Deleted
Joined on: Oct 4, 2024 21:23:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 16:54:07 GMT -5
Rock is one of the MOST SELFLESS big names ever. The guy was red hot over in 1999 and was getting more over than Austin but still worked programs with Billy Gunn,British Bulldog, Al Snow,etc when HHH got forced down throats and Austin was refusing to work with Jarret and put over HHH at Summerslam some sources say. Rock put over Jericho at No Mercy for the WCW Title and then again at Vengeance in 2001. Lesnar got MADE by Hogan and Rock.He was getting "Goldberg" chants and wasn't that over until he got their rub. You can try to discredit Rock but it won't work.He put Lesnar over crystal clean unlike Austin.It got him over. Kurt Angle got his 1st WWF Title from Rock at No Mercy 2000. Christian's whole "PEEPS" gimmick originated from Rock giving him a rub in 2003 and Christian started calling himself "The new People's Champion". Rock jobbed to HURRICANE clean in 2003 weeks before his match vs Austin at Wrestlemania 19. Booker T wasn't exactly a new jack in 2003 but he tossed Rock out the battle royal in 2003 for the win. Rock didn't mind losing and never refused to put anyone over like a Hogan,Austin,HHH,Bret,HBK or Flair. They ALL have.Rock was a professional to the highest level. The Rock never even won a Wrestlemania main event and if he played the political game it would be different. Even STEPHANIE MCMAHON pinned The Rock. Ok, just because someone pinned the rock doesnt mean he put them over so dont go counting every loss the rock has as putting someone over. Ill give you Lesnar and Jericho..... How the hell are you gonna include Billy Gunn, Booker T and Hurricane in that argument? Gunn never made it past mid card leve. For Christ sakes he never even got to upper mid card level. Hurricane, if there wasnt a Cruiserweight division, would have been the next Eugue...Just some silly character in a stupid costume. Christian is a joke. Saying you're the champ of ECW is like saying you're the Smokey Mountain Heavyweight Champion....I mean Mark Henry held the title. HHH was already over and didnt need the Rock to get him over. Neither did Austin........and Booker T?? The Rock hurt Booker Ts career by a few simple words more then he helped him. Sure Booker eliminated him from the battle royal but who beat Booker for his WCW title, that non WCW wrestler The Rock and then Triple H proceeds to bury him more later on by beating him at Wrestlemania. So in 10 years The Rock put over Brock Lesnar (even though he was pretty much over anyway but ill give it to you) and Chris Jericho (who was also pretty much over but Ill give it to you as well) Hogan gave the rub to Warrior (it flopped) if Rock put Lesnar over the Hogan gave him the rub (it pretty much flopped) and Hogan "passed the torch" of sorts to the rock... Flair gave the rub to Sting and Magnum TA. Sadly Magnum had his career cut short but Sting has blossomed into a great star. BTW who did Bret Hart win his first World title from??? Thats right Ric Flair HHH never put anyone over either??? Funny the first names that come to mind are Randy Orton and Dave Batista How bout HBK? Everyone knows how I feel about him.....but for Christ sakes...he pretty much carried Kevin Nash to what he was. Sure he didnt do the job all the time and was a prick backstage but ya know, he sure carried HHH to the top as well. I mean do I need to keep going? Do you want me to go into Al Snow? or British Bulldog?? Its kinda obvious Rock never really put anyone over or passed any type of torch. He was a great worker that worked with other great workers and had a good career. Some people define "putting over" as making your opponent look good and some others define "putting over" as strictly losing even if Wrestler A dominated Wrestler B most of the match. Taker/Shelton is a good example.Shelton looked good but Taker won. Some would argue Taker did NOTHING for Shelton because Shelton has landed right back on ECW. Gunn not shooting up past midcard isn't Rock's fault.He's a scrub and should be thankful Rock still worked with him. Christian still got a rub from Rock.Don't care how you slice it. HHH is one of the most overpushed wrestlers ever.He wasn't even that over in 1999 as WWF Champion. LOL@ Not needing Rock. HHH was NOT over in his WWF Title match vs Mankind.Rock got a bigger pop than anything in the match and HHH ONLY drew a reaction when he hit ROCK with a chair. HHH needed Rock,Austin,Foley&McMahon's to get over. Of course Rock won the WCW Title in 2001 from Booker.It was his RETURN PPV match. Austin returned in 2000 and won the rumble in 2001. HHH returned in 2002 and won the rumble& title. Cena returned in 2008 and won the rumble in 2008. IT's typical booking. Brock was a new name and never been champ.Him defeating Rock is the DEFINITION of put over.WTF are you on? Hogan&Rock made him. And you didn't understand me on some other stuff but forget it.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 11, 2009 16:58:00 GMT -5
