Niners Fan in CT Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It's not like the Outlaws aren't over.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 as babyfaces. When they're supposed to be heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Cibernetico Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Outlooks need some new packaging. I'm not talking about LOD 2000 repackaging, but they need something. It's hard to watch their stuff in 2014 because its all extremely OLD HAT. Listening to their interviews, Gunn and Road Dog come off as intelligent guys with ideas, so their current out-put is puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bink_winkleman Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Outlooks could do a Windows 8 gimmick, where they somehow manage to take their dated schtick and make it even worse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spontaneous Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I mean, just have them do a backstage segment with HHH implying heavily that they are buddy buddy. Have King and Cole point out the obvious as they usually do. Something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go2Sleep Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Do you have any reason to say they're losing heat, or did you just run out of things to blame on the Outlaws? They're getting cheered less because more people are cheering for the Outlaws who should be the heels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Z Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Outlooks could do a Windows 8 gimmick, where they somehow manage to take their dated schtick and make it even worse. Like the last D-Generation X reunion? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelemania Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Only people on the internet care at all about Goldust and that's just in small corners of the internet on sites like this where there's a hivemind about him being a great worker. To most people, he's just an old, midcard jobber. One day y'all are going realize that "ring work" doesn't mean shit. Not a damn thing. In WWE, it matters the least under everything else. John Cena isn't on top cause he has the best wrestling talent. Neither was Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock or Goldberg. André wasn't selling out every territory because people were wanting to see "5-star matches!" People didn't buy into the Austin Vs. McMahon or nWo storylines because they were giving them high quality wrestling matches. Seriously, I think some of you have become delusional because of the internet. Guys like Dave Meltzer have really jaded & warped the perspective of internet fans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Or, perhaps it's not 1985 anymore, and there are numerous main eventers who prove you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Or, perhaps it's not 1985 anymore, and there are numerous main eventers who prove you wrong. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I feel like Goldust is the wrong person to base that argument on, seeing as he's pretty much been perpetually over (and dropping the old 'hivemind' thing seems kinda desperate). We're also living in a time when the best wrestler in the company is also the most over. To your examples, different people bring different things to the table, and while it's true to say that just good wrestling is never going to be enough to sell tickets on a large scale, I think it's greatly hyperbolic to say that ring work doesn't mean shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Or, perhaps it's not 1985 anymore, and there are numerous main eventers who prove you wrong. Such as? Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Benoit, Guerrero, Bryan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MORELOCK Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I feel like Goldust is the wrong person to base that argument on, seeing as he's pretty much been perpetually over If you think that Dustin Rhodes would be getting the same reactions as Goldust, you're living in a fantasy world. Goldust gets reactions because he's one of the best characters in the history of the company. Do you have any reason to say they're losing heat, or did you just run out of things to blame on the Outlaws? They're getting cheered less because more people are cheering for the Outlaws who should be the heels? Except they aren't getting cheered less at all. And even if they were getting cheered less in the two damn weeks it's been since the Rumble, it would be much more likely that it's because the crowds have been terrible and not because "Hey the Outlaws beat them cleanly so I'm just going to stop cheering them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelemania Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I know I'm in the minority around here with that opinion but I don't care because I think I'm right. It's not about the workrate. It's about the stories, the characters & ability to talk. If you can't talk you better damn sure excel somewhere else. People will pop for a finish, they'll cheer the guys they like and boo those they don't & laugh when something is funny but the bell to bell doesn't really matter. Just the finish & the encompassing story. People aren't watching for wrestling psychology or to see who has the best Powerslam. They never have, they never will. WWE for the guys on top don't want someone that's great in-ring, they want someone that is dependable, that is loyal, that is good at PR, that makes them money, that looks good during press conferences, that tows the company line & keeps a clean nose. John Cena is on top not because he's a Bob Backlund or Bret Hart worker but because he's a super-human work horse that does anything they ask of him with a smile on his face & he makes them money. Being a great wrestler on top of that is just a bonus but even if he was the complete shits in the ring, with that work ethic, drive, motivation, look, charisma, etc. they would STILL use him. Believe that. I guess it's a cliché but there is a difference between being a great wrestler and a great entertainer. Being a great pro-wrestler doesn't just mean you can wrestle. People don't pay for normal. They live normal. They go to see shows to get away from normal, daily life & suspend their disbelief for awhile. It's a new era, a new generation. It's a more politically correct world & WWE is publicly traded & have a wellness policy & social media has blown up, etc, yeah, I know. The basics of pro-wrestling will still never change. The crowds aren't behind Daniel Bryan right now because he's a great technical wrestler... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kropotkin's Beard Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I stopped reading when you used the old "hivemind" nonsense unironically. People watch wrestling for different reasons. Some folk like to watch exciting, smartly put together matches & don't care too hoots about the stories. Some don't care about the matches, most fit somewhere in between. Some people like one style, some like another, some like it all. What you've done is make this really weird mistake where you think the people who post on here think their opinion is the only valid one. Just because someone likes to see good psychology (or a well-executed missile dropkick) doesn't mean they assume every other bugger on the planet wants that. That doesn't mean that they should suddenly change their opinion to that of everyone else either though, you like what you like. You come on a message board to talk about what you like. You come on DVDVR rather than the trillion other places online discussing wrestling presumably because by & large the people on here either are able to talk about wrestling in a way you find interesting, or happen to like similar things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincey Greene Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As a counter point to that, the only long term headliner in the last twenty five years that was truly a bad worker was Warrior. Not all of them have been great - hi Diesel - but none have been devoid of work rate. So it must mean something to be a good hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I feel like Goldust is the wrong person to base that argument on, seeing as he's pretty much been perpetually over If you think that Dustin Rhodes would be getting the same reactions as Goldust, you're living in a fantasy world. This confuses me, because I don't believe I said, nor implied, any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zheroen Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I know I'm in the minority around here with that opinion but I don't care because I think I'm right. It's not about the workrate. It's about the stories, the characters & ability to talk. If you can't talk you better damn sure excel somewhere else. People will pop for a finish, they'll cheer the guys they like and boo those they don't & laugh when something is funny but the bell to bell doesn't really matter. Just the finish & the encompassing story. People aren't watching for wrestling psychology or to see who has the best Powerslam. They never have, they never will. WWE for the guys on top don't want someone that's great in-ring, they want someone that is dependable, that is loyal, that is good at PR, that makes them money, that looks good during press conferences, that tows the company line & keeps a clean nose. John Cena is on top not because he's a Bob Backlund or Bret Hart worker but because he's a super-human work horse that does anything they ask of him with a smile on his face & he makes them money. Being a great wrestler on top of that is just a bonus but even if he was the complete shits in the ring, with that work ethic, drive, motivation, look, charisma, etc. they would STILL use him. Believe that. I guess it's a cliché but there is a difference between being a great wrestler and a great entertainer. Being a great pro-wrestler doesn't just mean you can wrestle. People don't pay for normal. They live normal. They go to see shows to get away from normal, daily life & suspend their disbelief for awhile. It's a new era, a new generation. It's a more politically correct world & WWE is publicly traded & have a wellness policy & social media has blown up, etc, yeah, I know. The basics of pro-wrestling will still never change. The crowds aren't behind Daniel Bryan right now because he's a great technical wrestler... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagan Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Warrior was a bad worker but he could certainly be carried to decent to good matches. He had 3 great WM matches with three pretty different sort of workers. Hell, that Sarge match isn't terrible I recall. But yeah, probably the worst pure worker, but one of the better gimmicks. Why his title reign flopped is such an interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincey Greene Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I suppose I could also hear an argument against Yoko, but his offense looked so credible and tight that I can forgive his cardio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeeball Wizard Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Warrior's title reign flopped because, while he was champ, he was never the focal point. Did he ever even defend the title on television? Someone else having creative control and being booked as "the man" over Warrior didn't help, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fresh Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Also, Cena's a better worker than Bret. And I think I mean that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Also, Cena's a better worker than Bret. And I think I mean that. I see what you are trying to do here... and while fun in concept, yeah... it's been a week for this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts