Deleted
Joined on: Apr 25, 2024 21:30:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 9:13:03 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by this, sorry... I like the WWE, I also like independent wrestling, puro, Lucha, etc...what draws most people in is someone who makes you care about why they're doing what they're doing - if not, more people would remember Bob Backlund than Hulk Hogan. Does the number of people who claim to follow Jesus, have any bearings on the fact that Bertrand Russell is a superior logician & pragmatist? You know me, Phil...go for your life...
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Aug 17, 2014 9:15:20 GMT -5
Does the number of people who claim to follow Jesus, have any bearings on the fact that Bertrand Russell is a superior logician & pragmatist? You know me, Phil...go for your life... I'm just trying to expose the deep layers of this question, to those who consider the matter to be black & white.
|
|
Tyler Black
Main Eventer
the former #1 Tyler Black fan/Tyler F'n Black
Joined on: Jul 19, 2009 15:37:40 GMT -5
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by Tyler Black on Aug 17, 2014 9:23:28 GMT -5
No pure wrestling skill is never enough on its own to get to the next level great examples are perry Saturn and dean malenko, great technical wrestlers but they were missing the charisma mic skills and overall it factor Benoit Guerrero and Jericho had Actually Benoit got over solely with his wrestling - 'cos he had nothing else to offer. He was just a wrestling machine, with the personality of an ironing board. I think the argument can be made Benoit had the "it factor" that malenko and dean lacked, you didn't know what it was, but Benoit just had it he came off as a legitimate athlete that could flat kick your ass.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 17, 2014 9:24:26 GMT -5
My point is that I agree with you in a way, but it's more accurate to consider good story telling/psychology in order to get a positive reaction the goal of Pro-Wrestling. Yes. A skilled wrestler is one that tells the story in their match that elicits the biggest reaction from the live audience (and if on television, engages the viewer).
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 17, 2014 9:26:07 GMT -5
Actually Benoit got over solely with his wrestling - 'cos he had nothing else to offer. He was just a wrestling machine, with the personality of an ironing board. I think the argument can be made Benoit had the "it factor" that malenko and dean lacked, you didn't know what it was, but Benoit just had it he came off as a legitimate athlete that could flat kick your ass. Yup. Benoit had incredible amounts of charisma. Couldn't talk worth a damn and didn't have any personality, but he came across as a ruthless bad-ass. In retrospect, sadly, it's because he was a genuine psycho, but certainly on TV he was far more magnetic than someone like Dean Malenko, who always came off like a boring schoolteacher in swimming trunks.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Aug 17, 2014 10:14:08 GMT -5
No pure wrestling skill is never enough on its own to get to the next level great examples are perry Saturn and dean malenko, great technical wrestlers but they were missing the charisma mic skills and overall it factor Benoit Guerrero and Jericho had Actually Benoit got over solely with his wrestling - 'cos he had nothing else to offer. He was just a wrestling machine, with the personality of an ironing board. This isn't true. Benoit's character was that of a silent killer. He gave off the impression that he could literally rip your arm off and let his physicality do his talking. If he was just some generic guy who was a good wrestler he wouldn't have gotten over like he did.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Aug 17, 2014 16:15:23 GMT -5
My point is that I agree with you in a way, but it's more accurate to consider good story telling/psychology in order to get a positive reaction the goal of Pro-Wrestling. Yes. A skilled wrestler is one that tells the story in their match that elicits the biggest reaction from the live audience (and if on television, engages the viewer). Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you. You keep saying "biggest" reaction, but that the sheer quantity of people who react isn't the same thing as making a lasting, positive impression with those who are paying attention. You know who was best at getting the biggest reactions in the 50s? The Sheik. He terrified & infuriated people with his acts of legitimate violence. That makes him as good a wrestler, as getting on a Broadway stage & masturbating makes Russell Brand worthy of a Tony. The reaction would have been huge, but in a negative sense. I'm not even posing my poetic pectorals pressing pounds & pounds of polysyllabic prose at you, so you gotta see where I'm going with this.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 17, 2014 17:16:49 GMT -5
You keep saying "biggest" reaction, but that the sheer quantity of people who react isn't the same thing as making a lasting, positive impression with those who are paying attention. Being able to make fifty thousand people in an arena scream, holler or drop their jaws in amazement is worth infinitely more than making ten people say "wow, his armbar was really crisp" on the drive home.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Aug 17, 2014 17:56:35 GMT -5
You keep saying "biggest" reaction, but that the sheer quantity of people who react isn't the same thing as making a lasting, positive impression with those who are paying attention. Being able to make fifty thousand people in an arena scream, holler or drop their jaws in amazement is worth infinitely more than making ten people say "wow, his armbar was really crisp" on the drive home. I get what you're saying, but you'e failing to understand mine. And just to be clear, if everyone in the world with the exception of one woman scientist, thought Allah was the creator of the universe, the moment she discovers the actual cause of the universe's existence through scientific means, the other 6,999,999,999 earthlings will be wrong. Appeals to the majority are logical fallacies. I get your point, but your demonizing of those who actually try to appreciate wrestling for what it's meant to be doesn't help your point.
