|
Post by k5 on Mar 6, 2014 1:15:04 GMT -5
the fans never stopped chanting for punk, so i'm not too sure why people thought the crowd got so manipulated.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 6, 2014 2:09:44 GMT -5
The smart Chicago crowd was booing H the executive, not the on-screen character. That was nuclear, white-hot X-Pac heat. He won't get nearly that strong a reaction anywhere else in the country, except maybe at 'Mania. But even then I expect to be disappointed with the match... H is just too old, big and bloated to have exciting matches these days. 2000-01 H is rolling over in his grave right now.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 6, 2014 2:35:56 GMT -5
Nope. His last (real) match was awesome, in the cage with Lesnar. He had great matches in 2011 with CM Punk and, somehow, Kevin Nash. Instant classic matches with Undertaker in 2011 and 2012. Unless he's gotten rusty as hell over the last year (and he didn't lose a step last time he had a year off), there's no reason at all to think his match with Bryan will be anything less than spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 6, 2014 2:39:44 GMT -5
I totally disagree with your opinion on that issue, but I can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Mar 6, 2014 3:17:17 GMT -5
Nope. His last (real) match was awesome, in the cage with Lesnar. He had great matches in 2011 with CM Punk and, somehow, Kevin Nash. Instant classic matches with Undertaker in 2011 and 2012. Unless he's gotten rusty as hell over the last year (and he didn't lose a step last time he had a year off), there's no reason at all to think his match with Bryan will be anything less than spectacular. i disagree with you and agree with batfleck's stance. triple h in the ring has not been interesting in quite some time, and appears bloated and lacking mobility. his match with nash was a hoot - they were both completely exhausted within 5 minutes and it was as flavorful as gravel. i have no doubt that his match with bryan will be spectacular, but that will be mostly on the story telling abilities of triple h (something i would not disagree about his talent over in being the greasy heel) and the in ring ability of bryan's - NOT triple h's.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 6, 2014 3:23:22 GMT -5
i have no doubt that his match with bryan will be spectacular, but that will be mostly on the story telling abilities of triple h (something i would not disagree about his talent over in being the greasy heel) and the in ring ability of bryan's - NOT triple h's. You're talking about storytelling ability and in-ring ability like they're different things. They're exactly the same thing. But regardless, if you can't appreciate the Triple H vs Undertaker matches at 27 and 28, I don't think big WrestleMania matches are your thing.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Mar 6, 2014 3:28:52 GMT -5
i have no doubt that his match with bryan will be spectacular, but that will be mostly on the story telling abilities of triple h (something i would not disagree about his talent over in being the greasy heel) and the in ring ability of bryan's - NOT triple h's. You're talking about storytelling ability and in-ring ability like they're different things. They're exactly the same thing. But regardless, if you can't appreciate the Triple H vs Undertaker matches at 27 and 28, I don't think big WrestleMania matches are your thing. i don't see work rate and charisma as the same thing, but hey, i guess we could try that argument. i can certainly appreciate triple h's matches but they're mostly for story purpose - his feud with lesnar, bryan, punk, taker. all great fantasies of fighting the monster and the authority versus the underdog, 'one last time'. but a sensational worker in the ring within the last 4+ years? very far from, sub par at best.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 6, 2014 3:45:39 GMT -5
You're talking about storytelling ability and in-ring ability like they're different things. They're exactly the same thing. But regardless, if you can't appreciate the Triple H vs Undertaker matches at 27 and 28, I don't think big WrestleMania matches are your thing. i don't see work rate and charisma as the same thing, but hey, i guess we could try that argument. i can certainly appreciate triple h's matches but they're mostly for story purpose - his feud with lesnar, bryan, punk, taker. all great fantasies of fighting the monster and the authority versus the underdog, 'one last time'. but a sensational worker in the ring within the last 4+ years? very far from, sub par at best. You seem to be mixing up terms at random a bit. Charisma, workrate, storytelling, in-ring, sensational worker. A wrestling match that doesn't tell a story is bad. I don't think anyone who thinks Triple H vs Undertaker WrestleMania matches were sub par at best is going to get any enjoyment out of watching a WrestleMania. "Workrate" as the barometer of quality is one of the funniest things that the Internet has given to wrestling fandom. Completely misguided. Case in point: Essa Rios moved around the ring faster and did faster moves than Triple H and The Rock did in 2000. Shannon Moore had higher "workrate" and did more acrobatics than William Regal. Does the "in-ring ability" you mentioned earlier relate to the "workrate" thing -- running fast and doing flips off the turnbuckles etc, or doing X number of moves in a minute etc? Because none of that means anything unless you're telling a story. The one and only thing that wrestlers do in wrestling matches is tell stories with their bodies. If a wrestler can do that, he has in-ring ability. If he can't do it, he lacks in-ring ability, regardless of how quickly he runs the ropes or how many moonsaults he does.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 19:43:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 3:57:59 GMT -5
