|
Post by Smark on Jul 28, 2007 12:01:34 GMT -5
Kennedy once alluded to smark cliches - thinking every clean loss is a burial or result of backstage politics/heat on whoever. One aspect of smarkism that gets me is that people will hate a guy as soon as he is pushed, even if they liked him before. Calling it a 'superman push' just because the WWE is trying to establish a truly unbeatable character, setting up memorable matches for the future because the wrestler they have created is now believable as a champion, or just as a bloody good wrestler. See Batista and Lashley and Cena for this, I actually really wanted to see Cena/Lashley, as it was billed as too bloody good wrestlers going at it. If they had been built up as reasonable, solid wrestlers would anyone care as much? Anything being HHH's fault. I remember this from like 2002 and you still get bits of it now. Guys, he is built as 'The Game, because he is that damn good'. Now how could he seriously call himself that if he didn't have a few long title reigns or win matches clean? When he does win a match clean, he isn't trying to bury anyone, it is WWE furthering/continuing his character because he is firmly established as a guy who is really tough to beat. Vince only liking big guys is another one. People really have to realise wrestling is about bigger guys, and if cruserweights/indy built guys were maineventing to a mainstream audience it wouldn't draw as well. Any big guy who is well built, probably works out every day of the week and eats like a saint is automatically 'roidy', failing to realise that even guys under 200 pounds could have taken steroids. Best post so far in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Jul 28, 2007 13:24:46 GMT -5
Also the bandwagonness of Wrestlecrap is quite frustrating. People just seem to really want to build and tear apart guys just for sport and than turn around and call themselfs fans of the guy *Cough HHH/CENA/UMAGA/WARRIOR Cough* You can add JBL to the list when he started his World title reign. |
|
|
|
Post by Near Fantastica on Jul 28, 2007 13:29:47 GMT -5
When people are making fun of others on here they use the l33t writing. E.g. "OMGZ TEH WORKRATEZ!!11"
NOBODY on here actually types like that. Nobody. Why do it?
Oh, and apparently HHH holds back absolutely everyone. Forgetting that he hasn't held the belt in two years and had three consecutive WM losses. Booker T lost to him though and RVD, two people who shouldn't have held the belts at the time they were fueding, and HHH is over as a face or heel and he buried them. Okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 28, 2007 13:35:54 GMT -5
Apparently no one cares about smaller guys or women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Near Fantastica on Jul 28, 2007 13:40:06 GMT -5
Also, just because you know some obscure Japanese wrestler whose name you can't pronounce doesn't make you better than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brick Killed a Guy on Jul 28, 2007 13:54:56 GMT -5
Any developmental wrestler liked by Steph and/or Johnny Ace is automatically hated.
Oh, and this really isn't smarky..but whenever I hear the phrase, "the SPORT of professional wrestling", it irks me.
What you see at the olympics, high school, or college is a SPORT. Pro wrestling...not really.
|
|
|
|
Post by kittylimits on Jul 28, 2007 15:46:00 GMT -5
Also, just because you know some obscure Japanese wrestler whose name you can't pronounce doesn't make you better than anyone else. hahaha Agreed! Same for Mexican wrestlers! |
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jul 28, 2007 19:05:31 GMT -5
I also resent the "5 moves of doom" phrase, which is ACTUALLY on wikipedia foe wrestling phrases. Why I don't like wikipedia.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "5 moves of doom". It's called a "comeback", which is a STAGE of a match, usually the 3rd. This stage of the match is started by the face making a SET comeback, with a series of moves that they use in the same exact order 95% of the time. Then continue the comeback untill the heel cuts them off. Every single babyface on the face of the planet has a set comeback. There is no babyface that dosen't have one. Why single out Cena and Bret Hart and Hogan?
Everyone From Hogan, to Undertaker, to Cena, from Bret Hart to HBK, From Diesel to the Rock, From warrior to Savage, Hillbilly Jim to Tito Santana, Doink, scotty 2 hotty to Eugene.
They all have one.
When you're establishing your comeback, you don't ever mess around with it, youy leave it exactly the same. ONCE it's been fully established, THEN you can start switching things here and there based on your opponent and the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmptyEYE DUNNOOOOOOOOO on Jul 28, 2007 19:22:02 GMT -5
Going back to amend to something on the first page:
Any new gimmick is automatically Wrestlecrap...until it actually debuts, at which point it somehow morphs into the greatest thing ever (Boogeyman anyone?).
|
|
