My View on things

[Guest EternallyLazy]

It's the popular thing to do here to bash every little thing the WWE does, because quite simply... the product isn't on fire with popularity. If it was... then you wouldn't hear half as many complaints

 

The thing is, when they do something is entertaining but not workrate intensive, it's kosher because workrate alone won't make a fued interesting for a lot of people.

 

Rock/Hogan II --catered to the marks but it was cool with me because of the promos, and the match itself was fun to watch. The program it led into, Hogan vs. Vince, NOBODY GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BUT VINCE AND HOGAN THEMSELVES.

 

Take a look at the Mania buyrate--remember that Mania was centered mainly on that match.

Ah, yes... the buyrate. I'm not referring specifically to you, but I remember a while back, I questioned whether Angle/Brock would pop a good buyrate, and most here responded with "it's Mania... the name itself will attract a good buyrate" so in other words, it doesnt matter who the machine centers the attention...

And centering a show around two old men stopped even the anual Mania buyers from buying it.

You may very well be right... but as it's so popular here to say...

 

 

what is your source??

 

Oh I forgot! Smarks don't need sources when they believe so strongly about something that they think they're automatically right

[Guest Anglesault]

I dont consider myself an "apologist" because there are many things I hate about the product... infact, SD this week was a milestone for me because it marked the first time since 1998 that I stopped watching a WWE program halfway through... I've done that before because I became busy, but I always recorded... this time, I didn't, and I wasn't busy.

 

BUT, what pisses me off, other than the arrogant attitudes here and the blatant spinning and hypocrisy, is that many of you tend to pick out every single thing about it, while forgetting that you're watching pro wrestling... not LA Law. Sure, I would love a change of pace... more realistic storylines, better action in the ring. BUT, it seems that even when we got that for a few months, you guys picked that apart as well

In what way? We're not happy with Benoit jobbing 74574664 times in a row? We don't want an untalented fuck Nathan Jones on TV? HIGH STANDARDS~!

[Guest the pinjockey]

It's the popular thing to do here to bash every little thing the WWE does, because quite simply... the product isn't on fire with popularity. If it was... then you wouldn't hear half as many complaints

 

The thing is, when they do something is entertaining but not workrate intensive, it's kosher because workrate alone won't make a fued interesting for a lot of people.

 

Rock/Hogan II --catered to the marks but it was cool with me because of the promos, and the match itself was fun to watch. The program it led into, Hogan vs. Vince, NOBODY GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BUT VINCE AND HOGAN THEMSELVES.

 

Take a look at the Mania buyrate--remember that Mania was centered mainly on that match.

Ah, yes... the buyrate. I'm not referring specifically to you, but I remember a while back, I questioned whether Angle/Brock would pop a good buyrate, and most here responded with "it's Mania... the name itself will attract a good buyrate" so in other words, it doesnt matter who the machine centers the attention...

And centering a show around two old men stopped even the anual Mania buyers from buying it.

You may very well be right... but as it's so popular here to say...

 

 

what is your source??

 

Oh I forgot! Smarks don't need sources when they believe so strongly about something that they think they're automatically right

Source for what?

 

Reports are the buyrate will be 30-40% less than estimates.

 

The show was built around McMahon/Hogan with the celebrity comments, 20 Years in the Making crap.

 

If you want more evidence where they banked the WM plans on look at the WM XIX DVD cover.

 

So the show bombed with the 50 year olds, one of whom is a non-wrestler wrestling in the highlighted match.

[Guest bob_barron]

It's the popular thing to do here to bash every little thing the WWE does, because quite simply... the product isn't on fire with popularity. If it was... then you wouldn't hear half as many complaints

 

The thing is, when they do something is entertaining but not workrate intensive, it's kosher because workrate alone won't make a fued interesting for a lot of people.

 

Rock/Hogan II --catered to the marks but it was cool with me because of the promos, and the match itself was fun to watch. The program it led into, Hogan vs. Vince, NOBODY GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BUT VINCE AND HOGAN THEMSELVES.

 

Take a look at the Mania buyrate--remember that Mania was centered mainly on that match.

Ah, yes... the buyrate. I'm not referring specifically to you, but I remember a while back, I questioned whether Angle/Brock would pop a good buyrate, and most here responded with "it's Mania... the name itself will attract a good buyrate" so in other words, it doesnt matter who the machine centers the attention...