|
|
|
Post by skribbel24 on Aug 18, 2014 0:35:59 GMT -5
Nope. Not in today's world.
|
|
|
Post by ICW on Aug 18, 2014 0:50:30 GMT -5
No. There's an endless list of guys who are/were phenomenal wrestlers that never got close to the World Championship.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 25, 2024 21:30:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 3:03:16 GMT -5
Well Miz has held more WWE championships than Steamboat, Dibiase, Cesaro, Anderson, Malenko, Regal, & Mr Perfect combined, so... no. what more could be said lol
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Aug 18, 2014 7:51:04 GMT -5
Well Miz has held more WWE championships than Steamboat, Dibiase, Cesaro, Anderson, Malenko, Regal, & Mr Perfect combined, so... no. How did the thread continue on for another 2 pages after this point? 'nuff said here really.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 18, 2014 12:02:04 GMT -5
And just to be clear, if everyone in the world with the exception of one woman scientist, thought Allah was the creator of the universe, the moment she discovers the actual cause of the universe's existence through scientific means, the other 6,999,999,999 earthlings will be wrong. Appeals to the majority are logical fallacies. I get your point, but your demonizing of those who actually try to appreciate wrestling for what it's meant to be doesn't help your point. Your analogy is nonsensical, because wrestling is not a scientific fact, it is an appeal to the majority. Wrestling is meant to be pantomime that entertains the most customers and makes the most money -- if we want to get all masturbatory about the black and white days and earlier, it was completely about fleecing the "marks" out of money, and the best "worker" was the one who could fleece the most "marks" out of the most money. Wrestling isn't quite so slimy today, but the basic premise is still to entertain the biggest audience and make the most money. Anyone who thinks wrestling isn't about entertaining the masses and is really all about crisp armbars is deluding themselves and likely ruining their own enjoyment of the shows.
