Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by Johnny Sorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Low Ki 2019 having any matches on the Indies worth checking out?  MLW has him knocking out ppl in a particularly unengaging way, and I don't remember any of the matches prior being particularly strong - only been watching MLW since March or so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 11:02 AM, D.Z said:

D_zCrdsVUAE9NyH?format=jpg

Didn't quite understand why AEW would let Jericho turn up here.

...nah it's Alundra Blayze.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have a best matches of 2019 thread going ?  I'm wondering if we do.  Feel like WWE has been kinda awful for a while, and I don't remember any of the particularly great ones, if there's any.  There's gotta be some good NXT matches, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one for WWE.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lawful Metal said:

Do we have a best matches of 2019 thread going ?  I'm wondering if we do.  Feel like WWE has been kinda awful for a while, and I don't remember any of the particularly great ones, if there's any.  There's gotta be some good NXT matches, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AxB said:

All art is subjective though. And Wrestling is Art.

Consider, if you will, Painting 1946 by Francis Bacon:

W1siZiIsIjE1MTEyNSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQi

 

I love this one. I'd gladly hang that in my living room or den.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarryArchieGus said:

Is Low Ki 2019 having any matches on the Indies worth checking out?  MLW has him knocking out ppl in a particularly unengaging way, and I don't remember any of the matches prior being particularly strong - only been watching MLW since March or so.  

I recommend the build up to Low Ki vs. Tom Lawlor and their title match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can’t tell you how much I love this man.

 

Edited by Peck
Fixed the embedding.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours 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 know with Hogan, lots of people take into account the fact that back in the day, you had to actually have a catalog, respond to an ad in the WWF magazine or go to a house show to get merch. Guys like Austin and Rock benefited greatly from people being able to get merch via the internet. I feel like Cornette talked about that in depth on one of his podcasts. IIRC, he talked about how Strangler Lewis and guys of that era were huge draws and should be included because when you took inflation into account, they were on par with Hogan, Andre, etc. 

Also, another thing to think about is just how much of a "machine" you have behind you. JCP had guys who could've been huge draws but their marketing and advertising were laughable compared to what Vince was doing at the time. I remember on the Horsemen dvd, they were clowning JCP making Horsemen vitamins as that was their crude attempt at marketing. Another example is Shawn Michael's title reign. He gets slagged for not drawing then and not unfairly so, but I've read the WWF really pulled back on advertising during his reign. There was an MSG show that drew horribly and HBK gets blamed for it but apparently the WWF didn't run any ads on their syndication in that market like they usually did for MSG shows. They barely advertised it at all and attendance bombed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I love this one. I'd gladly hang that in my living room or den.

The original work is in MoMA in New York City. They probably sell prints of it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I love this one. I'd gladly hang that in my living room or den.

Bedroom for me.  Whole image SCREAMS time to fuck.

I'm kidding but I have a giant poster of Sonny Chiba karate chopping a bull to death over my bed so I'm probably not kidding.

Edited by Tromatagon
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Overly Critical Man said:

Jesus Christ, Dave.

Que Big Dave White Knighting in 3... 2.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Burgundy LaRue said:

Is it, though? Is it art, is more sports-oriented than most account for? What are the percentages of each one?

Thinking about it, is there a consensus about what makes a good sports game? Because if there's an NFL game that finishes 3-0, most people would say it was a boring yawner and how many three and outs can you watch before you change the channel. But there'll always be that one person who really appreciates good defensive play and insists it was a masterclass in quarterback pressure. If a game finishes 90-84 in overtime, most people will be raving about what record breaking offence they'd seen and what incredible big plays et cetera, but some people will say "That's not American Football*, if I wanted to watch each team sprint down the field and score immediately I'd watch Basketball. Where's the tackling?". And so on.

I should have said entertainment is subjective. Because technically all pro sports are sold as entertainment, that's why they sell tickets and put them on television. Seeing talented people do impressive things is entertaining. So is shouting at talented people if they fail to do impressive things, it seems.

* More Americans should use the term "American Football". If you have no problem calling Ninja Warrior "American Ninja Warrior" or Gladiators "American Gladiators", what's the difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sports aesthetics are similar to art. 

Some folks like high scoring offense. Some love defense. Hence Jonathan Wilson’s “goals are overrated.” 

Our society has people that are argue about scientific facts. Of course they were argue about intangibles. 🙂 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AxB: We don't call it "football" because we already have a word for it that the Brits themselves supplied for us. 

I do use "soccer" and "football" with people from the U.S. and Canada and "football" and "American football" with people from anywhere else just for the sake of ease, though. Also, people get legit irritated if I use the wrong word for the wrong cultural vocabulary. 😄

Anyway, I've seen people argue legitimately that LeBron's game is ugly, and he's a top-ten all-time basketball player at worst, so as @odessastepssays, people will argue about what is entertaining or beautiful to them all day. I happen to be sympathetic to Jonathan Wilson's arguments about the aesthetic value of a well-organized defense on a soccer/football field myself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the Roman stuff and posting a subscriber's name on the board for no reason, Dave is having a bad weekend so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeeeaaahhh... It doesn't look good. Again, another reason why Dave needs a publicist or something because the dude has so little social awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the question because for me, wrestling is a lot like figure skating. There's an artistic component to it that I don't deny, and that is certainly subjective depending on one's likes and dislikes. But there's also a technical side. That obviously differs from wrestler to wrestler. But no matter the wrestler, we expect some level of athleticism and skill based on said athleticism.

It goes back to my mention of Ricochet. He's clearly a great high flyer. He has strong technique, there's no denying that. Whether you like that style is subjective. Him being good at it, IMO, is not. If we have someone who falls every time they attempt a flip, they're bad. That's not for debate. 

If wrestling is considered sports entertainment, is it not fair to break things down into those two levels and acknowledge both as their own standard of merit? They are two halves that tell the whole story. They can't be separated, but they can be evaluated in a way to give them semi-autonomy.

It's not cut and dry. And even for me proposing it, I'm not saying the idea doesn't have gaps. But even one sees it as pure art, there's a process to the art that, in theory, develops into a match. For me, any foundation laid is objectively poured on which the subjectivity can be built.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...