The Green Meanie Posted July 24 Posted July 24 As a child, I remember calling them "regular guys". 1 1
Zakk_Sabbath Posted July 24 Posted July 24 11 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: Mick Foley calls them "underneath guys" in his first book, which I like a lot because it describes what they do: Fight from underneath for most of the match. That they do it poorly before losing is neither here nor there. I like that one, too, and not just because I'm a massive fan of that book - I think it's a better catch-all designation than some of the others because, whereas some of those terms seem designed to describe someone just starting their career or having never/not yet reached success, I think this one applies much more nicely to seasoned vets who've transitioned to that role in their later years. I'm thinking of like late-era WCW with guys like Greg Valentine, Jim Duggan, Barry Darsow, and others working the weekend shows - It's certainly kinder than "JTTS." 3
SirSmUgly Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Theoretical question: Is Jim Cornette's theory that you can re-run angles every seven years for a fresh set of fans dead because of the internet? I ask this because I ended up down a YouTube rabbit hole and watched Mark Henry fake his retirement and WSS John Cena, which is still a classic. But underneath the video, a bunch of comments were about AJ Styles doing the same thing earlier this year. Because of the Network and all the clips on YouTube, combined with WWE mythologizing its own angles so effectively, seven years isn't enough before rerunning the same angle, if it ever was. I assume that it was also easier to re-run angles in the territory days, which is where Cornette is partially coming from. If you're going to take a stock angle and run it again with different players, what would be the reasonable amount of time before it's fresh again, considering streaming and the ready-made archiving of pro wrestling on the internet? 4
odessasteps Posted July 24 Posted July 24 It would prob determine how well known the original was and or how long ag it has been since it was done. Even in the territory days, you had a small percentage of fans who knew it was being repeated I guess now, because of video, that number is going to be greater. 2
Eivion Posted July 24 Posted July 24 47 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said: Theoretical question: Is Jim Cornette's theory that you can re-run angles every seven years for a fresh set of fans dead because of the internet? Yes. Fans are way more aware and go out of their way to make sure other fans are aware. As great as it was WWE doesn't even try to mythologize Henry's fake retirement, but its such a classic people still remember and talk about it a decade+ later. At this point its probably more in the execution than anything else which I think is fine. The AJ version was bought into by the live audience a good deal and went off perfectly. 4
Log Posted July 24 Posted July 24 I was just thinking how the "Andre has never been bodyslammed" angle in WWF could never happen now. Hell, even then, you still had some magazine pics of him being slammed that some people had. But now, there'd be full compilation videos on Youtube of all the times he'd been slammed before. 5
SirSmUgly Posted July 24 Posted July 24 18 minutes ago, Log said: I was just thinking how the "Andre has never been bodyslammed" angle in WWF could never happen now. Hell, even then, you still had some magazine pics of him being slammed that some people had. But now, there'd be full compilation videos on Youtube of all the times he'd been slammed before. It's sort of analogous to thinking about how many Seinfeld plot threads would have been completely undercut by the existence of smart phones or even less-advanced mid-aughts flip phones. /cue Nice Guy Eddie 4 2
Hamhock Posted July 24 Posted July 24 As a kid in the '80s, I referred to jobbers as "prelim bums" (which I picked up from watching boxing with my dad) or "the guys who get introduced first".
bobholly138 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Jobbers were "NO NAME" to us. Cause yea Koko B Ware lost often but he was "the Birdman". Rusty Brooks was jjust Rusty Brooks with No Name. 1
J.H. Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 hour ago, bobholly138 said: Jobbers were "NO NAME" to us. Cause yea Koko B Ware lost often but he was "the Birdman". Rusty Brooks was jjust Rusty Brooks with No Name. Unless he was in that weird Florida promotion where he was the top heel! James
JLowe Posted July 24 Posted July 24 3 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: It's sort of analogous to thinking about how many Seinfeld plot threads would have been completely undercut by the existence of smart phones or even less-advanced mid-aughts flip phones. /cue Nice Guy Eddie Seinfeld and plot? 1
SirSmUgly Posted July 24 Posted July 24 6 minutes ago, JLowe said: Seinfeld and plot? Of course. Most episodes had three to five plotlines that tended to get tied together in a neat little ball, at least after they worked out the early-season wonkiness. A-plot: Jerry lies to George's college crush and says George is a marine biologist; George has to keep up the lie to get with her. B-plot: Elaine edits the book of an irritable Eastern European writer C-plots: Kramer is working on his drive; Kramer gives Elaine a malfunctioning electronic organizer; Jerry has a t-shirt that has survived the wash the most, so he loves it the most All those plots get wrapped together at the end (Kramer: "Huh, a hole-in-one!"). This episode of Seinfeld would have been blown up in 2024 after George's college crush got on LinkedIn before Jerry could alert George that Jerry lied about his profession; she would have found out the truth herself and never called him back. Also, Elaine would have a cell phone, and therefore wouldn't need Kramer's malfunctioning electronic organizer. 2 1
BloodyChamp Posted July 25 Posted July 25 4 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: It's sort of analogous to thinking about how many Seinfeld plot threads would have been completely undercut by the existence of smart phones or even less-advanced mid-aughts flip phones. /cue Nice Guy Eddie Or X-Files inconsistencies, or King of the Hill inconsistencies. How about all the people that didn’t ever know that Dough For the Do-Do was a remake of Porky in Wackyland. Jeeze television might not have even survived.