And centering a show around two old men stopped even the anual Mania buyers from buying it.

You may very well be right... but as it's so popular here to say...

 

 

what is your source??

 

Oh I forgot! Smarks don't need sources when they believe so strongly about something that they think they're automatically right

Well the last time Hogan main evented shows...they bombed.

The last federation that did main events centred around 50 yr old men...went out of business.

 

Considering that most the hype for Wrestlemania was Vince v. Hogan- Then they must share the blame for Wrestlemania bombing. Just like if the show had done well then they could bask in the glow of still being able to call themselves draws

[Guest EternallyLazy]

It's the popular thing to do here to bash every little thing the WWE does, because quite simply... the product isn't on fire with popularity. If it was... then you wouldn't hear half as many complaints

 

The thing is, when they do something is entertaining but not workrate intensive, it's kosher because workrate alone won't make a fued interesting for a lot of people.

 

Rock/Hogan II --catered to the marks but it was cool with me because of the promos, and the match itself was fun to watch. The program it led into, Hogan vs. Vince, NOBODY GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BUT VINCE AND HOGAN THEMSELVES.

 

Take a look at the Mania buyrate--remember that Mania was centered mainly on that match.

Ah, yes... the buyrate. I'm not referring specifically to you, but I remember a while back, I questioned whether Angle/Brock would pop a good buyrate, and most here responded with "it's Mania... the name itself will attract a good buyrate" so in other words, it doesnt matter who the machine centers the attention...

And centering a show around two old men stopped even the anual Mania buyers from buying it.

You may very well be right... but as it's so popular here to say...

 

 

what is your source??

 

Oh I forgot! Smarks don't need sources when they believe so strongly about something that they think they're automatically right

Source for what?

 

Reports are the buyrate will be 30-40% less than estimates.

 

The show was built around McMahon/Hogan with the celebrity comments, 20 Years in the Making crap.

 

If you want more evidence where they banked the WM plans on look at the WM XIX DVD cover.

 

So the show bombed with the 50 year olds, one of whom is a non-wrestler wrestling in the highlighted match.

Read what I said again

 

 

I said that back BEFORE Hogan/McMahon was announced, I questioned whether Angle/Brock would pop a buyrate... and I got "it doesn't matter who main events... the wrestlemania name and stigma will attract buys"

 

And now I'm questioning what is the difference between the two if Mania itself will sell on its name value alone

 

and I'm not questioning the buyrate itself... I know it's low. I'm questioning on whether it was low due to Hogan/McMahon or due to the product itself just sucking at the moment

[Guest evilhomer]

As far as the 23 second pause before the pin...HHH was putting over the fact that Booker had laid one hell of a whuppin' on him and Trip's had to use his last ounce of strength to hit one big move on Booker to finally put him down...

My main problem with that spot was that I found it to be very anti-clamatic. The set-up for the pin was done in the way where the face always kicks out. The face then either makes the improbable comeback for the win, or takes another finisher to go down to a proper pin. In this case I was just left going, that's it??? I agree that HHH was doing a good job selling the brutal match, but Booker looked very weak compared to how that spot is normally carried out.

 

Triple H has been doing the Pedigree for eight years now and at one time when he was just a nobody midcarder it was kicked out of plenty of times but now no one is allowed to kick out of it and your DEAD once he hits it and its the only finisher that currently has that distinction.

One could conclude then that in the 8 years of doing the move, HHH has now perfected it to a Deadly Science. A end all/kill all move.

The execution has not changed at all in the slightest. He's just added a kick before doing the move.

[kayfabe mode]It looks the same, but his practice over the years has added a devastating effect to it.[/kayfabe] Having said that, what is the kayfabe reason for no one else even attempting to use the pedigree on a regular basis. Seeing as how with practice, this is the one and only move that can end a match in virtually 100% of cases.

[Guest AndrewTS]

The "Wrestlemania" name itself won't sell a show in this day and age, so I doubt anyone who says that. If so, every Wrestlemania once it was established would have been a huge success, but that isn't true.

 

I think the fact that the results were so predictable tied into it as well.

