|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Nov 28, 2007 18:54:48 GMT -5
with the original thread deleted last night, i give to you again: Kelly/Layla: a wrestling classic (set to the music from earthbound) youtube.com/watch?v=DrMGKzADKy8
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Nov 28, 2007 19:19:18 GMT -5
Lita was better than trish. In the ring definately. And as heels, lita's annoying voive gave her an edge as well. LOL, I don't know if a pun was intended there or not, but she certainly did have an edge! ;D
|
|
Dolph Zalgo
Don Corleone
He who waits behind the walls
҉҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞&
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by Dolph Zalgo on Nov 28, 2007 19:48:05 GMT -5
If WWE would call up some of the women wrestlers from OVW who can actually wrestle, then we wouldn't have to settle for "she's improving" or "she tries hard" or "well, she's less bad nowadays". Exactly. And even IF you are going to put someone into SPORTS entertainment based on looks, that person should at least LOOK like he belong in a RING where s/he is FIGHTING! Can you follow? Brakkus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kelly Kelly Why? He LOOKS powerful. They don't put male underwear models with spaghetti arms, who cannot work shit in the male roster. IF you are skinny, you SHOULD BE ABLE TO f***ING WORK. IF your ringwork is bad you should at least have LOTS OF MUSCLE to make up for it. Skinny people who do NOT belong in WWE, but backyard wrestling. See: that poor man's Jeff Hardy from UK
|
|
Dolph Zalgo
Don Corleone
He who waits behind the walls
҉҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞&
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by Dolph Zalgo on Nov 28, 2007 19:52:27 GMT -5
And Trish is definetly overrated. She was not bad in the end, but she was no female Bret Hart or HBK, rather a female Billy Kidman or Alex Wright (good looking, good technique, but not among the greatest ever, what their fans might deny ).
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Nov 28, 2007 19:54:34 GMT -5
Watching the video again. i see no botch. She did a fine handspring into backing up your opponent into the corner.
|
|
Mitch 4:20
Don Corleone
The Cherry One
Posts: 2,062
|
Post by Mitch 4:20 on Nov 28, 2007 20:11:27 GMT -5
got a vid of her botch job?
|
|
Massive G
Hank Scorpio
yo hago esto
Posts: 6,224
|
Post by Massive G on Nov 29, 2007 0:57:38 GMT -5
it was kind of bad. She can probably get better, if she really wants to. She's young. Am I giving her the benefit of the doubt because she has huge boobs? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Blade Braxton on Nov 29, 2007 1:22:49 GMT -5
I dont see this posted anywhere, but howabout Kelly's botch flippa dippa last night on ECW? I'll give her credit though, she looks like shes been training. www.wrestlinggonewrong.com/video/kelly_fails_elbow.htmlBy the way, did she or did she not get a boob job? I cant decide. The best part of the whole botch was after it happened and she got up and walked around in a circle like a drunk person playing Ring Around The Rosie. And I vote no on her having implants. I've known two girls who've got them, and there's no way she could've been back to wrestling so quickly without taking a week or three off. Also, you can see she wears some kind of "boob-enhancing harness / push-up bra" underneath the bikini tops she wears.
|
|
Mitch 4:20
Don Corleone
The Cherry One
Posts: 2,062
|
Post by Mitch 4:20 on Nov 29, 2007 2:30:30 GMT -5
thanks B-lady.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Nov 29, 2007 7:46:45 GMT -5
Trish is the 2nd best woman wrestler ever?
That's probably the worst case of buying into WWE's hype for a worker...
Sherri Martel, Chyna and Lita were head and shoulders better than Trish, under every possible aspect.
Molly Holly and Victoria were better.
Not to mention Japanese wrestlers, I'll name the Jumping Bomb Angles just for the sake of it (and because they worked with WWF for a while).
Trish is regarded as "one of the best" because she managed to keep her job through a horrible time for women's wrestling, so she got a push by seniority alone... Then the Hypemachine did the rest of the job. And a pretty good job I have to say.
About Kelly... why not teaching her how to perform a good elbow drop/shot before going for RVD-like stuff?
|
|
|
Post by iamthegamewjwf on Nov 29, 2007 9:56:46 GMT -5
There may be a bunch of wrestlers better than Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan out there who can be a bigger draw and put on better matches and be a better all around performer...but the fact is, they didnt do it and they certainly didnt do it on a big stage like the WWE or WCW.
You can make up excuses for why they didnt get the opportunity all you want. Maybe they didnt have the looks, or never caught a break...whatever the excuse may be, they just never got it done and thats the bottom line.
I can say that I know a guy who is a better basketball player than Michale Jordan, but he got hurt in college and had to stop playing B-ball. Well guess what, its too bad for him but MJ is still better than he was because he got it done.
Maybe I am buying in to the WWE's Stratus hype...but we also bought into their Hogan hype and none of you can deny that his name must be mentioned when talking about the greatest of all time. Thats another debatable topic, but if you dont even think he is arguably one of the greatest ever then you are in denial.
|
|
Kae
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,610
|
Post by Kae on Nov 29, 2007 10:35:43 GMT -5
I've just watched the entire match. That was bowling-shoe ugly. They couldn't even do a convincing looking clothesline, which is perhaps the easiest move in the wrestling arsenal. It was like watching some horrible, backyard fed. As to the Trish debate, I don't think she's up there with Hogan. Most people on the streets, whether they were wrestling fans or not, could recognise Hogan. I doubt they could do the same for Trish. I respect Trish. I think that she was a talented wrestler and that she had a great deal of charisma. I also like that she wanted to be remembered for her ringwork rather than removing her top for Playboy. I always enjoyed her matches and wish she was still on the roster. I would put her up there with the greats, but I would still put some women ahead of her.
|
|
|
Post by Avalanche Alvarez on Nov 29, 2007 10:37:55 GMT -5
horrible >adjective 1 causing or likely to cause horror. 2 informal very unpleasant. -DERIVATIVES horribly >adverb.
Stuff like she did in that match are what lower credibility for female wrestling. Where's the training? That she didn't bust her ass doing the flip? Ridiculous AND shame on the WWE for allowing her around other wrestlers with her inability to peform wrestling moves.
I don't care how "hot" she is. Her pearly white teeth and boobs don't account for being in a "wrestling" promotion for almost a year and not knowing how to wrestle yet getting in a ring to possibly maim and injure.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 29, 2007 11:11:36 GMT -5
There may be a bunch of wrestlers better than Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan out there who can be a bigger draw and put on better matches and be a better all around performer...but the fact is, they didnt do it and they certainly didnt do it on a big stage like the WWE or WCW. You can make up excuses for why they didnt get the opportunity all you want. Maybe they didnt have the looks, or never caught a break...whatever the excuse may be, they just never got it done and thats the bottom line. I can say that I know a guy who is a better basketball player than Michale Jordan, but he got hurt in college and had to stop playing B-ball. Well guess what, its too bad for him but MJ is still better than he was because he got it done. Maybe I am buying in to the WWE's Stratus hype...but we also bought into their Hogan hype and none of you can deny that his name must be mentioned when talking about the greatest of all time. Thats another debatable topic, but if you dont even think he is arguably one of the greatest ever then you are in denial. i have a problem with your analogy. it is more like saying you know someone who is better than michael jordan at basketball only if the nba picks up people who aren't good at basketball and try to make them good. the fact is wwe does not go out of their way to get very talented women's wrestlers. that is not an excuse as you say it is the truth. if they DID hire women based on wrestling ability trish stratus would have never gotten hired. i am sorry she wouldn't because she was not good. if the wwe had cared about getting actual women's wrestlers instead of trying to make their own trish would have been out of a job and it would have gone to someone who was better than her. that person in my opinion could have developed mic skills from working with the e and surpass trish in every way. just because the wwe does not like hiring women based on talent does not mean those who don't get hired aren't as good. i also think there are better wrestlers than hogan and bret. just because they made a bunch of money does not mean they are the best. there is more to a wrestler than a name. true from a business stand point bigger names are better. i however don't watch wrestling from a business stand point. when i say best wrestler i mean the best in ring worker, best character, most entertaining to watch. just because vince doesn't like some people based on their size and never gives them the same chances does not mean they aren't as good in my book. i just don't see how trish could be the second best in the world when she was a fairly good wrestler with good mic skills. i have never seen trish put on matches that wow me like some of the women on the independent scene or in japan. i don't by that just because trish was average on the mic that somehow balances out the huge amount of ring talent she was missing compared to some girls.
|
|
|
Post by iamthegamewjwf on Nov 29, 2007 12:02:03 GMT -5
There may be a bunch of wrestlers better than Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan out there who can be a bigger draw and put on better matches and be a better all around performer...but the fact is, they didnt do it and they certainly didnt do it on a big stage like the WWE or WCW. You can make up excuses for why they didnt get the opportunity all you want. Maybe they didnt have the looks, or never caught a break...whatever the excuse may be, they just never got it done and thats the bottom line. I can say that I know a guy who is a better basketball player than Michale Jordan, but he got hurt in college and had to stop playing B-ball. Well guess what, its too bad for him but MJ is still better than he was because he got it done. Maybe I am buying in to the WWE's Stratus hype...but we also bought into their Hogan hype and none of you can deny that his name must be mentioned when talking about the greatest of all time. Thats another debatable topic, but if you dont even think he is arguably one of the greatest ever then you are in denial. i have a problem with your analogy. it is more like saying you know someone who is better than michael jordan at basketball only if the nba picks up people who aren't good at basketball and try to make them good. the fact is wwe does not go out of their way to get very talented women's wrestlers. that is not an excuse as you say it is the truth. if they DID hire women based on wrestling ability trish stratus would have never gotten hired. i am sorry she wouldn't because she was not good. if the wwe had cared about getting actual women's wrestlers instead of trying to make their own trish would have been out of a job and it would have gone to someone who was better than her. that person in my opinion could have developed mic skills from working with the e and surpass trish in every way. just because the wwe does not like hiring women based on talent does not mean those who don't get hired aren't as good. i also think there are better wrestlers than hogan and bret. just because they made a bunch of money does not mean they are the best. there is more to a wrestler than a name. true from a business stand point bigger names are better. i however don't watch wrestling from a business stand point. when i say best wrestler i mean the best in ring worker, best character, most entertaining to watch. just because vince doesn't like some people based on their size and never gives them the same chances does not mean they aren't as good in my book. i just don't see how trish could be the second best in the world when she was a fairly good wrestler with good mic skills. i have never seen trish put on matches that wow me like some of the women on the independent scene or in japan. i don't by that just because trish was average on the mic that somehow balances out the huge amount of ring talent she was missing compared to some girls. Yea, but wresling isnt real like basketball. When it comes to signing talent, marketablity is more important than wrestling ability. If Vince doesnt think youre marketable, then you cant hack it in the WWE. Maybe thats not fair, but thats the buisness. I'd say Vince and the WWE are pretty good judges of marketability and wrestling ability, based on the WWE's success in the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Nov 29, 2007 12:09:49 GMT -5
All this talk about wrestling and basketball has me itching to make a Batista joke, but instead I'll just say that I don't like how WWE tells us "not to try this at home", but then places two untrained young women in a wrestling ring performing moves that should be reserved for people who know what the hell they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 29, 2007 12:14:42 GMT -5
i have a problem with your analogy. it is more like saying you know someone who is better than michael jordan at basketball only if the nba picks up people who aren't good at basketball and try to make them good. the fact is wwe does not go out of their way to get very talented women's wrestlers. that is not an excuse as you say it is the truth. if they DID hire women based on wrestling ability trish stratus would have never gotten hired. i am sorry she wouldn't because she was not good. if the wwe had cared about getting actual women's wrestlers instead of trying to make their own trish would have been out of a job and it would have gone to someone who was better than her. that person in my opinion could have developed mic skills from working with the e and surpass trish in every way. just because the wwe does not like hiring women based on talent does not mean those who don't get hired aren't as good. i also think there are better wrestlers than hogan and bret. just because they made a bunch of money does not mean they are the best. there is more to a wrestler than a name. true from a business stand point bigger names are better. i however don't watch wrestling from a business stand point. when i say best wrestler i mean the best in ring worker, best character, most entertaining to watch. just because vince doesn't like some people based on their size and never gives them the same chances does not mean they aren't as good in my book. i just don't see how trish could be the second best in the world when she was a fairly good wrestler with good mic skills. i have never seen trish put on matches that wow me like some of the women on the independent scene or in japan. i don't by that just because trish was average on the mic that somehow balances out the huge amount of ring talent she was missing compared to some girls. Yea, but wresling isnt real like basketball. When it comes to signing talent, marketablity is more important than wrestling ability. If Vince doesnt think youre marketable, then you cant hack it in the WWE. Maybe thats not fair, but thats the buisness. I'd say Vince and the WWE are pretty good judges of marketability and wrestling ability, based on the WWE's success in the industry. exactly he would rather go after people he can market (like trish because of her looks) and hope they become decent in the ring. whereas in the indies, there are girls who have all the talent and are as marketable as they can be in their situation. so it makes it kind of hard for me to say one is a better wrestler just because she gets more people interested because she had a nice rack.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Nov 29, 2007 12:48:40 GMT -5
Let's put it like this...
Trish'es success is mostly due to the lucky coincidence of coming around during a very low period for Women's wrestling.
She was the slightly less bad wrestler out of the crop of bimbos WWE kept hiring, and considering the more talented girls were either gone, injured or depushed, she was given the ball. And she still needed the help of better workers to look decent. Is it a coincidence that the women's division has provided godawful matches despite "the 2nd best ever" being there? Shouldn't she carry other people?
|
|
|
Post by iamthegamewjwf on Nov 29, 2007 12:58:11 GMT -5
Let's put it like this... Trish'es success is mostly due to the lucky coincidence of coming around during a very low period for Women's wrestling. She was the slightly less bad wrestler out of the crop of bimbos WWE kept hiring, and considering the more talented girls were either gone, injured or depushed, she was given the ball. And she still needed the help of better workers to look decent. Is it a coincidence that the women's division has provided godawful matches despite "the 2nd best ever" being there? Shouldn't she carry other people? Well all I'm saying is that women's wrestling has never been popular, and women's wrestilng alone would never sell out MSG or get a nationaly televised prime time TV show, but given the catagories that I stated for my requirements of the best of all time: 1) Wrestling ability 2) Mic Skills 3) Marketability/ability to draw on the big stage Who has been better at all of these all around better than Trish? Moolah, arguably Lita...theres not much competition. in my opninion, Trish is second best all time. Honestly, I'll agree that its sad for women's wrestling that she is second best all time...but I really dont see anyone else who has done what she has done in this business. Maybe Lita, but thats it. I'm ignorant of the real old school days though....maybe there where some big draws way back in Moola's time, but I dont know.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Nov 29, 2007 13:01:22 GMT -5
i think if you watch shimmer or somewhere that features good women's wrestling you will see there are many who could be just as marketable. just because one company does not want them for whatever reason does not mean they aren't marketable.
|
|