Ok, just because someone pinned the rock doesnt mean he put them over so dont go counting every loss the rock has as putting someone over. Ill give you Lesnar and Jericho..... How the hell are you gonna include Billy Gunn, Booker T and Hurricane in that argument? Gunn never made it past mid card leve. For Christ sakes he never even got to upper mid card level. Hurricane, if there wasnt a Cruiserweight division, would have been the next Eugue...Just some silly character in a stupid costume. Christian is a joke. Saying you're the champ of ECW is like saying you're the Smokey Mountain Heavyweight Champion....I mean Mark Henry held the title. HHH was already over and didnt need the Rock to get him over. Neither did Austin........and Booker T?? The Rock hurt Booker Ts career by a few simple words more then he helped him. Sure Booker eliminated him from the battle royal but who beat Booker for his WCW title, that non WCW wrestler The Rock and then Triple H proceeds to bury him more later on by beating him at Wrestlemania. So in 10 years The Rock put over Brock Lesnar (even though he was pretty much over anyway but ill give it to you) and Chris Jericho (who was also pretty much over but Ill give it to you as well) Hogan gave the rub to Warrior (it flopped) if Rock put Lesnar over the Hogan gave him the rub (it pretty much flopped) and Hogan "passed the torch" of sorts to the rock... Flair gave the rub to Sting and Magnum TA. Sadly Magnum had his career cut short but Sting has blossomed into a great star. BTW who did Bret Hart win his first World title from??? Thats right Ric Flair HHH never put anyone over either??? Funny the first names that come to mind are Randy Orton and Dave Batista How bout HBK? Everyone knows how I feel about him.....but for Christ sakes...he pretty much carried Kevin Nash to what he was. Sure he didnt do the job all the time and was a prick backstage but ya know, he sure carried HHH to the top as well. I mean do I need to keep going? Do you want me to go into Al Snow? or British Bulldog?? Its kinda obvious Rock never really put anyone over or passed any type of torch. He was a great worker that worked with other great workers and had a good career. Some people define "putting over" as making your opponent look good and some others define "putting over" as strictly losing even if Wrestler A dominated Wrestler B most of the match. Taker/Shelton is a good example.Shelton looked good but Taker won. Some would argue Taker did NOTHING for Shelton because Shelton has landed right back on ECW. Gunn not shooting up past midcard isn't Rock's fault.He's a scrub and should be thankful Rock still worked with him. Christian still got a rub from Rock.Don't care how you slice it. HHH is one of the most overpushed wrestlers ever.He wasn't even that over in 1999 as WWF Champion. LOL@ Not needing Rock. HHH was NOT over in his WWF Title match vs Mankind.Rock got a bigger pop than anything in the match and HHH ONLY drew a reaction when he hit ROCK with a chair. HHH needed Rock,Austin,Foley&McMahon's to get over. Of course Rock won the WCW Title in 2001 from Booker.It was his RETURN PPV match. Austin returned in 2000 and won the rumble in 2001. HHH returned in 2002 and won the rumble& title. Cena returned in 2008 and won the rumble in 2008. IT's typical booking. Brock was a new name and never been champ.Him defeating Rock is the DEFINITION of put over.WTF are you on? Hogan&Rock made him. And you didn't understand me on some other stuff but forget it. I guess our ideas of giving the rub or putting someone over are complete different. I dont see how letting someone that is already in the main event scene or already an IC champ (when the title meant something) beat you is considered being "put over" Clearly if you're to that point, you're already over.....but whatever
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 4, 2024 21:23:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 17:14:51 GMT -5
Some people define "putting over" as making your opponent look good and some others define "putting over" as strictly losing even if Wrestler A dominated Wrestler B most of the match. Taker/Shelton is a good example.Shelton looked good but Taker won. Some would argue Taker did NOTHING for Shelton because Shelton has landed right back on ECW. Gunn not shooting up past midcard isn't Rock's fault.He's a scrub and should be thankful Rock still worked with him. Christian still got a rub from Rock.Don't care how you slice it. HHH is one of the most overpushed wrestlers ever.He wasn't even that over in 1999 as WWF Champion. LOL@ Not needing Rock. HHH was NOT over in his WWF Title match vs Mankind.Rock got a bigger pop than anything in the match and HHH ONLY drew a reaction when he hit ROCK with a chair. HHH needed Rock,Austin,Foley&McMahon's to get over. Of course Rock won the WCW Title in 2001 from Booker.It was his RETURN PPV match. Austin returned in 2000 and won the rumble in 2001. HHH returned in 2002 and won the rumble& title. Cena returned in 2008 and won the rumble in 2008. IT's typical booking. Brock was a new name and never been champ.Him defeating Rock is the DEFINITION of put over.WTF are you on? Hogan&Rock made him. And you didn't understand me on some other stuff but forget it. I guess our ideas of giving the rub or putting someone over are complete different. I dont see how letting someone that is already in the main event scene or already an IC champ (when the title meant something) beat you is considered being "put over" Clearly if you're to that point, you're already over.....but whatever Yeah but... Summerslam 2002 was Brock's 1st PPV main event and he was NEVER that over until his match with Rock. Also you don't count HHH losing to Benoit and Cena as 'put over',right? They already got pops before HHH feud.Just curious. btw,You singled out Rock...so who in your opinion did Austin and Taker put over?
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Aug 11, 2009 17:17:13 GMT -5
What has age got to do with this, you biased smark?... Theres nothing I hate more than when 30 year old adults rant about how teenagers know nothing about wrestling, tapes exist, you know, genius! Sorry, but the "wrestling tapes exist" comment, cuts no ice with me.. The fact that you even need wrestling tapes, in the first place, proves my point.. You can watch all the wrestling tapes you want - but in my book, watching wrestling tapes doesn't compensate for first-hand knowledge.. For example, I don't have much knowledge of wrestling in the 70's and early 80's, and so I wouldn't pass comment on it, or pretend to know what I'm talking about - and me watching a few tapes wouldn't make me an expert... it just means I've watched something that happened 20 or 30 years ago.. You're wrong. So basically, what you're saying is, you don't know anything about wrestling unless you've actually been there when said subject happened? so if that's the case, I don't know Hulk Hogan was a big deal in the 80's? I didn't watch ANY episodes on what happened? Don't know ANYTHING what happened backstage, onstage? You're trying to use your age to your advantage and it's making you look like a "know it all not really" type of smark. Face it - not everybody is going to like wrestling back then, for you to spit out that comment just shows how ignorant you are. I'm sorry but it does.
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Aug 11, 2009 17:17:58 GMT -5
Please tell me you're not talking a bout that crappy ass 2 on 3 tag match from wrestlemania....if thats considered "putting someone over" then Ive got a good friend who is the next greatest tag team wrestler cause he's beat Rick Steiner and Ricky Morton in a flea market Honestly dude, whatever your description of putting somebody over is, The Rock did it. If it is letting somebody beat you, Rock has let many guys beta him over the years. Or if you say that he don't let the opponent get any offense in, blame WWE's style of a match. Where the guy gets their ass beat but wind up winning. Face it, Rock has put over a lot of guys in every aspect possible. He has lost to a lot of people and then he has gotten his ass beat by a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Aug 11, 2009 17:20:18 GMT -5
I have to semi agree about the tape comments. Theres somethings you just cant duplicate by watching a tape. The thrill of Hogan vs Warrior at Mania is much more greater in 1990 when you're 7yo in person then if your 15 and watching something that happened 10-15 years ago Exactly.. Take the Attitude Era, for example.. Now for me personally, that was the best era in WWE history and the most exciting time be a wrestling fan... and it's something you had to witness first-hand, as it unfolded, in order to truly appreciate and understand it... you also had to be of a sufficient age, to fully comprehend was was going on - because it wasn't meant for kids.. You can't replicate living through the Attitude era, by watching a tape, some years later... and yet you've got teenagers coming on here and stating that the Attitude era was overrated and not as good as people say.. How would they know? It's the same as watching Flair's classic matches - watching them now, wouldn't be the same as watching them first-hand, as they happened..
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 11, 2009 17:25:40 GMT -5
I guess our ideas of giving the rub or putting someone over are complete different. I dont see how letting someone that is already in the main event scene or already an IC champ (when the title meant something) beat you is considered being "put over" Clearly if you're to that point, you're already over.....but whatever Yeah but... Summerslam 2002 was Brock's 1st PPV main event and he was NEVER that over until his match with Rock. Also you don't count HHH losing to Benoit and Cena as 'put over',right? They already got pops before HHH feud.Just curious. btw,You singled out Rock...so who in your opinion did Austin and Taker put over? Ive given Rock credit for putting Brock over but really i think it was inevitable that Brock was going to be big with or without rock as the champ at Summerslam.. No i dont consider HHH losing to Benoit or Cena as being put over. Benoit was already a big name and Cena was the champion before ever facing Triple H. The only reason I singled out Rock was because the last comment I read said tha Rock (and only rock) had put a ton of people over, which I fully dont believe he has. I never said anything about Austin who right off the top of my head he could have put over. I guess you could say he gave Rock as rub since Austin was big and rock was still hovering the upper mid card at the time. Taker to me is just one guy that has great matches. he doesnt really put anyone over but at the same time he doesnt bury or hurt anyones career. Of course if I sat and thought about someone he put over Im sure I could come up with something....Im just too tired to do that right now
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Aug 11, 2009 17:26:47 GMT -5
I have to semi agree about the tape comments. Theres somethings you just cant duplicate by watching a tape. The thrill of Hogan vs Warrior at Mania is much more greater in 1990 when you're 7yo in person then if your 15 and watching something that happened 10-15 years ago Exactly.. Take the Attitude Era, for example.. Now for me personally, that was the best era in WWE history and the most exciting time be a wrestling fan... and it's something you had to witness first-hand, as it unfolded, in order to truly appreciate and understand it... you also had to be of a sufficient age, to fully comprehend was was going on - because it wasn't meant for kids.. You can't replicate living through the Attitude era, by watching a tape, some years later... and yet you've got teenagers coming on here and stating that the Attitude era was overrated and not as good as people say.. How would they know? It's the same as watching Flair's classic matches - watching them now, wouldn't be the same as watching them first-hand, as they happened.. Again, wrong. I've witnessed the Attitude Era first hand and you know what made that Era so exciting as you say? The segments and the matches. You can re-watch those and appreciate them. I do it all the time. I've seen Flair vs Steamboat and I thought it was a great match. Why are tapes made, genius? why are matches made? To go down in history, so new fans can come along and watch them. You mean to tell me these matches mean nothing to new upcoming wrestlers of the next couple of decades? you're just... wow...
|
|
sevb30
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 14, 2008 12:55:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by sevb30 on Aug 11, 2009 17:29:17 GMT -5
How about a poll?
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Aug 11, 2009 17:30:30 GMT -5
Sorry, but the "wrestling tapes exist" comment, cuts no ice with me.. The fact that you even need wrestling tapes, in the first place, proves my point.. You can watch all the wrestling tapes you want - but in my book, watching wrestling tapes doesn't compensate for first-hand knowledge.. For example, I don't have much knowledge of wrestling in the 70's and early 80's, and so I wouldn't pass comment on it, or pretend to know what I'm talking about - and me watching a few tapes wouldn't make me an expert... it just means I've watched something that happened 20 or 30 years ago.. You're wrong. So basically, what you're saying is, you don't know anything about wrestling unless you've actually been there when said subject happened? so if that's the case, I don't know Hulk Hogan was a big deal in the 80's? I didn't watch ANY episodes on what happened? Don't know ANYTHING what happened backstage, onstage? You're trying to use your age to your advantage and it's making you look like a "know it all not really" type of smark. Face it - not everybody is going to like wrestling back then, for you to spit out that comment just shows how ignorant you are. I'm sorry but it does. Maybe you know that Hogan was a big deal in the 80's - but you've found that out through second-hand knowledge... it's still not the same as having first-hand knowledge, and actually knowing and appreciating, just WHY Hogan was such a big deal in the 80's... you can only do that, if you witnessed it first-hand - which you didn't..