[Guest evilhomer]

The n.W.o. I firmly believe if this storyline were occurring today (ala 96), the smarks would shit all over it… <insert argument here> ... See even an angle that has been almost universally acknowledged as one of the best of all time was rather horribly flawed.

You have plenty of fine points on how the original nWo angle was technically a bad one. However, you generalize here as well. As "accepted" as it may be that the original nWo angle was "one of the best of all time" should prove NOT that it is in fact what's claimed to be of it, but that it fulfilled it's purpose. IT GOT OVER! That's what matters! The fans ate it up!

This is the most important point, if it gets over, then it was a good idea. It's impossible to create a storyline that has no flaws, so it will always be open to criticism. When something gets over, people have fun with it, and don't bitch about the flaws. Would there be bitching about the points you brought up??? possibly yes, but probably no because we're being entertained by it.

 

The flaws are the focus of bitching. The source of the bitching is the fact that we aren't entertained by the angle.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I'm questioning on whether it was low due to Hogan/McMahon or due to the product itself just sucking at the moment

So is the product sucking or are smarks just nitpicking? A little from column A and a little from column B? What is it?

 

No doubt I'm probably lumped in with the rest that supposedly "pick apart every aspect of the show" when I never talk about 95% of what goes on in WWE. I just don't give a shit about the majority of the storylines - and frankly, that's not a good thing. Indifference is worse than criticism.

 

I don't even know what you and tank are trying to get at - are the shows ****+ but I (and others) am just not seeing it? Is there some redeemable aspects of the shows, long-term storylines, and the upcoming PPV that I just don't 'get'?

[Guest Sakura]

Mae Young Nekkid? Biker Taker? Big Show in the WM main Event? Rock vs HHH 4,345 times? McMahon's main eventing? Chyna in the uppercard? Mark Henry fueds with Viscera? Test and Albert tagging? Bull/Bossman tagging? RTC? Road Dog and X-Pac tagging? Big Show squashing Angle in a comedy match? HHH burying Beniot/Angle/Jericho on PPV in one calender year? Tazz fueding with JR/Lawler?

 

Oh yeah 2000 was entertaining as all hell, no crap in there you forgot about....

Did I say 2000 was perfect?

 

I don't ask for a perfect show. I can tolerate a lot of crap when there's also a lot of good stuff. There isn't now. It's like 99% crap and boring stuff that is on every RAW and SD.

 

Again, you don't go in looking for flaws and being picky. We WANT to like WWE! I don't understand how you anti-smarts can not understand this. We're here and we're bitching because we like/d the WWE and we want to be fans. We are not TRYING to hate it.

[Guest Anglesault]

Mae Young Nekkid?  Biker Taker? Big Show in the WM main Event? Rock vs HHH 4,345 times?  McMahon's main eventing? Chyna in the uppercard? Mark Henry fueds with Viscera? Test and Albert tagging? Bull/Bossman tagging? RTC? Road Dog and X-Pac tagging? Big Show squashing Angle in a comedy match? HHH burying Beniot/Angle/Jericho on PPV in one calender year?  Tazz fueding with JR/Lawler?

 

Oh yeah 2000 was entertaining as all hell, no crap in there you forgot about....

Did I say 2000 was perfect?

 

I don't ask for a perfect show. I can tolerate a lot of crap when there's also a lot of good stuff. There isn't now. It's like 99% crap and boring stuff that is on every RAW and SD.

 

Again, you don't go in looking for flaws and being picky. We WANT to like WWE! I don't understand how you anti-smarts can not understand this. We're here and we're bitching because we like/d the WWE and we want to be fans. We are not TRYING to hate it.

Sa-a-Kur-a! ::clapclap clapclapclp::

[Guest Banky]

Find a new hobby. May I recommend Slamball? This past year was amazing......

[Guest Anglesault]

Find a new hobby. May I recommend Slamball? This past year was amazing......

I've seen two episodes. Even more boring than basketball.

[Guest Breetai]

A point about the whole HHH Booker 23 second pin thing;

 

HHH got up from the Harlem Hangover before booker did.

 

Think about it.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

So it's the fans' fault for the WWE product sucking? The fans create the plot holes, insulting storylines, and bad matches?

 

I see. Shame on the fans for thinking.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I'll touch on some points raised in this topic:

 

WM Buyrate- It didn't bomb due to one thing, it was a combination of things. The main reasons were because fans are very apathetic with the WWE these days. The business itself is in a slump, and not even the name "Wrestlemania" itself can pop a buyrate. Another reason is the smark favorite, which is a strong reason. It was centered around a 50 year old over-the-hill wrestler, and a non-wrestling figurehead. Their feud got more airtime than Matt/Rey, Team Angle/Guerreros/Benoit&Rhyno, and Austin/Rock combined. WWE really should be scared when their top show of the year (which was a great show) does a horrible buyrate.

 

Why Smarks Bitch- We "bitch" for the WWE's own good. It's like we're telling our child (metaphorically) to do their best in school (when they have an IQ of 150) but they are getting a C-D average. The WWE has probably the deepest, most star-studded, and most talented roster any promotion has ever put together, and they continue to release bland product to even the loyal fans. Casual marks are not as stupid as Vince &co. would like to believe. Even storylines with mildly good stuff gets a horrible blowoff (Rock/Goldberg). To those apologists who consider the product now not-so-bad, well then you have different standards than the rest of us. Most people here have very high standards, especially when the WWE has every single tool possible to make Raw and SD the greatest shows on Earth. If this were 1995-96 where their roster was garbage, then I don't think half the guys in here would be so demanding. But when they have such a deep and talented roster, they should be giving us great shows with at least 1-2 ***+ matches on each show.

[Guest Coffey]

We're not happy with Benoit jobbing 74574664 times in a row?

That makes you sound like such a mark. If I was the owner of a wrestling company, I would use my good workers to get over my bad workers too. How else would the big guys ever get over? I guess you could argue that they shouldn't have a job to begin with, but since they are already there, and in people like Mark Henry & Big Show's case a lot of money was spent on them, might as well try to get them over.

 

Besides, I know that I don't care what wrestler wins a predetermined match. At least not anymore. After reading most of the wrestlers biographies, you realize how little wins and losses actually matter to the wrestlers. Again, you could argue that point with HHH & UT, then again you can argue any mother fucking thing that any goddamn jobber on these whole fucking forums say, so who gives a shit?

 

I know that I won't complain about who is in a match or who wins a match if the match itself is good.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

If I were a company the size and power of the WWE, I wouldn't have bad workers that needed to be carried.

 

Wins and Losses do matter as it factors into the Suspension of Disbelief of the fans. Benoit lost to both Cena and Big Show - calling him the #1 contender after Judgement Day doesn't make sense and isn't convincing. The fans don't believe it and therefore don't care about it.

[Guest Coffey]

If you wanna bring 'realism' into this, Big Show should've beat Benoit in five seconds and should be an undefeated monster...kindof like Andre the Giant.

 

Besides, if people can 'suspend belief' for every fucking Irish Whip then they should have no problem accepting Benoit as he is told to be accepted.

 

If I were a company the size and power of the WWE, I wouldn't have bad workers that needed to be carried

 

Ok, so who would your main eventers be? What storylines would they be in? What the fuck would you do after all three or four of the 'smark darlings' had wrestled each other? You still need big names like Austin, Undertaker & Hogan or no one will watch. Sure, you might please some jobbers that don't matter like the posters on these forums, but how much of the audience does that make up? Fire some random tech backstage, guess you just made that money back.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

If you wanna bring 'realism' into this, Big Show should've beat Benoit in five seconds and should be an undefeated monster...kindof like Andre the Giant.

 

Not really. Bob Sapp (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm, Weight 350 lbs / 159 kg) lost to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm Weight 231 lbs / 105 kg) dispite being 120lbs heavier. Bob Sapp was bigger and stronger than Nog and dominated the fight. He totally manhandled Nogueria (Nog would go for the mount and get thrown off)... but then he got tired and Nog caught him in an armbar.

 

Fedor Emelianenko (Height 6'0 Weight 233 lbs) beat Semmy Schilt (Height 6'10 Weight 256 lbs) just by GnP.

 

They both won by Technique and capitalized on their opponents flaws. The same could have been said of Benoit (and in their match a few months ago inwhich Benoit won, it was played up like that)

 

Besides, if people can 'suspend belief' for every fucking Irish Whip then they should have no problem accepting Benoit as he is told to be accepted.

 

Suspension of Disbelief is a strange thing. I'm a fan of Buffy and Angel yet they do things that would never happen in real life, I don't complain. Here's why: In the universe that they established and which I accepted, what they do there is possible. However, if they do something that doesn't make sense in the universe which they created, then I would cry foul... ESPECIALLY in relation to the characters created. The WWE has their own universe which is more centred near reality. What they did with Benoit (and what they might do with Benoit) does not make sense within their own established universe. John Cena, a man who got dominated by the Undertaker and needed the help of 3 other men, beat Benoit clean. John Cena then lost to Brock Lesnar. Does that mean Benoit would lose to Brock, not necessarily. But then Kurt Angle lost to Brock as well, and Benoit lost to Kurt. And if Big Show, who beat Benoit on Smackdown, loses to Brock - then what does this all mean for Benoit? If 3 men who beat Benoit all lost to Brock, then what are the odds that Benoit will beat Brock? The fans see this, it's not rocket science, and if Benoit all-of-a-sudden gets put in a feud with Brock, the fans won't believe it. They won't get emotionally involved and invested into it because it defies the WWE's universes own internal logic.

 

Ok, so who would your main eventers be?

 

I'll make this easy. Here's who wouldn't be my main eventers: HBK (not believable), Nash, Big Show, Hogan. I won't draw up my own federation because that takes way too much time and thought - my initial comment still stands - a company w. the power and money that the WWE has shouldn't be giving their fans second and third rate talent.

 

What storylines would they be in? What the fuck would you do after all three or four of the 'smark darlings' had wrestled each other?

 

I said I wouldn't have *bad* wrestlers who needed to be carried, I didn't say "I would just have Benoit, Guerrero, Angle and Jericho in the main event".

 

You still need big names like Austin, Undertaker & Hogan or no one will watch.

 

Yeah, and?

 

Sure, you might please some jobbers that don't matter like the posters on these forums, but how much of the audience does that make up? Fire some random tech backstage, guess you just made that money back.

 

There's a misconception that fans won't accept anyone but the top stars... where does this come from? The key is making new top stars.

[Guest Coffey]

Not really. Bob Sapp (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm, Weight 350 lbs / 159 kg) lost to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm Weight 231 lbs / 105 kg) dispite being 120lbs heavier.  Bob Sapp was bigger and stronger than Nog and dominated the fight.  He totally manhandled Nogueria (Nog would go for the mount and get thrown off)... but then he got tired and Nog caught him in an armbar.

 

Fedor Emelianenko (Height 6'0 Weight 233 lbs) beat Semmy Schilt (Height 6'10 Weight 256 lbs) just by GnP.

 

They both won by Technique and capitalized on their opponents flaws.  The same could have been said of Benoit (and in their match a few months ago inwhich Benoit won, it was played up like that)

 

When & what as this? Some UFC slop shit? Andre was undefeated his whole fucking career until Hogan beat him. Andre sure as hell wasn't 'technical.' Big difference between 6'3" and 350lbs & 7'0" or so & 450+ lbs. You proved nothing with all that psychobabble bullshit. Just trying to throw out some statistics that don't mean dick.

 

Suspension of Disbelief is a strange thing.  I'm a fan of Buffy and Angel yet they do things that would never happen in real life, I don't complain.  Here's why: In the universe that they established and which I accepted, what they do there is possible.  However, if they do something that doesn't make sense in the universe which they created, then I would cry foul... ESPECIALLY in relation to the characters created.  The WWE has their own universe which is more centred near reality.  What they did with Benoit (and what they might do with Benoit) does not make sense within their own established universe.  John Cena, a man who got dominated by the Undertaker and needed the help of 3 other men, beat Benoit clean.  John Cena then lost to Brock Lesnar.  Does that mean Benoit would lose to Brock, not necessarily.  But then Kurt Angle lost to Brock as well, and Benoit lost to Kurt.  And if Big Show, who beat Benoit on Smackdown, loses to Brock - then what does this all mean for Benoit?  If 3 men who beat Benoit all lost to Brock, then what are the odds that Benoit will beat Brock?  The fans see this, it's not rocket science, and if Benoit all-of-a-sudden gets put in a feud with Brock, the fans won't believe it.  They won't get emotionally involved and invested into it because it defies the WWE's universes own internal logic.

 

So people aren't allowed to have good days and bad days or does that go against your personal 'suspense of belief.' Besides, what do they think if Benoit beats him? There goes that hypothesis. Grabbing for straws.

 

I'll make this easy.  Here's who wouldn't be my main eventers: HBK (not believable), Nash, Big Show, Hogan.  I won't draw up my own federation because that takes way too much time and thought - my initial comment still stands - a company w. the power and money that the WWE has shouldn't be giving their fans second and third rate talent.

 

That was actually a rhetorical question, but whatever. I mean, you have to use different people eventually, which they will be forced to eventually. People die. People get hurt/sick. People retire. It has to happen eventually. Now you might now enjoy whom get selected to be the new ladder climber, but you don't really matter as a fan do you?

 

I said I wouldn't have *bad* wrestlers who needed to be carried, I didn't say "I would just have Benoit, Guerrero, Angle and Jericho in the main event".

 

You didn't answer the second part of the rhetorical question that you already started to answer...

 

Yeah, and?

 

As long as you know.

 

There's a misconception that fans won't accept anyone but the top stars... where does this come from?  The key is making new top stars.

 

Which will happen..though you won't see it because you obviously boycott every WWE show. Interesting seeing as how you always know what's going on in the wrestling world. Damn, I guess you just read what happened because that's OBVIOUSLY the same thing as watching it. I mean, why would you even TRY to argue a wrestling show that you haven't seen against someone who has seen it? That'd be about equivalent to arguing a book where someone read it through and you read the back cover.

 

Feel free to break it apart and use your awesome bold text some more. I got all night to break down your shit too.

[Guest the pinjockey]

Not really. Bob Sapp (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm, Weight 350 lbs / 159 kg) lost to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm Weight 231 lbs / 105 kg) dispite being 120lbs heavier.  Bob Sapp was bigger and stronger than Nog and dominated the fight.  He totally manhandled Nogueria (Nog would go for the mount and get thrown off)... but then he got tired and Nog caught him in an armbar.

 

Fedor Emelianenko (Height 6'0 Weight 233 lbs) beat Semmy Schilt (Height 6'10 Weight 256 lbs) just by GnP.

 

They both won by Technique and capitalized on their opponents flaws.  The same could have been said of Benoit (and in their match a few months ago inwhich Benoit won, it was played up like that)

 

 

 

When & what as this? Some UFC slop shit? Andre was undefeated his whole fucking career until Hogan beat him. Andre sure as hell wasn't 'technical.' Big difference between 6'3" and 350lbs & 7'0" or so & 450+ lbs. You proved nothing with all that psychobabble bullshit. Just trying to throw out some statistics that don't mean dick.

 

So you argue that small beating big is unrealistic, he counters with real fights where small beats big and you counter with a prowrestler who went undefeated?

 

If a shootfighter can beat a big man a pro wrestler going over a big man isnt too unrealistic.

[Guest Coffey]

Not really. Bob Sapp (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm, Weight 350 lbs / 159 kg) lost to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (Height 6'3 / 190.5 cm Weight 231 lbs / 105 kg) dispite being 120lbs heavier.  Bob Sapp was bigger and stronger than Nog and dominated the fight.  He totally manhandled Nogueria (Nog would go for the mount and get thrown off)... but then he got tired and Nog caught him in an armbar.

 

Fedor Emelianenko (Height 6'0 Weight 233 lbs) beat Semmy Schilt (Height 6'10 Weight 256 lbs) just by GnP.

 

They both won by Technique and capitalized on their opponents flaws.  The same could have been said of Benoit (and in their match a few months ago inwhich Benoit won, it was played up like that)

 

 

 

When & what as this? Some UFC slop shit? Andre was undefeated his whole fucking career until Hogan beat him. Andre sure as hell wasn't 'technical.' Big difference between 6'3" and 350lbs & 7'0" or so & 450+ lbs. You proved nothing with all that psychobabble bullshit. Just trying to throw out some statistics that don't mean dick.

 

So you argue that small beating big is unrealistic, he counters with real fights where small beats big and you counter with a prowrestler who went undefeated?

 

If a shootfighter can beat a big man a pro wrestler going over a big man isnt too unrealistic.

Shootfighting isn't predetermined. When fights are predetermined I feel that it's unrealistic for the "underdog" to win. Does that make me wrong? Nope. It makes me have a differance of opinion. GOD FORBID! It's not like you added anything to the goddamn topic to being with so I shouldn't have even replied to your ass. I mean, you're such a rebel and obviously went WAY out on a limb to agree with something that RRR said. God forbid anyone else try to play Devil's Advocate.

[Guest the pinjockey]

Well if I went and played Devil's Advocate wouldn't I just be agreeing with you and still not being a rebel.

 

I love this whole idea if you agree with someone you don't have opinions of your own. By this point in topics almost every side of the arguement can be made.

 

I don't see why the matches being predetermined should go in their favor. If anything in the world of make believe the underdog wins the matches and feuds more often.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

When & what as this? Some UFC slop shit? Andre was undefeated his whole fucking career until Hogan beat him. Andre sure as hell wasn't 'technical.' Big difference between 6'3" and 350lbs & 7'0" or so & 450+ lbs. You proved nothing with all that psychobabble bullshit. Just trying to throw out some statistics that don't mean dick.

 

Ok, you're joking right? My attention to internet sarcasm is a bit lacking...

 

So people aren't allowed to have good days and bad days or does that go against your personal 'suspense of belief.'

 

Benoit lost to 3 different men clean who each lost to Brock clean. Benoit must be having a lot of bad days... That's a cop-out anyways since they haven't made light of it.

 

Besides, what do they think if Benoit beats him? There goes that hypothesis. Grabbing for straws.

 

Then Benoits title reign won't be successful because they won't find Benoit winning to be believable. They will say "yeah right" and not bother with it. To be a credible champion you must be a credible challenger... Unless they play up the underdog aspect, which they haven't so far and Benoit has already been in 3 or so title feuds. The fans see Brock as a credible champion because when he got his title shot he was built well.

 

That was actually a rhetorical question, but whatever. I mean, you have to use different people eventually, which they will be forced to eventually. People die. People get hurt/sick. People retire. It has to happen eventually. Now you might now enjoy whom get selected to be the new ladder climber, but you don't really matter as a fan do you?

 

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Who uses rhetorical questions?

 

All fans matter. Different does not have to be bad.

 

You didn't answer the second part of the rhetorical question that you already started to answer...

 

Which part? The storylines part or what I would do after they all wrestled each other part?

 

As long as you know.

 

I know that the 'big names' are important. But I like to look to the future and I know that *new stars* are just as, if not more, important.

 

Which will happen..

 

Yeah - by default -, but when? A year? 2 years? Guess what? It should have happened 3 years ago.

 

though you won't see it because you obviously boycott every WWE show.

 

Yep.

 

Interesting seeing as how you always know what's going on in the wrestling world. Damn, I guess you just read what happened because that's OBVIOUSLY the same thing as watching it.

 

I still enjoy analysing wrestling, and it's not the same thing. I can tell you the scores in all the latest hockey games - but I do not watch them.

 

I mean, why would you even TRY to argue a wrestling show that you haven't seen against someone who has seen it?

 

I like to look at things on a term by term basis, you tell me where I am wrong in my specific points and we'll discuss it further. 2 years from now I won't be talking about the WWE at all, but everything they do is still fresh to me right now.

 

That'd be about equivalent to arguing a book where someone read it through and you read the back cover.

 

But with the WWE it's more like I read the same book as you, but with blue ink.

 

Feel free to break it apart and use your awesome bold text some more. I got all night to break down your shit too.

 

Hey, were you really joking up there with my Pride Analogy?

[Guest Austin3164life]

This is a good thread.

[Guest Coffey]

Well if I went and played Devil's Advocate wouldn't I just be agreeing with you and still not being a rebel.

 

I love this whole idea if you agree with someone you don't have opinions of your own.  By this point in topics almost every side of the arguement can be made.

 

Downhome + myself = less than everyone else. That pretty much makes us both the underdogs and the devil's advocates by default. I'm just saying that a lot of the people on these forums DON'T think for themselves. Instead they watch a show than base their opinion of certain things based upon what someone else said that they read after the show. Scott Keith has influenced a lot of people. That's all I'm saying. It seems that some people don't bother to reply to certain posts *cough cough* until they have read that someone else said some shit. Then they chime in to say "Yeah! That's right! