The Comedian Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 I think AxB makes a really good point about Waltman that I hadn't really considered...in 1995 a moonsault and a spin kick made you an exciting aerialist to the WWF crowd...by 1998, the WCW luchadors and ECW daredevils had gotten enough exposure that Waltman wasn't special any more... 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Cincinnati Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) Fast forward another twenty years and I like a wrestler more if they don't do spin kicks and moonsaults. Not to say I don't like wrestlers who do those moves. I just wish 95% of those guys and gals wouldn't bother. Edited July 19, 2019 by West Newbury Bad Boy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 95% of those who do the high-flying have no business doing it. It's one thing if you're Ricochet and can land a triple flip in your sleep. But many do it, IMO, to cover up for not having fundamentals. Learn how to throw good punches or hit a wicked lariat. That will make you stand out more in today's landscape than sloppy gymnastics. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coletti Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 26 minutes ago, West Newbury Bad Boy said: Fast forward another twenty years and I like a wrestler more if they don't do spin kicks and moonsaults. Not to say I don't like wrestlers who do those moves. I just wish 95% of those guys and gals wouldn't bother. Moveset variety seems to be severely lacking, most prominently in the independents and - from what I've read - AEW. One episode of a Beyond Wrestling show and you'll see three people hit a DVD, 70% of the roster use a super kick, EVERYBODY doing the kind of chops that only folks like WALTER should be doing, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Burgundy LaRue said: Roman couldn't go from a Hound of Justice where being a tactician was part of the mystique, to a 'savage' brutalizer. Even then, they've shown flashes of it. Plus, that it likely wouldn't go over from a mainstream marketing perspective. That's the thing: for all the talk of Roman not being over, he's the one current WWE star about to break out of the wrestling bubble. He has what looks to be a decent role in Hobbs & Shaw. He's doing a national tie-in campaign for the movie with Brisk Iced Tea. He regularly gets interviewed by mainstream publications. He won WWE's first ESPY. However it came about, Reigns is in position to enjoy non-wrestling success. I don't think he needs to be booked even as a hint of a "savage," if by "savage," we're talking the same racist savage tropes that wrestling still uses today. I just think he needed to be booked as a guy who, unbound by his association with the Shield, now has more of his true, violent, hard-hitting nature come out. The second part of your post isn't untrue, but it doesn't really address my point about wrestling matches and how many good singles ones that Roman has had. 4 minutes ago, christopher.annino said: Moveset variety seems to be severely lacking, most prominently in the independents and - from what I've read - AEW. One episode of a Beyond Wrestling show and you'll see three people hit a DVD, 70% of the roster use a super kick, EVERYBODY doing the kind of chops that only folks like WALTER should be doing, etc. Too many flips and chops, not enough slingshot suplexes and spinebusters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) No longer needed Edited July 20, 2019 by Burgundy LaRue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, Burgundy LaRue said: There's a discussion to be had about how Roman is the only Shield member who actually understood the concept of loyalty and how you can choose your family. Roman has had many objectively good singles matches, so I don't know what to say on that point. OK, sure, but it didn't in any way inform his work in the ring. We're probably just talking about two different things here. Though I disagree with that which I bolded. There is no such thing as objective truth when assessing an art form. There's consensus about what's good, but no objectivity in said consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) No longer needed Edited July 20, 2019 by Burgundy LaRue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxB Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 All art is subjective though. And Wrestling is Art. Consider, if you will, Painting 1946 by Francis Bacon: Or Light Red over Black, by Mark Rothko: (nb: The actual painting is seven feet by five. Small for Rothko. Some of his works are like twelve feet tall.) Are either of them objectively good? Because to me, they are. But loads of people think Rothko in particular was really taking the piss. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf&Subs Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, AxB said: All art is subjective though. And Wrestling is Art. Consider, if you will, Painting 1946 by Francis Bacon: “I kinda like this one...” 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 15 minutes ago, AxB said: All art is subjective though. And Wrestling is Art. Is it, though? Is it art, is more sports-oriented than most account for? What are the percentages of each one? Are there baselines that a wrestler should meet to be considered at least adequate? In my mind, it's not a simple statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) deleted Edited July 20, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 20 hours ago, Ace said: So Alicia Fox is retired/alumni? Nobody knows and/or cares, I guess. I'm in both categories. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Burgundy LaRue said: This is why having a conversation about Roman is frustrating here. I'm a fan, I don't hide that. But I present an alternative viewpoint that I feels piggybacked your statement, and it's met with a shrug. Which I could understand if I was being argumentative. But I don't think I'm being that. If one can't put aside their prejudice to recognize when something or someone is good, that's their loss. I'm not a Michael Jordan fan. But I don't allow that to get in the way of saying he was an incredible basketball player. That's my approach to objectivity: putting aside my preference to recognize value and give it the respect to said value, even if it's not my personal choice. This is a strange response. I'm talking solely about his ringwork within the WWE house style. You're talking about Reigns's ability to be popular outside of the company as well as inside of the company. My critique of Reigns was more of a critique of the WWE house style than anything. Your argument is, "well, those matches are objectively good, and if you don't agree, you're prejudiced against Reigns," which is a) wrong because I don't dislike Reigns and b) ignoring the truth, which is that nothing is objectively good from an artistic or entertainment standpoint. Your Michael Jordan example is a false equivalence; we can all agree that Jordan was a great player by looking at the numbers. Whether or not you ENJOYED watching him play, on the other hand, is of absolute subjectivity. My argument was never that Reigns doesn't have the ability to work interesting matches. My argument was that watching him try to do that within the typical WWE style wasn't fruitful for me and that he'd be better served by a company that allowed him to be creative and to capitalize on his gifts as a worker. You can have an "approach" to objectivity, I guess, if you want to ignore the very definition of the word. I, on the other hand, will continue to call, say...wrestling matches on Attitude-era RAW, or typical ME-style WWE matches in 2016...as not appealing to me artistically regardless of how much money it made or how personally fond a large group of people are for those shows or matches. I like your posts and all, but you really need to get over yourself. Not every disagreement about Reigns is an attack on him or on you, which you seem to be taking this as for some reason. I didn't shrug at your post; I responded to each point and then tried to politely point out that we're really talking about two different things. Anyway, my point remains the same: I think that Reigns, merely from an in-ring standpoint, would have better matches if he weren't stifled by the WWE style, of which I find the match structure, especially in long main events, to be really dull and samey and restricting. EDIT: Rothko is the shit. I was able to go to the Rothko display at the Tate Modern a few months back, and his paintings have an effect on my brain that is quite pleasurable. The best thing there was Diego Rivera's "Mrs. Helen Willis Moody," though. I wish I had one-one trillionth of Rivera's talent. Edited July 19, 2019 by Smelly McUgly 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Cincinnati Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 57 minutes ago, Burgundy LaRue said: Are there baselines that a wrestler should meet to be considered at least adequate? Jumping off of this: Who would be the wrestler equivalent of the Mendoza line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamBroken Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 On the topic of Corbn, he did an interview earlier this year talking about how he wanted to shave his head but it took 8 months for WWE to agree to it then said he would like to tattoo his head Bigelow style. I personally liked the long hair look best for him, but definitely prefer his current theme to his old. On some of the previously mentioned great theme music, I definitely miss the early 2000s era of mainstream artists doing wrestlers theme songs. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Smelly McUgly said: This is a strange response. I'm talking solely about his ringwork within the WWE house style. You're talking about Reigns's ability to be popular outside of the company as well as inside of the company. My critique of Reigns was more of a critique of the WWE house style than anything. Your argument is, "well, those matches are objectively good, and if you don't agree, you're prejudiced against Reigns," which is a) wrong because I don't dislike Reigns and b) ignoring the truth, which is that nothing is objectively good from an artistic or entertainment standpoint. Your Michael Jordan example is a false equivalence; we can all agree that Jordan was a great player by looking at the numbers. Whether or not you ENJOYED watching him play, on the other hand, is of absolute subjectivity. My argument was never that Reigns doesn't have the ability to work interesting matches. My argument was that watching him try to do that within the typical WWE style wasn't fruitful for me and that he'd be better served by a company that allowed him to be creative and to capitalize on his gifts as a worker. You can have an "approach" to objectivity, I guess, if you want to ignore the very definition of the word. I, on the other hand, will continue to call, say...wrestling matches on Attitude-era RAW, or typical ME-style WWE matches in 2016...as not appealing to me artistically regardless of how much money it made or how personally fond a large group of people are for those shows or matches. I like your posts and all, but you really need to get over yourself. Not every disagreement about Reigns is an attack on him or on you, which you seem to be taking this as for some reason. I didn't shrug at your post; I responded to each point and then tried to politely point out that we're really talking about two different things. Anyway, my point remains the same: I think that Reigns, merely from an in-ring standpoint, would have better matches if he weren't stifled by the WWE style, of which I find the match structure, especially in long main events, to be really dull and samey and restricting. EDIT: Rothko is the shit. I was able to go to the Rothko display at the Tate Modern a few months back, and his paintings have an effect on my brain that is quite pleasurable. The best thing there was Diego Rivera's "Mrs. Helen Willis Moody," though. I wish I had one-one trillionth of Rivera's talent. I said nothing about you being prejudiced toward Reigns. You've twisted my words. I took nothing you said as an attack, though now calling my response strange isn't appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, SorceressKnight said: The problem with Harper though is that ultimately, they did try him away from Bray. Twice. He was even given the IC Title in one of them and good matches with Ziggler, and ultimately...Luke Harper just isn't interesting. Harper's a good wrestler- but I don't even think it's that surprising Rowan is where he is and Harper isn't (Harper may be the better worker as the "big angry bodyguard" type, but Rowan is a better personality even while being that guy.) Harper was given the IC title, then was put in a multi-man angle based around stealing the belt. Having Bray just release Harper and Rowan into the wild was dumb as all hell. Anyone on this board would have probably booked it so Harper finally sees through Bray's lies and tries to get Rowan to see the light as well. No cult leader willingly releases those they've brainwashed. The only time he was given anything that wasn't completely half-assed was the Bludgeon Brothers. I think Rowan's improvement is due in part to working with Harper for several years. I don't see a good reason why Harper wasn't brought back with Rowan to be Bryan's muscle. Harper may not be the best talker, but I remember his line "You reap what you sow; you three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on." during the Shield feud more than anything Bray has said. We know one doesn't have to say a lot to be an effective promo. Not everybody can be Jake Roberts or Arn Anderson. Edited July 20, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 Harper had a match with Ziggler during that IC title reign that was really good because Ziggler just killed himself for Harper's awesome offense. A big man with that type of offense should never, ever be wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) Both the Liger match & Munoz Family vs La Parks areworth watching later. Edited July 20, 2019 by odessasteps 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 It feels that at least 70% of the WWE/NXT roster needs new music. It'd be cool if more wrestlers had a chance to collaborate on that so what they get reflects more of their character/personality. Corbin is one of the few who I think has had multiple good themes. I saw a mashup of his current song to the backdrop of his previous one, and it looked great. To have the screen turn black as the singer says "I bring the darkness" would be a good touch. I'd like to see Reigns with something new. Rollins has generic rock static that doesn't suit him. I think Mojo Rawley is in the running for worst music, though. Good grief, nothing about it works for him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) Hey, when the talk comes up about who drew more money in wrestling, like folks do with Hogan and Austin, does anyone take into account inflation? Like how Gone With The Wind is the biggest movie ever given inflation, who is it? I'd think Bruno would be in the conversation if there had been merch back then, but I think it'd still be Austin. And since I stink at math, if I'm wrong fill me in. I also wonder who drew the most on top just at live shows with inflation. Where's Herrington? Edited July 20, 2019 by Johnny Sorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SorceressKnight Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 9 hours ago, The Comedian said: I think AxB makes a really good point about Waltman that I hadn't really considered...in 1995 a moonsault and a spin kick made you an exciting aerialist to the WWF crowd...by 1998, the WCW luchadors and ECW daredevils had gotten enough exposure that Waltman wasn't special any more... AxB makes a good point, but I think that there was likely room for Waltman if he wasn't so stale. By the time Waltman was at his nadir, all he was was "little guy who does a bunch of really nice kicks", and he was the most despised man in wrestling in 2001. Have Waltman give his kicks a little more oomph? Suddenly you have Low-Ki, the guy everyone was losing their minds over in 2001. 5 hours ago, West Newbury Bad Boy said: Jumping off of this: Who would be the wrestler equivalent of the Mendoza line? You mean, besides Mike Bennett? 40 minutes ago, Johnny Sorrow said: Hey, when the talk comes up about who drew more money in wrestling, like folks do with Hogan and Austin, does anyone take into account inflation? Like how Gone With The Wind is the biggest movie ever given inflation, who is it? I'd think Bruno would be in the conversation if there had been merch back then, but I think it'd still be Austin. And since I stink at math, if I'm wrong fill me in. I also wonder who drew the most on top just at live shows with inflation. Where's Herrington? I think Herrington did crunch the numbers and found adjusted for inflation, Gorgeous George was pulling roughly 50-60k per week. I don't think anyone's beating that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 I had George in the back of my head when I was typing that. I guess if you count the whole " He sold as many TV sets as Milton Berle" deal it'd be even bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 9 hours ago, SorceressKnight said: Have Waltman give his kicks a little more oomph? Suddenly you have Low-Ki, the guy everyone was losing their minds over in 2001. I feel like there’s a *little* more that differentiates Low Ki and X-Pac besides how hard they kick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts