|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 19, 2014 3:58:57 GMT -5
It's a signal of their lack in creativity as it relates to match choreography. How many of you have seen a SHW go for a splash during a six man tag & suddenly the other two members of the downed man's team swoop in, catch the big man mid-flight, & tossed him aside to save the match? Sounds pretty funny, but it'd make the wrestling look even more choreographed and phoney. It'd probably involve wires, too. Probably when Bob Suckland was stinking up the ring twenty years ago. Still loving this Sandow gimmick. I'm suppose to boo Brodus Clay for being mad you stole his gimmick and then bragged about it? Do you see where I'm coming from? Either this storyline has changed since it moved from Raw to the jobber shows, or you've made a mistake. Woods didn't steal Brodus' gimmick, R-Truth said Brodus gave his permission for Xavier to use the entrance, then Brodus got mad because Woods did it better than he did. And started shoving the rookie around. Has there been a twist now where Xavier has been doing the "yeah I stole it all along LOL" thing?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 4:33:57 GMT -5
It's a signal of their lack in creativity as it relates to match choreography. How many of you have seen a SHW go for a splash during a six man tag & suddenly the other two members of the downed man's team swoop in, catch the big man mid-flight, & tossed him aside to save the match? Sounds pretty funny, but it'd make the wrestling look even more choreographed and phoney. It'd probably involve wires, too. Probably when Bob Suckland was stinking up the ring twenty years ago. Still loving this Sandow gimmick. I'm suppose to boo Brodus Clay for being mad you stole his gimmick and then bragged about it? Do you see where I'm coming from? Either this storyline has changed since it moved from Raw to the jobber shows, or you've made a mistake. Woods didn't steal Brodus' gimmick, R-Truth said Brodus gave his permission for Xavier to use the entrance, then Brodus got mad because Woods did it better than he did. And started shoving the rookie around. Has there been a twist now where Xavier has been doing the "yeah I stole it all along LOL" thing? You don't know your nostrils from your mother's nipples if you think Backlund wasn't an immaculate technician. If you really think that the two men couldn't have strategized for such a thing, it's probably why you don't know a good chess move, from your pubic hair. You do nothing, but insult me when half the time you show no regard for proper composition of any text. You're part of why our culture is becoming an anus spewing filth & mediocrity. You're pathetic & the fact that you even like Cena is just proof that you have no business calling yourself a wrestling fan. Why do you even bother spewing out your stupid remarks, but never explain much of anything? Do you ever think about the fact that people read what you say? Do you ever think about what you would do, if you were forced to own up to everything you've ever written as the measuring stick by which your worth is defined? Because when we die, those of who love writing will be defined by our work. The lives I touched will fade, unless I inspire them to write. Then those words shall remain or at least have the best chance of any trace of their existence remaining. The one thing that I'm amazed by is that none of you ever think about that wrestling fans are considered dumber than testicals, & while I can be rude & prickish & obsessive, I'm putting my life into getting rid of this stigma that wrestling is uncultured & all I get is ridicule. Face me in a formal debate as to who has a better comprehension of the craft for what it ACTUALLY IS as deduced by the study of it's history in order to achieve the definition of the art, or stop wasting your sad, impotent, feeble, wretched, putrid, predominantly uneducated remarks along with your ultimately meaningless life since you show no & I mean NO initiative to find meaning in this apparently, Godless Universe. Please. Please please PLEASE prove me wrong about that last statement. Destroy me with your knowledge since doing so will leave both persons going out better than when they went in as is the ideal in a wrestling match... Ding.. Ding...