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 11, 2009 17:31:35 GMT -5
I have to semi agree about the tape comments. Theres somethings you just cant duplicate by watching a tape. The thrill of Hogan vs Warrior at Mania is much more greater in 1990 when you're 7yo in person then if your 15 and watching something that happened 10-15 years ago Exactly.. Take the Attitude Era, for example.. Now for me personally, that was the best era in WWE history and the most exciting time be a wrestling fan... and it's something you had to witness first-hand, as it unfolded, in order to truly appreciate and understand it... you also had to be of a sufficient age, to fully comprehend was was going on - because it wasn't meant for kids.. You can't replicate living through the Attitude era, by watching a tape, some years later... and yet you've got teenagers coming on here and stating that the Attitude era was overrated and not as good as people say.. How would they know? It's the same as watching Flair's classic matches - watching them now, wouldn't be the same as watching them first-hand, as they happened.. I personally dont hold the Attitude Era in high regards, mainly for 2 reason though. 1) When i watch wrestling I dont like seeing silly characters and gimmicks. Things like Val Venis, Godfather, Gangrel, things like that didnt cut it for me. There were things I like...Ass kickers like Austin, great mic workers Triple H (who was actually decent in those days)...good in ring workers like HBK......I enjoyed those for the most part. Mainly though, #2 is that i was raised on NWA/WCW, with the exception of 1992, WCW was always very entertaining to me. You didnt have silly gimmicks for the most part and the ones you did were curtain jerkers and didnt last long. You had good in ring performers like Flair, Sting, Vader etc........But I think it also has a lot to do with your age and what era you grow up in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 4, 2024 21:23:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 17:32:13 GMT -5
Hogan needs to go away and never come back.
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Aug 11, 2009 17:32:37 GMT -5
You're wrong. So basically, what you're saying is, you don't know anything about wrestling unless you've actually been there when said subject happened? so if that's the case, I don't know Hulk Hogan was a big deal in the 80's? I didn't watch ANY episodes on what happened? Don't know ANYTHING what happened backstage, onstage? You're trying to use your age to your advantage and it's making you look like a "know it all not really" type of smark. Face it - not everybody is going to like wrestling back then, for you to spit out that comment just shows how ignorant you are. I'm sorry but it does. Maybe you know that Hogan was a big deal in the 80's - but you've found that out through second-hand knowledge... it's still not the same as having first-hand knowledge, and actually knowing and appreciating, just WHY Hogan was such a big deal in the 80's... you can only do that, if you witnessed it first-hand - which you didn't.. So I guess these new wrestlers know nothing about it then. They don't know what they're talking about, what they're doing, who they're facing, they don't know nothing because they didn't watch back then. Am I right with this? Because thats what you're implying...