odessasteps Posted July 25 Posted July 25 We saw a modern day adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in the 1980s and when they got to the part about not being able to contact people, I wanted to yell “there’s a phone on your desk.” 5
Nice Guy Eddie Posted July 25 Posted July 25 (edited) 4 hours ago, J.H. said: Unless he was in that weird Florida promotion where he was the top heel! James Kinda like Barry Horowitz being "The Winner" in GWF after being known as a jobber for years Edited July 25 by Nice Guy Eddie 1
Nice Guy Eddie Posted July 25 Posted July 25 6 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: It's sort of analogous to thinking about how many Seinfeld plot threads would have been completely undercut by the existence of smart phones or even less-advanced mid-aughts flip phones. /cue Nice Guy Eddie I'm glad somebody is thinking of me. Yeah, Seinfeld would have been a lot less funny with cell phones. 1
Octopus Posted July 25 Posted July 25 11 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: Theoretical question: Is Jim Cornette's theory that you can re-run angles every seven years for a fresh set of fans dead because of the internet? I ask this because I ended up down a YouTube rabbit hole and watched Mark Henry fake his retirement and WSS John Cena, which is still a classic. But underneath the video, a bunch of comments were about AJ Styles doing the same thing earlier this year. Because of the Network and all the clips on YouTube, combined with WWE mythologizing its own angles so effectively, seven years isn't enough before rerunning the same angle, if it ever was. I assume that it was also easier to re-run angles in the territory days, which is where Cornette is partially coming from. If you're going to take a stock angle and run it again with different players, what would be the reasonable amount of time before it's fresh again, considering streaming and the ready-made archiving of pro wrestling on the internet? You can probably still rerun the angles and if done right it’ll be enjoyed as nostalgia. Pastel Suit fake retirement, Custody of Dom match, Gunther’s history with Katie Vick.
Cobra Commander Posted July 25 Posted July 25 Meanwhile, Evander Holyfield’s son Elijah is getting a WWE tryout. He was listed at 5’10/215 when he was playing football so how much can we inflate that height/weight for the sake of wrestling
zendragon Posted July 25 Posted July 25 10 hours ago, bobholly138 said: Jobbers were "NO NAME" to us. Cause yea Koko B Ware lost often but he was "the Birdman". Rusty Brooks was jjust Rusty Brooks with No Name. If we are splitting hairs (are they threating castration?)See to me KOKO would be an underneath guy (or a JTTS) and Rusty brookes would be a jobber 12 hours ago, SirSmUgly said: It's sort of analogous to thinking about how many Seinfeld plot threads would have been completely undercut by the existence of smart phones or even less-advanced mid-aughts flip phones. /cue Nice Guy Eddie Imagine someone being insulted over a cell phone "walk and talk" today 4 hours ago, Octopus said: You can probably still rerun the angles and if done right it’ll be enjoyed as nostalgia. Pastel Suit fake retirement, Custody of Dom match, Gunther’s history with Katie Vick. All the hurt business talk had me thinking about Shelton's dear old mama 2
Zimbra Posted July 25 Posted July 25 30 years ago today, Dusty steps up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra4HqU0s39Q 2
BobbyWhioux Posted July 25 Posted July 25 We took to calling them “real names” because they almost always had plausibly real birth certificate names, in contrast to the stars who all had obvious noms de guerre (“The Undertaker”) or at least a flashy nickname (the Macho Man). Like there was an unwritten rule or tradition that you had to win a certain amount/percentage of bouts to “earn” your wrestler name and these guys just weren’t good enough to do that. 3
Cobra Commander Posted July 25 Posted July 25 1 hour ago, Zimbra said: 30 years ago today, Dusty steps up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra4HqU0s39Q Was the actual match they taped aired on whatever show it was taped for or did they air the match/angle/promo first as if that was the plan all along. If it was the latter then that’s a pretty good way to do it.
Log Posted July 25 Posted July 25 I'm in some store this past weekend with both of my kids. They have some Funko Pops. Daughter (13): "Look, they have Randy Savage." Son (7): "The Macho Man?" Daughter: "No, dumbass. The other Randy Savage. Yes, it's the Macho Man!" After telling her to watch her mouth, I did get a good laugh out of it. The rest of the time in the store, we were coming up with other Randy Savages. "You mean Senator Randy Savage?" "Oh, you mean Randy Savage, the famous neurosurgeon?" "Randy Savage? That guy from work?" 1 12
HumanChessgame Posted July 25 Posted July 25 (edited) As far as re-running angles goes, wrestling is just like any other form of media where there are plenty of tropes that are always being recycled. Just look at AEW with the heel authority figures/owners. You've also got tag partners turning on eachother, faces who turn when they say the fans don't appreciate them, heels who have a change of heart when it comes to an old friend of theirs, etc. Variations of angles get re-run on a regular basis but it's in the subtleties and follow-throughs that keep them from being tired retreads. Edited July 25 by HumanChessgame 4
Zakk_Sabbath Posted July 25 Posted July 25 I think in the modern era, you can repeat things as long as there's either some sort of refinement, meaning either a different outcome or a different path of getting there, or if it's outright addressed as referential or self-referential (e.g. 'My God, it happened again! We saw this just six short years ago, when...'). I'd argue that it's almost like a comic book, in a way - Superman's been around since 1938; everything you could do with that character has *probably* been done by now in one form or fashion - but they keep making stuff with him because there's always a chance to refine ('What if he and Lois Lane are married and have kids this time, no secret identity') or to self-refer ('Oh, no, not the Kryptonite, everyone knows that it's the only thing...') I'll end with one of my favorite Kevin Nash quotes: "I mean, look man, really, there's like seven fuckin' stories you can tell." 3
Recommended Posts