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 19, 2014 6:43:10 GMT -5
You don't know your nostrils from your mother's nipples if you think Backlund wasn't an immaculate technician. I have no idea what my mother's nipples smell like. Bob Backlund might have been an immaculate technician, but he was an extremely boring performer. I was watching the guy before you were born. He got better after he snapped in 1994, but his matches were still very dull. And that's pretty bad form when you're wrestling Bret Hart. I'm not insulting you, so go easy on the cod-Shakespeare "a plague on both your houses" attacks. I genuinely dig your gimmick immensely, it's very entertaining. But from reading this next quote, your gimmick doesn't do what you think it's doing: Your gimmick doesn't get rid of a stigma that wrestling is uncultured, and it never will, because wrestling is uncultured. It's pantomime. I get that you've probably been bullied about being a wrestling fan and that's why you've pulled the Sandow gimmick, using $20 words (that sometimes you don't know the meaning of) to try and make it seem like high-art. But wrestling isn't high art. It's lowbrow entertainment for the unenlightened masses. You don't need to be ashamed of that fact or be in denial about it, you can embrace it. And it's not you that gets ridiculed, it's your gimmick, because it is ridiculous (but it's a lot of fun to read). You can drop the gimmick and post like a human being, rather than a generic "Cena sux" Youtube-commenter who got addicted to thesaurus.com. But I really hope you don't, because your whole act is very entertaining and it stands out a lot. You should add "you're welcome" to your sig, though.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 8:56:50 GMT -5
You don't know your nostrils from your mother's nipples if you think Backlund wasn't an immaculate technician. I have no idea what my mother's nipples smell like. Bob Backlund might have been an immaculate technician, but he was an extremely boring performer. I was watching the guy before you were born. He got better after he snapped in 1994, but his matches were still very dull. And that's pretty bad form when you're wrestling Bret Hart. I'm not insulting you, so go easy on the cod-Shakespeare "a plague on both your houses" attacks. I genuinely dig your gimmick immensely, it's very entertaining. But from reading this next quote, your gimmick doesn't do what you think it's doing: Your gimmick doesn't get rid of a stigma that wrestling is uncultured, and it never will, because wrestling is uncultured. It's pantomime. I get that you've probably been bullied about being a wrestling fan and that's why you've pulled the Sandow gimmick, using $20 words (that sometimes you don't know the meaning of) to try and make it seem like high-art. But wrestling isn't high art. It's lowbrow entertainment for the unenlightened masses. You don't need to be ashamed of that fact or be in denial about it, you can embrace it. And it's not you that gets ridiculed, it's your gimmick, because it is ridiculous (but it's a lot of fun to read). You can drop the gimmick and post like a human being, rather than a generic "Cena sux" Youtube-commenter who got addicted to thesaurus.com. But I really hope you don't, because your whole act is very entertaining and it stands out a lot. You should add "you're welcome" to your sig, though. It's not a gimmick you stupid pissfrog. I'm a writer. My college degree pursuits are centered around earning a career as a writer on comparative literature, literary works, journalism, history, & philosophy. My passion project is a thesis comprised of my observations shared on this very board. I haven't used any form of thesaurus in real life or online for the record. I simply sit at my typewriter & spill out my thoughts since my authritis makes my penmanship atrocious. It's called poetic speech & using secondary definitions. Name me one word I've missed.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 19, 2014 9:07:37 GMT -5
It's not a gimmick you stupid pissfrog. I'm a writer. My college degree pursuits are centered around earning a career as a writer on comparative literature, literary works, journalism, history, & philosophy. My passion project is a thesis comprised of my observations shared on this very board. I don't used any form of thesaurus I'n real life or online for the record. I simply sit at my typewriter & spill out my thoughts since my authritus makes my penmanship atrocious. It's called poetic speech & using secondary definitions. Name me one word I've missed. I've bolded some of your mistakes. But don't fix them -- my favourite part of the gimmick is how you act pretentious about writing but still get stuff wrong and forget to proofread. I thought it was intentional. Never heard of a typewriter with a Proboards app before. Very cool.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 9:36:06 GMT -5
It's not a gimmick you stupid pissfrog. I'm a writer. My college degree pursuits are centered around earning a career as a writer on comparative literature, literary works, journalism, history, & philosophy. My passion project is a thesis comprised of my observations shared on this very board. I don't used any form of thesaurus I'n real life or online for the record. I simply sit at my typewriter & spill out my thoughts since my authritis makes my penmanship atrocious. It's called poetic speech & using secondary definitions. Name me one word I've missed. I've bolded some of your mistakes. But don't fix them -- my favourite part of the gimmick is how you act pretentious about writing but still get stuff wrong and forget to proofread. I thought it was intentional. Never heard of a typewriter with a Proboards app before. Very cool. Those were auto-correct mistakes, except for my spelling of arthritis. That was just lack of paying attention. I still do a Hell of a better job than you have with anything you've posted in your tenure. I was told I was unfit for a formal school environment at age 14 due to registering on the Autistic spectrum, & have been forced to educate myself with the material needed to get through middle, high school & the GED for the last eight years. What's your excuse? You're correct in my forgetfulness about proofreading, but you also have no room to talk about my understanding of the craft. I've had more matches than the number of cars everyone your family has ever owned, & your concept of "Cultured vs uncultured art" is a non-sequitur. A genre cannot be cultured or uncultured. It's a matter of application. What's stopping Wrestlers from telling compelling stories? Nothing, since most of the greats do present well versed plots when given the chance. The fact that you find Backlund boring just shows your lack of an educated opinion. If you can't appreciate the craft when done by the book, what value does your opinion have? The whole beauty of Pro-Wrestling is it's roots of portraying a realistic sport. If your character is meant to suspend disbelief I understand your repertoire being unorthodox, but there's no masking Cena's impotence as "The Man". He only meets one criteria on the list of requirements & it's the one that requires the least wrestling ability. Pandering to casual crowds. I'm more concerned with what definitions I've failed to recognize? Ostracized? Existential? Name them, I need to know.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 19, 2014 9:59:43 GMT -5
Those were auto-correct mistakes, except for my spelling of arthritis. That was just lack of paying attention. Yes, blaming autocorrect is the mark of a good writer, as is an inability to pay attention. I like the excuses, it's always part of a good pretentious heel gimmick to backtrack and make excuses when you get caught out. JBL did it on Smackdown this week, claiming he was ill the time Rey Mysterio retired him at WrestleMania 25. It always makes the act a lot more fun to read when there are so many flaws in it. Depends on the criteria. If the criteria is being condescending, then you're about on par with me. If we're judging solely on being pretentious and having terrible opinions, then yes, you're way ahead of me. Or at least your gimmick is. But if we're going by command of the written word, then no, you're way below not just myself, but many posters on the board. Your gimmick is just a standard "Cena sux" kid with the twist of being desperate to seem smarter via thesaurus.com. You try to write at a higher level than you're capable of, using words that you don't really understand and consequently writing stilted, odd sentences. It kind of comes off like English isn't your first language, but you're trying to impress English speakers by using the longest word you could find in the translation dictionary. As I say, I enjoy reading it, but if you don't want people to know it's a gimmick, you should tone it down a little. Another bit of advice. The word "hell" should not start with a capital letter in that context.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 28, 2024 0:48:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 10:03:38 GMT -5
I think like 80% of Divas matches from the past 15 years have ended with a roll up.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 10:33:15 GMT -5
Those were auto-correct mistakes, except for my spelling of arthritis. That was just lack of paying attention. Yes, blaming autocorrect is the mark of a good writer, as is an inability to pay attention. I like the excuses, it's always part of a good pretentious heel gimmick to backtrack and make excuses when you get caught out. JBL did it on Smackdown this week, claiming he was ill the time Rey Mysterio retired him at WrestleMania 25. It always makes the act a lot more fun to read when there are so many flaws in it. Depends on the criteria. If the criteria is being condescending, then you're about on par with me. If we're judging solely on being pretentious and having terrible opinions, then yes, you're way ahead of me. Or at least your gimmick is. But if we're going by command of the written word, then no, you're way below not just myself, but many posters on the board. Your gimmick is just a standard "Cena sux" kid with the twist of being desperate to seem smarter via thesaurus.com. You try to write at a higher level