Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Your wrestling HOT TAKES


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, twiztor said:

the other weird thing about billed weight is who cares? unless you making it a part of the wrestler's gimmick (i.e. "the 500lb Monster") then who even pays attention to it?

I gotta be honest, I bet kids do.

I can still recite billed heights, weights, and places of birth off of random '90s WWF wrestlers who I loved as a kid. Razor Ramon, 6'7, 287 from Miami, Florida. Bret Hart, 6'1, 235 from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The Undertaker, 6'10 and 1/2, 328 from Death Valley. 

I think stating the size of a wrestler really does add to that larger-than-life feel that the company is going for. 

EDIT: For example, I just saw @Matt D's post and immediately had Howard Finkel's voice in my head: "weighing in at 303 pounds, from Venice Beach, California...Huuuuullllllk HOOOOOgan."

Edited by Smelly McUgly
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Smelly McUgly said:

I gotta be honest, I bet kids do.

I can still recite billed heights, weights, and places of birth off of random '90s WWF wrestlers who I loved as a kid. Razor Ramon, 6'7, 287 from Miami, Florida. Bret Hart, 6'1, 235 from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The Undertaker, 6'10 and 1/2, 328 from Death Valley. 

I think stating the size of a wrestler really does add to that larger-than-life feel that the company is going for. 

yeah, i can rattle off a bunch too. i'm not suggesting doing away with them. but just like in a Holly/Christian situation, the billed weights don't make sense when compare amongst each other. in nobody's thought process was "230 > 225 so christian is bigger and will beat holly". 

they are arbitrary numbers that have no bearing on storyline. just formulate an equation. cuts out all of the "bill them as real weights. no, no, Strowman needs to be larger than life" bs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Smelly McUgly said:

 

EDIT: For example, I just saw @Matt D's post and immediately had Howard Finkel's voice in my head: "weighing in at 303 pounds, from Venice Beach, California...Huuuuullllllk HOOOOOgan."

Is this some Mandela Effect shit?  I clearly recall Hogan being billed at 302. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Is this some Mandela Effect shit?  I clearly recall Hogan being billed at 302. 

Pro Wrestling Illustrated definitely listed him at 302. Dusty as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Is this some Mandela Effect shit?  I clearly recall Hogan being billed at 302. 

He WAS indeed billed at 302 until at least WM V, then maybe in '90 they started billing him 303, just around the time he started actually getting smaller. I don't remember if he was still billed 302 against Warrior, but definitely 303 against Slaughter. It's pretty weird. I guess he had gains at some point?

Also to answer Yo Yo's Roomie. I remember Taker at 328, but Savage was billed 243 for at least since Macho King era, 238 before that.

Edited by Shartnado
More numbers...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tbarrie said:

Pro Wrestling Illustrated definitely listed him at 302. Dusty as well.

 

29 minutes ago, Shartnado said:

He WAS indeed billed at 302 until at least WM V, then maybe in '90 they started billing him 303, just around the time he started actually getting smaller.

 

Thanks, guys.  Glad I didn't switch to a different dimension at some point.   And I absolutely remember when they switched to 303, which was so weird to me.  Probably some crazy Vince bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about it, listing wrestlers at the same weight for every match month after month and year after year was kind of bullshit. Human bodies do fluctuate in mass from day to day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea some AEW obsessives have that any criticism of their preferred wrestling product is a result of the critic's mind being warped by years of watching WWE. Just now occurred to me that this rationale is massive projection. People using their own baggage as a cudgel rather than taking their own entertainment on its merits or lack thereof. 

Figured I'd just leave this thought here because it's not interesting enough to write six paragraphs about and start a new thread for. 

Edited by John from Cincinnati
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can’t believe I’m saying this but at 3:36 when Hogan spoke I was a Hogan sympathizer for a second. Then at 5:25 I busted out laughing at Hogan with joy, then anxiety laughed at Piper’s comeback. I know we all loved Piper but him on the mic was sometimes that kind of low rent that we called Col DeBeers in that whole thread. 

Edited by BloodyChamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tbarrie said:

If you think about it, listing wrestlers at the same weight for every match month after month and year after year was kind of bullshit. Human bodies do fluctuate in mass from day to day.

I know this to be true and feel the same way about it. Didn't think anything of it when I was younger, however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate WWE Network on Peacock right now. It's horrendous. I have a premium plan, and I have ads for all the programming. The library has been gutted. 

The organization is terrible. The layout is terrible. The search functions are terrible. Like they have WrestleMania classified as SEASONS like like it's an episodic TV show. They have the wrong image assets up for various old-school events. The navigation features for the shows are terrible too. It's cumbersome and hard to use.

I'd even take NJPW World's rather archaic and dated setup over this. WWE Network subscribers were sold a pack of goods here. There is literally nothing better about this version. Sure, you're paying less money now, but you're paying less money for a gutted archive, less features, AD-SUPPORTED CONTENT FOR PREMIUM MEMBERS, and a slapped together layout.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another random Morganti hot take.

Modern mainstream wrestling needs a bigger variety of body types. More girth, more BEEF, more sleezey looking people.  More mullets and porn stashes.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy solution: Get out of the mainstream. Plenty of Girthy, Beefy, Sleazy looking mustachioed mulletheads on the indies right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh i know that.  I want those girthy beefy sleezey dudes on television.  I want mainstream wrestling to have more variety that's all.  Also it's a hot take. Not a where can i find the stuff in looking for post😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Morganti said:

Oh i know that.  I want those girthy beefy sleezey dudes on television.  I want mainstream wrestling to have more variety that's all.  Also it's a hot take. Not a where can i find the stuff in looking for post😀

I think its actually the opposite of a hot take, unless you work in Stamford. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take Joel Gertner's old "Slim, trim, buff, cut, lean, ripped, chiselled and jeeeeeyacked" deal, and replace it with "Girthy, Beefy, Greasy, Sleazy-looking, Mustachioed Mullet Heeeaaaad", that would be a really good introduction.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2021 at 6:44 PM, TheVileOne said:

I really hate WWE Network on Peacock right now. It's horrendous. I have a premium plan, and I have ads for all the programming. The library has been gutted. 

The organization is terrible. The layout is terrible. The search functions are terrible. Like they have WrestleMania classified as SEASONS like like it's an episodic TV show. They have the wrong image assets up for various old-school events. The navigation features for the shows are terrible too. It's cumbersome and hard to use.

I'd even take NJPW World's rather archaic and dated setup over this. WWE Network subscribers were sold a pack of goods here. There is literally nothing better about this version. Sure, you're paying less money now, but you're paying less money for a gutted archive, less features, AD-SUPPORTED CONTENT FOR PREMIUM MEMBERS, and a slapped together layout.

This is the hot take thread not the obvious truth thread!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Morganti said:

Yet another random Morganti hot take.

Modern mainstream wrestling needs a bigger variety of body types. More girth, more BEEF, more sleezey looking people.  More mullets and porn stashes.  

So you’re basically asking for 5 Jimmy Del Ray clones to be inserted into each promotion? 
Im on board, but it might be a bit too much for the female demographic to take.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Custos said:

So you’re basically asking for 5 Jimmy Del Ray clones to be inserted into each promotion? 
Im on board, but it might be a bit too much for the female demographic to take.

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...