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Aug 11, 2009 17:33:20 GMT -5
Dude, you do know what somebody can understand what made so and so famous right? Just because they weren't alive when it happened doesn't mean they cannot develop the meaning of it all. Because we know more now than we did back then. Was I alive for when Hogan was big? No. But after hours and hours of tapes and highlights and stories- can I get a feel for it all? You bet I can.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 11, 2009 17:38:30 GMT -5
Dude, you do know what somebody can understand what made so and so famous right? Just because they weren't alive when it happened doesn't mean they cannot develop the meaning of it all. Because we know more now than we did back then. Was I alive for when Hogan was big? No. But after hours and hours of tapes and highlights and stories- can I get a feel for it all? You bet I can. See I think you can get the respect or knowledge for something like that but I just dont think you can get "the feel".....I mean that feeling of being there. I didnt watch Hogan slam Andre and when i do it doesnt seem like its anything that incredible to me, but the people I know that did see it...you can see in their eyes just what an amazing memorable moment it really was. I respect it, i have knowledge of it....but I didnt feel it
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Aug 11, 2009 17:41:03 GMT -5
Dude, you do know what somebody can understand what made so and so famous right? Just because they weren't alive when it happened doesn't mean they cannot develop the meaning of it all. Because we know more now than we did back then. Was I alive for when Hogan was big? No. But after hours and hours of tapes and highlights and stories- can I get a feel for it all? You bet I can. See I think you can get the respect or knowledge for something like that but I just dont think you can get "the feel".....I mean that feeling of being there. I didnt watch Hogan slam Andre and when i do it doesnt seem like its anything that incredible to me, but the people I know that did see it...you can see in their eyes just what an amazing memorable moment it really was. I respect it, i have knowledge of it....but I didnt feel it Okay yeah, I agree with that statement. But what he was saying was that people who didn't live through have no idea what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Aug 11, 2009 17:44:50 GMT -5
See I think you can get the respect or knowledge for something like that but I just dont think you can get "the feel".....I mean that feeling of being there. I didnt watch Hogan slam Andre and when i do it doesnt seem like its anything that incredible to me, but the people I know that did see it...you can see in their eyes just what an amazing memorable moment it really was. I respect it, i have knowledge of it....but I didnt feel it Okay yeah, I agree with that statement. But what he was saying was that people who didn't live through have no idea what they are talking about. I wont say they dont have any idea, but there is def something special about living it. Hints why I said there is just some things you cant replicate with a tape. You cant help when you're born but honestly if you're 15 and you crap all over wrestling in 1985 because you thought it sucked and it was boring.....You should be shot cause basically that was the booming era of wrestling. Thats what put it in the main stream...Sure the attitude era took it to a next level but 1985 was Flair vs Rhodes in NWA....Von Erichs in Texas and Hogan and Wrestlemania in the WWF
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Aug 11, 2009 17:46:04 GMT -5
Dude, you do know what somebody can understand what made so and so famous right? Just because they weren't alive when it happened doesn't mean they cannot develop the meaning of it all. Because we know more now than we did back then. Was I alive for when Hogan was big? No. But after hours and hours of tapes and highlights and stories- can I get a feel for it all? You bet I can. See I think you can get the respect or knowledge for something like that but I just dont think you can get "the feel".....I mean that feeling of being there. I didnt watch Hogan slam Andre and when i do it doesnt seem like its anything that incredible to me, but the people I know that did see it...you can see in their eyes just what an amazing memorable moment it really was. I respect it, i have knowledge of it....but I didnt feel it I get you and what you were saying. Another example of this is HBK vs Razor at WM10, I saw so many people do more amazing spots than this... for instance Edge spearing Jeff Hardy while he was hanging on the titles. I know it was a good memory but was I amazed by it? Probably not. But Shorty So Seductive over here is implying none of us young fans know what we're talking about... which is 100% wrong. If it was that way, nobody in the business today would have any knowledge of it and nobody in the future of the business would either...
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Aug 11, 2009 17:52:31 GMT -5
Exactly.. Take the Attitude Era, for example.. Now for me personally, that was the best era in WWE history and the most exciting time be a wrestling fan... and it's something you had to witness first-hand, as it unfolded, in order to truly appreciate and understand it... you also had to be of a sufficient age, to fully comprehend was was going on - because it wasn't meant for kids.. You can't replicate living through the Attitude era, by watching a tape, some years later... and yet you've got teenagers coming on here and stating that the Attitude era was overrated and not as good as people say.. How would they know? It's the same as watching Flair's classic matches - watching them now, wouldn't be the same as watching them first-hand, as they happened.. Again, wrong. I've witnessed the Attitude Era first hand and you know what made that Era so exciting as you say? The segments and the matches. You can re-watch those and appreciate them. I do it all the time. I've seen Flair vs Steamboat and I thought it was a great match. Why are tapes made, genius? why are matches made? To go down in history, so new fans can come along and watch them. You mean to tell me these matches mean nothing to new upcoming wrestlers of the next couple of decades? you're just... wow... OK, so you might have witnessed it first hand - but you sure as hell didn't understand it - and don't try and tell me that you did, because I won't believe it for a second.. The truth is, at the time, you wouldn't have known what made that era so special, because you wouldn't have been able to comprehend it one bit.. Those segments you refer to, happened when you were no more than five or six years old.. There's no way in hell, a five year-old could possibly understand what was going on... and further more, a five year old shouldn't have even been watching it to begin with... it was aimed at adults for a reason - but I digress.. Everything you know, about the Attuitude era has come from watching tapes, years after the event.. It doesn't compare to having first-hand knowledge and understanding - it just doesn't... nor will it ever.. Dude, you do know what somebody can understand what made so and so famous right? Just because they weren't alive when it happened doesn't mean they cannot develop the meaning of it all. Because we know more now than we did back then. Was I alive for when Hogan was big? No. But after hours and hours of tapes and highlights and stories- can I get a feel for it all? You bet I can. See I think you can get the respect or knowledge for something like that but I just dont think you can get "the feel".....I mean that feeling of being there. I didnt watch Hogan slam Andre and when i do it doesnt seem like its anything that incredible to me, but the people I know that did see it...you can see in their eyes just what an amazing memorable moment it really was. I respect it, i have knowledge of it....but I didnt feel it Exactly - at least someone gets it.. You can't get a feel for something that happened years ago, by watching it today.. Yes, you can respect it and somewhat appreciate it, but it's not the same as seeing it when it happened.. Take the Savage/Steamboat match - considered a classic by many.. I never saw it at the time (at least I don't believe I did).. I could watch it now, and appreciate and respect it... but I wouldn't get the same feel, as if I'd watched it live - nor would I expect to.. But Shorty So Seductive over here is implying none of us young fans know what we're talking about Still going with the stupid names, are we?.. and what I'm implying, is that most young fans, simply don't know enough, to give a valid opinion, on things either before their time, or things they had no first-hand knowledge of..
|
|
|
Post by mnm213 on Aug 11, 2009 18:56:21 GMT -5
Again, wrong. I've witnessed the Attitude Era first hand and you know what made that Era so exciting as you say? The segments and the matches. You can re-watch those and appreciate them. I do it all the time. I've seen Flair vs Steamboat and I thought it was a great match. Why are tapes made, genius? why are matches made? To go down in history, so new fans can come along and watch them. You mean to tell me these matches mean nothing to new upcoming wrestlers of the next couple of decades? you're just... wow... OK, so you might have witnessed it first hand - but you sure as hell didn't understand it - and don't try and tell me that you did, because I won't believe it for a second.. The truth is, at the time, you wouldn't have known what made that era so special, because you wouldn't have been able to comprehend it one bit.. Those segments you refer to, happened when you were no more than five or six years old.. There's no way in hell, a five year-old could possibly understand what was going on... and further more, a five year old shouldn't have even been watching it to begin with... it was aimed at adults for a reason - but I digress.. Everything you know, about the Attuitude era has come from watching tapes, years after the event.. It doesn't compare to having first-hand knowledge and understanding - it just doesn't... nor will it ever.. Exactly - at least someone gets it.. You can't get a feel for something that happened years ago, by watching it today.. Yes, you can respect it and somewhat appreciate it, but it's not the same as seeing it when it happened.. Take the Savage/Steamboat match - considered a classic by many.. I never saw it at the time (at least I don't believe I did).. I could watch it now, and appreciate and respect it... but I wouldn't get the same feel, as if I'd watched it live - nor would I expect to.. But Shorty So Seductive over here is implying none of us young fans know what we're talking about Still going with the stupid names, are we?.. and what I'm implying, is that most young fans, simply don't know enough, to give a valid opinion, on things either before their time, or things they had no first-hand knowledge of.. Once I seen it, I can give it an opinion on it, good lord... and no, you're wrong here. The Attitude Era was watched by MILLIONS of Kids all around the world, just because it was TV-14 rated, doesn't mean we cannot watch. There was no swear words... there was never any swear words, the closest we got was Austin's middle finger. So don't be acting like I was watching Beavis and Butthead or something ...
|
|