than you're capable of, using words that you don't really understand and consequently writing stilted, odd sentences. It kind of comes off like English isn't your first language, but you're trying to impress English speakers by using the longest word you could find in the translation dictionary. As I say, I enjoy reading it, but if you don't want people to know it's a gimmick, you should tone it down a little. Another bit of advice. The word "hell" should not start with a capital letter in that context. You can call me on my amateur status. I accept that I'm out of my league on occassion, but in what way are my observations terrible? Go through my body of work & find me an example of me misusing words. It's not insincere you prick. I write the way I enjoy writing. I hate using boring anglo-saxon words in repetitive manners, so I create as I see apt. Why are you obsessed with my opinion on someone whom I would never talk about, if it weren't for others? Go read my posts. My focus is wrestling performance theory & history. the majority of everything from 96 to now disinterests me on a selfish level. I grew up hoping to wrestle in the Olympic Games & only chose to watch Pro-Wrestling as a consolation tool to fulfill my interest at first, but my love of literature & vaudeville completely changed my perspective & predominant reasons for enojying the profession. How do you know what I'm misusing considering I take a philsophical approach straight from the Nietzchean school of thought? In a society where illiteracy is the norm, I would hope my sentences seem extremely odd. They are designed to be the antithesis to colloquial speech, so yes my sentences are heavily crafted or contrived. Pick your perspective. If you're refering to my attempts to coin phrases such as "Existential Validation", then just say you don't get it. It's meant as a description of humanity's quest for meaning. A validation of existence. I'm beyond the point of being aggitated with being called on my mistakes. The whole reason I cut my teeth on this forum is to learn how to defend my stances. For the record, I'm not a child. I first started studying the craft when Cena was struggling to lift JBL to his shoulders that faithful Sunday in Los Angeles. That was almost a decade ago & I've been pursuing my dream of being a territorial grappler ever since. For the last three years, I've made the ring my home away from home because of everyone's obsession with empirical observation. The reason I mention this is due to your attempt to deligate my opinion. If you've worked in the craft, then you have dominion over my knowledge, but if you haven't then my opinion means more than yours based on empircal necessity. I've studied more than 600 Backlund matches. Don't even TRY to claim superiority over me in critiquing his work.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 19, 2014 10:38:01 GMT -5
I think its good for an underneath guy to win with a roll up a great way to boost a guy without hurting the other and a great way to extend a feud
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 19, 2014 11:15:56 GMT -5
The reason I mention this is due to your attempt to deligate my opinion. If you've worked in the craft, then you have dominion over my knowledge, but if you haven't then my opinion means more than yours based on empircal necessity. I've studied more than 600 Backlund matches. Don't even TRY to claim superiority over me in critiquing his work. Notes: 1. Deligate is not a word. Delegate is, but wouldn't make sense there. Context clues lead me to believe that you were going for the word denigrate.2. Empirical, not empircal. Leaving aside all the tl;dr of the rest of your post (I understand that walls of purple prose are part of the gimmick, but it does grow tiresome after a bit), I'll just point out this: When you're resorting to flowery versions of "U DNT NO WOT UR TALKIN ABOUT UNTIL UV BEEN IN THE RING" on a fan forum, then you're defeating your own case. I've been watching wrestling for longer than you've been alive, through boom periods and times when the WWF was almost dead -- but banging a drum about one's own credentials as a critic is senseless. Wrestling has to appeal as much to a fan who has been watching for two months as it does to a fan who has been watching for two decades. That fan's money is just as good as mine, just as good as yours. I enjoy wrestling for what it is, without forcing myself to pretend it's something other than that. When people point out that it's fake, I don't cry and write a three-thousand word diatribe to try and justify it to them. It's incredibly fake, and I love it. It is utter folly to think that someone is less passionate or knowledgeable about wrestling than you just because they don't subscribe to the "workrate/technical/moveset/head drops/ATHLETICISM/wrestling sux now, bring back [insert previous era]" dogma so prevalent on the Internet. I went through that phase when I was younger, too. I largely grew out of it and now form my own opinions on who and what entertains me -- whether I watch one of their matches, six hundred of their matches, or a thirty-second clip of them interacting with a Raw guest host. Until you're forming your own opinions rather than parroting Internet-approved "right" opinions and dressing them up with word-of-the-day language, you have no dominion. Merely an entertaining and unique gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 13:04:17 GMT -5
