Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

APRIL 2016 WRESTLING DISCUSSION THREAD


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Go2Sleep said:

Come on, this is one of the most blatantly unfair arguments ever.

Seriously.  "If wrestler x is so good, why couldn't he drag a shitty company to national prominence?" is ridiculous.  TNA was #2 by default, not because they were a strong company in contention with WWE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Roman Reigns thing, I'd don't understand the audience backlash and from my outsider perspective the only reason there seems to be a backlash is because the vocal fans are pissy that they've had a main eventer pushed on them rather than annointing one themselves.

I only really keep up with news and goings on via coming here to talk about 80s and 90s wrestling, so I don't watch the shows much if at all any more but that's how it comes across to me. The guy looks like a million bucks, can go from reading match reviews, and brings it every time he's in the ring.

 

And on the Bret comments thing, I've always been a Bret Hart apologist as he's my favourite and I always thought the resentment and negativity came via the screw job. But as that's been put to rest, bridges have been mended, and the WWE put those amazing career DVD's out, and yet he still seems to snipe about people despite seemingly burying the hatchet I've given up on the bloke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the Reigns thing is that everyone knew he was going to get the push when he was in The Shield and still very green. Bryan was right there, Punk hadn't left yet, and there were guys like Ziggler who seemed to be spinning their wheels for years. Meanwhile, Reigns was already expected to be the heir apparent to Cena after having a handful of singles matches on the main roster. He's grown into the spot considerably since of course, but a lot of people can't let go of their first impression. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, caley said:

Hulk Hogan? The Rock? John Cena?

Mike Knox, the guy who attempted to rape Cole, the Australian who left mid tour, Matt Morgan, Tom McGee, Lex Luger, Brian Adams, Chris Masters, I'm sure there's more.

 

Where as Bret Hart, Shawn, Bryan, and CM Punk did OK without the look one old man wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DTTW said:

Mike Knox, the guy who attempted to rape Cole, the Australian who left mid tour, Matt Morgan, Tom McGee, Lex Luger, Brian Adams, Chris Masters, I'm sure there's more.

 

Where as Bret Hart, Shawn, Bryan, and CM Punk did OK without the look one old man wanted.

There are just as many failures of people who didn't have the look. Let's not pretend that there is some magic formula for success that the WWE is willfully ignoring because Vince likes muscles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

Seriously.  "If wrestler x is so good, why couldn't he drag a shitty company to national prominence?" is ridiculous.  TNA was #2 by default, not because they were a strong company in contention with WWE. 

Isn't this pretty much the argument for Sting not being a Hall of Famer (the Gordy List.  I.E., if Sting was so great, why didn't JCP draw better)?  It's always been an absurd trope.

As far as why the WWE didn't sign Aries years ago, Meltzer once said something along the lines of "If Aries were four inches taller.....he'd still be four inches too short" (for Vince).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vader does my taxes! said:

Isn't this pretty much the argument for Sting not being a Hall of Famer (the Gordy List.  I.E., if Sting was so great, why didn't JCP draw better)?

 

 

I think there's more to it than that.  Sting was an above average wrestler who was great against great opponents (Flair and Vader stand out) and just kind of there against guys not at that level.  He drew horribly as world champ, so much so that they had to take the belt off him early.  Is that all his fault?  No, the booking was shit, too.  Arguably, he was a big part of WCW's boom period but I'd say the NWO was the real draw.  Really, it comes down to asking why Sting should be in and I have no answer for that.  A lot of people just argue that it's a "Hall of fame" and that, well,  he is a really famous wrestler so he should be in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the results of the current foreign WWE tours

You can tell how much they have been ravaged by injuries as the Matadores are working as the Matadores on the Dubai tour (despite whatever their new gimmick is) and Tyler Breeze is working two matches a show on the Italian tour

Of course... not ravaged enough to let Sandow work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JRGoldman said:

There are just as many failures of people who didn't have the look. Let's not pretend that there is some magic formula for success that the WWE is willfully ignoring because Vince likes muscles.

Then fine, ignore the look aspect, that wasn't my big point in the first place. Roman has no proof of being a draw or getting over elsewhere, yet there are numerous guys on their roster who have and it's still baffling an unproven talent gets more focus compared to those who have proven themselves elsewhere repeatedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GodzillaPerez said:

Cagematch says Sandow and Fandango beat Los Matadores in Dubai so he's on a tour.

The results I saw said Goldust and Fandango

EDIT - Okay the results I looked at where totally FUBARed because they also had Goldust in both cities (I am assuming Cesaro beat Stardust) and wrestling 3 times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

Seriously.  "If wrestler x is so good, why couldn't he drag a shitty company to national prominence?" is ridiculous.  TNA was #2 by default, not because they were a strong company in contention with WWE. 

TNA was number two, even by default.

For most of the last 10 years they had a TV deal equal to WWE's on Spike TV. They had every bit the options that WWE had.