Distraction from what? Fans want Bryan to be a huge part of the show he is a huge part of the show. Fans want him in main events, he's in main events. I understand some wrestling fans aren't happY unless they get 100% exactly what they want but damn things have turned around since the Rumble. You've completely missed his point. A distraction from CM Punk, given that the fact anytime that Bryan was talking they were distracted from chanting CM Punk and anytime he wasn't talking they were chanting their CM Punk hearts out at the people that had no control over his leaving.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Mar 6, 2014 4:20:16 GMT -5
i don't see work rate and charisma as the same thing, but hey, i guess we could try that argument. i can certainly appreciate triple h's matches but they're mostly for story purpose - his feud with lesnar, bryan, punk, taker. all great fantasies of fighting the monster and the authority versus the underdog, 'one last time'. but a sensational worker in the ring within the last 4+ years? very far from, sub par at best. You seem to be mixing up terms at random a bit. Charisma, workrate, storytelling, in-ring, sensational worker. A wrestling match that doesn't tell a story is bad. I don't think anyone who thinks Triple H vs Undertaker WrestleMania matches were sub par at best is going to get any enjoyment out of watching a WrestleMania. "Workrate" as the barometer of quality is one of the funniest things that the Internet has given to wrestling fandom. Completely misguided. Case in point: Essa Rios moved around the ring faster and did faster moves than Triple H and The Rock did in 2000. Shannon Moore had higher "workrate" and did more acrobatics than William Regal. Does the "in-ring ability" you mentioned earlier relate to the "workrate" thing -- running fast and doing flips off the turnbuckles etc, or doing X number of moves in a minute etc? Because none of that means anything unless you're telling a story. The one and only thing that wrestlers do in wrestling matches is tell stories with their bodies. If a wrestler can do that, he has in-ring ability. If he can't do it, he lacks in-ring ability, regardless of how quickly he runs the ropes or how many moonsaults he does. you also seem to post a bit at random - i never said that the undertaker and triple h's matches were sub par overall, but i did say triple h's involvement in terms of his work rate was sub par. quite different. triple h's charisma shows through in his selling of his character - his understanding of his role (rather it be as the authority or the good looking jock against foley) and his exceptional timing for facial expressions (once again, gotta bring up his involvement with foley there). his work rate on the other hand leaves quite a bit to be desired - he seems bloated most of the time, works in spurts, inability to really operate in a match but not big enough to hide behind the big man role. he can still nail a spinebuster, i guess. and if you think shannon moore's work rate was higher than regal's at ANY point, i think you need to go back to the books for a bit. cardio does not automatically equate to work rate, and i'm sure regal could've outworked moore easily despite perhaps getting winded before him. work rate is the ability you have to get the match expectations accomplished without your physical restrictions barring them, hence why people say angle can 'still go' despite notably slowing down in the last few years. it relates more to consistency in performance than anything, at least that's been my understanding of it, and that exact lack of consistency is what i'm talking about with triple h. i'm not saying he's terrible, he isn't hulk hogan in the ring by any means, but spectacular? yeesh.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 6, 2014 4:54:15 GMT -5
you also seem to post a bit at random - Nope, just trying to make some sense of what you are saying. I think you've made this definition up, because it doesn't make any sense. You're reviewing Triple H's "workrate" based on your perception of whether he accomplished what you perceive his expectations for the match to be? It's very odd, and I feel like you've come up with a custom definition of the term purely to criticise Triple H, but perhaps I'm being cynical. Regardless, "workrate" usually refers to the pace of a match, and the ratio of "spots" to "rest holds" (or to put it another way, "doing stuff" vs the old-timer style of "getting a reaction by doing as little as possible"). It's basically a newsletter and now Internet term that was created (I think by Meltzer in the 80s -- wrestlers from the 70s like Jack Brisco never heard the word until they saw fans using it on the Wrestling Classics forums in the last decade or so) to make Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask type matches sound more legitimate than what Hulk Hogan was doing. "Workrate" refers to speed and pace of the work, not to the quality of the work. You're making the mistake not only of misusing "workrate" but also of the faulty (yet common amongst certain types of fans) equation "workrate = quality."
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Mar 6, 2014 5:24:03 GMT -5
you also seem to post a bit at random - Nope, just trying to make some sense of what you are saying. I think you've made this definition up, because it doesn't make any sense. You're reviewing Triple H's "workrate" based on your perception of whether he accomplished what you perceive his expectations for the match to be? It's very odd, and I feel like you've come up with a custom definition of the term purely to criticise Triple H, but perhaps I'm being cynical. Regardless, "workrate" usually refers to the pace of a match, and the ratio of "spots" to "rest holds" (or to put it another way, "doing stuff" vs the old-timer style of "getting a reaction by doing as little as possible"). It's basically a newsletter and now Internet term that was created (I think by Meltzer in the 80s -- wrestlers from the 70s like Jack Brisco never heard the word until they saw fans using it on the Wrestling Classics forums in the last decade or so) to make Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask type matches sound more legitimate than what Hulk Hogan was doing. "Workrate" refers to speed and pace of the work, not to the quality of the work. You're making the mistake not only of misusing "workrate" but also of the faulty (yet common amongst certain types of fans) equation "workrate = quality." workrate is not a term limited to that of newsletters and the internet - wrestlers themselves and various people in the business often use the term, most regularly in shoots. indeed though, i did first hear of it i believe from a writing of meltzer's in the late 90/early 2000s. it was a book, i can't seem to find the title, where he reviews the wwf's show qualities for a few years in their boom period...i believe it's where the whole 'undertaker taped up his wrists if shawn didn't job at mania 14' fact first got stated. anyways, despite your claim that workrate refer to speed and pace of work, the definition i regularly go by (roughly) and is on (the, admittedly, not resoundingly authoritative) wikipedia page of wrestling terms: -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#W i think triple h lacks in the ring, i think he has a low workrate as according to the standard definition. he can tell a story, and admittedly a good one, and that is a huge part in a match and his saving grace, but alas physically he lacks. easy examples of terrible workrates are batista and hulk hogan (in wcw), however to throw a conundrum in the entire "you think all cruiserweights have tremendous workrates because they're fast", i'd argue that psychosis in wcw had a terrible work rate. for someone that seems to think physical size is a crucial element to professional wrestling, you seem to lack forwarding that logic to physical ability as well.
|
|
|
Post by CrossRhodes on Mar 6, 2014 5:24:26 GMT -5
"I feel Like Bryan is used as a device" Its called Crowd Control.
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Mar 6, 2014 5:33:45 GMT -5
Distraction from what? Fans want Bryan to be a huge part of the show he is a huge part of the show. Fans want him in main events, he's in main events. I understand some wrestling fans aren't happY unless they get 100% exactly what they want but damn things have turned around since the Rumble. You've completely missed his point. A distraction from CM Punk, given that the fact anytime that Bryan was talking they were distracted from chanting CM Punk and anytime he wasn't talking they were chanting their CM Punk hearts out at the people that had no control over his leaving. You get what I'm saying 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 6, 2014 5:50:34 GMT -5
workrate is not a term limited to that of newsletters and the internet - wrestlers themselves and various people in the business often use the term, most regularly in shoots. Right, but this is wrestlers that came along who grew up (or grew up in the business) reading Meltzer. Al Snow (at least I think it was Al Snow) has a fun rant about WrestleMania 3 on one shoot interview, and he calls Meltzer the best worker in the business for convincing a certain section of fans that a certain type of wrestling -- the cruiserweight "workrate" type style -- is what all wrestling should be. I see your Wikipedia and raise you the Oxford Dictionary: Here's an interesting old thread about it from the Wrestling Classics: wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=049559 Meltzer, Jack Brisco and one or two other names posted in it. Mostly old-time fans though. Anyhow, the definition you've used doesn't really mean anything. "Effort" is certainly a reference to wanting more moonsaults and less chinlocks, just as I said, but "skill"? How is "skill" being defined there? Selling the most tickets and getting the biggest reactions? Or getting a newsletter writer to say you do a crisp armbar? Or having the ability to do a backflip off the top rope? Who has a better understanding of "workrate" (let alone quality), you or William Regal? Because I listened to William Regal on Stone Cold's podcast a few days ago admiring how hard and fast and relentless Austin and HHH were when they wrestled. What does he lack physically? The ability to do backflips off the top rope? "Physical ability" in what sense? Being able to do backflips off the top rope? You haven't explained what you mean by "physical ability" in this context.
|
|
|
Post by CrossRhodes on Mar 6, 2014 6:00:00 GMT -5
-.- this thread started out so well...
|
|
|
Post by CrossRhodes on Mar 6, 2014 6:02:00 GMT -5
The Daniel Bryan/Authority segment was so good this past Monday. The heat Triple H & Stephanie McMahon received reminded me of the heat Vince McMahon used to get during the Attitude Era. I'd say this is one of the best RAW segments this year. Easily the best Raw in months! This is what can be achieved when WWE tries! ^-^
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Mar 6, 2014 11:05:21 GMT -5
Other way around. WWE used the Chicago "hijacking" gimmick to make the "rebellious" crowd do exactly what they wanted them to do -- cheer the up-and-coming babyface and boo the heels that are bullying him. It was kind of a masterstroke. Using Punk's "downward spiral" to segueway to building the Undertaker/Lesnar feud was genius, too. Evidenced by having Bryan, of all people, say "Hijack Raw" live on TV to instantly transform the phrase from a grassroots disruption campaign into a company hashtag. It was more creative than ignoring it, and it suddenly made the crowd feel like they had a guy on their side, when in reality, they were just being manipulated and sucked in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 17, 2024 19:43:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 11:08:15 GMT -5
We already have a thread with folks arguing over
1)how WWE hates Bryan 2)How WWE hates us 3)how WWE hates itself 4)how WWE hates money 5)how HHH doesn't know whats best 6)how we miss Punk 7)how Raw was a clever smokescreen
So I reckon Ill lock this one.
|
|