|
|
|
Post by Bandalero on Aug 18, 2014 12:26:23 GMT -5
Well Miz has held more WWE championships than Steamboat, Dibiase, Cesaro, Anderson, Malenko, Regal, & Mr Perfect combined, so... no. what a sad...but true...statement, each one of those names make me cry like the old indian seeing the world get polluted.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Aug 18, 2014 12:28:57 GMT -5
And just to be clear, if everyone in the world with the exception of one woman scientist, thought Allah was the creator of the universe, the moment she discovers the actual cause of the universe's existence through scientific means, the other 6,999,999,999 earthlings will be wrong. Appeals to the majority are logical fallacies. I get your point, but your demonizing of those who actually try to appreciate wrestling for what it's meant to be doesn't help your point. Your analogy is nonsensical, because wrestling is not a scientific fact, it is an appeal to the majority. Wrestling is meant to be pantomime that entertains the most customers and makes the most money -- if we want to get all masturbatory about the black and white days and earlier, it was completely about fleecing the "marks" out of money, and the best "worker" was the one who could fleece the most "marks" out of the most money. Wrestling isn't quite so slimy today, but the basic premise is still to entertain the biggest audience and make the most money. Anyone who thinks wrestling isn't about entertaining the masses and is really all about crisp armbars is deluding themselves and likely ruining their own enjoyment of the shows.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Aug 18, 2014 12:36:46 GMT -5
What wrestling was meant to be, and what wrestling/WWE is meant to be today is very different, and where I suspect a lot of the issues here are coming from. Though it was always about the money. Always.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 18, 2014 12:51:50 GMT -5
What wrestling was meant to be, and what wrestling/WWE is meant to be today is very different, and where I suspect a lot of the issues here are coming from. Though it was always about the money. Always.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Aug 19, 2014 1:32:42 GMT -5
And just to be clear, if everyone in the world with the exception of one woman scientist, thought Allah was the creator of the universe, the moment she discovers the actual cause of the universe's existence through scientific means, the other 6,999,999,999 earthlings will be wrong. Appeals to the majority are logical fallacies. I get your point, but your demonizing of those who actually try to appreciate wrestling for what it's meant to be doesn't help your point. Your analogy is nonsensical, because wrestling is not a scientific fact, it is an appeal to the majority. Wrestling is meant to be pantomime that entertains the most customers and makes the most money -- if we want to get all masturbatory about the black and white days and earlier, it was completely about fleecing the "marks" out of money, and the best "worker" was the one who could fleece the most "marks" out of the most money. Wrestling isn't quite so slimy today, but the basic premise is still to entertain the biggest audience and make the most money. Anyone who thinks wrestling isn't about entertaining the masses and is really all about crisp armbars is deluding themselves and likely ruining their own enjoyment of the shows. If the wrestling moves aren't convincing, be it an armbar(Which one?) or a hurricanrana, then people wouldn't have paid in the first place. We wouldn't have Cena or Hogan or Sammartino, if it hadn't been for Lewis, Sandow & Mondt convincing people that the performances were the genuine article. And I'm surprised this isn't obvious, but what is Professional Wrestling if no one's wrestling? You force me to portray myself as a puritan for mat wrestling, but I probably adore the concept of "In-Ring Vaudeville," more than person on this forum. I love it BECAUSE it is a performance. However, if you can't convince the people to believe, then you've failed. I concede that financial conquest was the mother of our genre. I actually wrote an accurate verse about it, but you detest anything poetic so I'll stay on track. If money was the main reason people wrestled, there would be no independents. Our halls of fame would look empty of legitimate talent compared to our reality, & there would be far less fans. Passion trumps profits, because Passion equals profits. I'm going to go out on a limb & say that your meaning of reaction is different than I first thought. You call it a reaction, I call it a sincere response. I just don't get what makes you a wrestling fan, if you don't love the wrestling. What point is there to any of it if the wrestling doesn't matter? If you're pandering to people who don't at least like authentic wrestling in some sense, then you're not selling pro wrestling. You can't sell in ring drama without the backdrop of competition. You're telling me I'm dumb for wanting a story, be it a clinic or an almost mythological dramatization to have be convincing. You can't get a good reaction from botching the moves that create the illusion. I was actually cheering Cena at Summerslam, because he's loyal, & because I've finally figured him out. He's the lovechild of Backlund & The Crusher, except in reverse. He had Crusher's everyman charisma & unorthodox wrestling manner, but with Backlund's clean cut lifestyle, "persevere no matter what" attitude. I'm not unjustified however for wanting his style to be more reflective of accolades. He knows plenty of moves, I just don't see why he wouldn't use them more often. Anyways, wrestling is about more than just making lots of people react. You can make people react to all sorts of stupid things. That doesn't make you talented. It's not just about money either. It started out that way, but things have CHANGED. If it was just about money, you wouldn't care. Nor would anyone smarter than Glue, because they would see right through the facade. Lex Luger. Need I say more? It's a passion play fueled by profits, not defined by them.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 19, 2014 8:41:57 GMT -5
It's not just about money either. It started out that way, but things have CHANGED. If it was just about money, you wouldn't care. The way they make money is by making us care. That's what a skilled wrestler does, is make us care. Make us gasp when that shoulder comes up just before the three count because we bought into the match.
|
|