To NOT argue Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, or Austin Aries had every bit of opportunity to bring TNA to national prominence as they would have in the WWE is to stick your head in the sand and decide "But...but I just mark for them so I really, really, REALLY want them to be the next Rock/Stone Cold/Hogan, and I can't POSSIBLY be wrong about their potential!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hulk Hogan, Sting, Ric Flair, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, Mick Foley, Kevin Nash, Booker T, Scott Steiner, RVD, Eric Bischoff, etc. couldn't bring TNA national prominence why would guys whose biggest national exposure was TNA be expected to do it? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CreativeControl said:

On the Roman Reigns thing, I'd don't understand the audience backlash and from my outsider perspective the only reason there seems to be a backlash is because the vocal fans are pissy that they've had a main eventer pushed on them rather than annointing one themselves.

I only really keep up with news and goings on via coming here to talk about 80s and 90s wrestling, so I don't watch the shows much if at all any more but that's how it comes across to me. The guy looks like a million bucks, can go from reading match reviews, and brings it every time he's in the ring.

The cause of the backlash doesn't really matter. It's secondary. The larger problem is WWE has spent the last two years ignoring that it exists and failing over and over again to get this guy over. In this environment, it's just not going to happen. It's a lost cause.

With TNA, in 2005/2006 there was a lot of buzz because of Styles/Joe, TNA just failed to capitalize on it. In 2012, the same thing happened with Aries. You can place some of the blame on the talent, but I don't know much seeing as how TNA has shown over and over again that they are incompetent.

When Hardy came back in 2010 he was a hot property WWE main eventer still in his prime and he couldn't do much top raise TNA's profile. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:

TNA was number two, even by default.

For most of the last 10 years they had a TV deal equal to WWE's on Spike TV. They had every bit the options that WWE had.

To NOT argue Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, or Austin Aries had every bit of opportunity to bring TNA to national prominence as they would have in the WWE is to stick your head in the sand and decide "But...but I just mark for them so I really, really, REALLY want them to be the next Rock/Stone Cold/Hogan, and I can't POSSIBLY be wrong about their potential!"

Fair enough.  If you make that argument, though, you kinda have to hold Cena, Reigns, Punk, Bryan, Brock, etc. to the same standard and argue that they aren't stars either.  'Cause WWE's national profile and tv ratings are a fraction of what they were during the Attitude Era.  You can just as easily write that Cena and Daniel Bryan had every bit of opportunity to get a 5.0 or 6.0 rating (remember those?) to restore the WWE to national prominence and couldn't get the job done.  As much as fans went batshit for Daniel Bryan (and, to a lesser extent, Punk), he didn't move the needle, so to speak, nearly as much as Kurt Angle in the early 2000's.  Stone Cold and Rock aside, guys like Batista and Angle were headlining Raw 15 years ago and ratings were 50-100% higher on a consistent basis.

My theory is that the business model has changed too much for one wrestler - or even half a dozen wrestlers - to pull up a company.  WWE makes money by diversifying it's product and offering a total experience.  Aside from the all-important tv rating, what happens in the ring is one of the least important parts of the product.  And, honestly, if 3-hour Total Divas episode consistently drew the ratings and advertiser revenue Raw or Smackdown does, we'd have a lot fewer hours of actual wrestling out there and a lot more reality tv.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

yeah, you need to think of TNA less like a wrestling company and more like a hilarious scheme by a rich family to keep their dullest member as far away from their real business as possible.

Her email debacles show that this is funny bc it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SorceressKnight said:

TNA was number two, even by default.

For most of the last 10 years they had a TV deal equal to WWE's on Spike TV. They had every bit the options that WWE had.

To NOT argue Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, or Austin Aries had every bit of opportunity to bring TNA to national prominence as they would have in the WWE is to stick your head in the sand and decide "But...but I just mark for them so I really, really, REALLY want them to be the next Rock/Stone Cold/Hogan, and I can't POSSIBLY be wrong about their potential!"

Rock, Austin and Hogan also benefited from working for the greatest wrestling promoter in the history of the business, while Joe, AJ and Aries worked for a woman who can't figure out how to use Microsoft Outlook without almost imploding her business.  It's not all on the talent.

11 hours ago, Craig H said:

Tonight on Twitter, 40 minutes ago actually, someone asked if Tanahashi was the best wrestler in the last 10 years.

Dave's reply? "Best big match wrestler." To which numerous people predictably responded with, "uh, John Cena?"

Look. I'm not the biggest John Cena fan. I've become more of one recently, but saying Tanahashi is a better big match wrestler doesn't feel right. Anyone who has watched a ton of Tanahashi and Cena matches care to weigh in?

They both have their faults.  For all the shit Cena gets/got for his "five moves of doom" style, that's still two more moves than Tanahashi uses these days.  Personally, I'd rather watch Cena fail to execute a springboard stunner during his latest attempt at a super-indy workrate style match than watch Tanahashi spam the slingblade and frogsplash for five solid minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While bitching about how long TNA has stayed around - you do have to look at it in terms of "number of shows"

I mean last year and this year - they will run less than 30 days for the entire year.

One could make the argument that Jarrett's fed has been around for "2 years" because he announced it in April 2014. I mean that TV deal is any day now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...