The reason I mention this is due to your attempt to deligate my opinion. If you've worked in the craft, then you have dominion over my knowledge, but if you haven't then my opinion means more than yours based on empircal necessity. I've studied more than 600 Backlund matches. Don't even TRY to claim superiority over me in critiquing his work. Notes: 1. Deligate is not a word. Delegate is, but wouldn't make sense there. Context clues lead me to believe that you were going for the word denigrate.2. Empirical, not empircal. Leaving aside all the tl;dr of the rest of your post (I understand that walls of purple prose are part of the gimmick, but it does grow tiresome after a bit), I'll just point out this: When you're resorting to flowery versions of "U DNT NO WOT UR TALKIN ABOUT UNTIL UV BEEN IN THE RING" on a fan forum, then you're defeating your own case. I've been watching wrestling for longer than you've been alive, through boom periods and times when the WWF was almost dead -- but banging a drum about one's own credentials as a critic is senseless. Wrestling has to appeal as much to a fan who has been watching for two months as it does to a fan who has been watching for two decades. That fan's money is just as good as mine, just as good as yours. I enjoy wrestling for what it is, without forcing myself to pretend it's something other than that. When people point out that it's fake, I don't cry and write a three-thousand word diatribe to try and justify it to them. It's incredibly fake, and I love it. It is utter folly to think that someone is less passionate or knowledgeable about wrestling than you just because they don't subscribe to the "workrate/technical/moveset/head drops/ATHLETICISM/wrestling sux now, bring back [insert previous era]" dogma so prevalent on the Internet. I went through that phase when I was younger, too. I largely grew out of it and now form my own opinions on who and what entertains me -- whether I watch one of their matches, six hundred of their matches, or a thirty-second clip of them interacting with a Raw guest host. Until you're forming your own opinions rather than parroting Internet-approved "right" opinions and dressing them up with word-of-the-day language, you have no dominion. Merely an entertaining and unique gimmick. Don't ever call my search for truth DOGMA. You can have opinion you like, but don't expect it to be respected when it's based on a distorted logic. Considering I'm probably the single biggest advocate of understanding things through rational deduction as opposed to living the experience, I didn't claim you can't have a coherent understanding of it. You can't however, speak from empirical knowledge as much as I can if you haven't worked as long as I have, (way to catch me missing a lowercase "i" by the way.) I've never been mocked, but twice for my fandom, & I don't have to justify it either. However, it does reflect well on the genre even more so when someone can explain their advocation with valid reasoning, which I've done I'n every instance & earned the respect of former critics because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 19, 2014 13:08:44 GMT -5
[quote author=" Next Man’s Knowing Rock" [/quote] . I enjoy wrestling for what it is, without forcing myself to pretend it's something other than that. When people point out that it's fake, I don't cry and write a three-thousand word diatribe to try and justify it to them. It's incredibly fake, and I love it. [/quote] Read my second post in this thread & you'll how pointless your statement is. Secondly, thank you for telling me that any form of qualification I thought I needed besides having a stance in logic & reason based on evidence is useless! So even in the face of my writing faux pas, I still have a logical perspective based on the genre's history, transformations along with secular artistic theory. This is not to say you aren't entitled to your opinion, but when an opinion is based in being content with not understanding something beyond personal bias, that's where you relinquish the claim that your opinion is correct. And by "you" I mean ANYONE. Even if the truth of what wrestling is only goes two steps beyond what you think it does, I won't be satisfied without learning those two steps & no one should be. I'm not even claiming a stance at this point on the subject, but rather an advocation of a systematic process to construct a coherent observation.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 19, 2014 13:14:12 GMT -5
. I enjoy wrestling for what it is, without forcing myself to pretend it's something other than that. When people point out that it's fake, I don't cry and write a three-thousand word diatribe to try and justify it to them. It's incredibly fake, and I love it. [/quote] That statement sums up how i feel about pro wrestling. Very well said
|
|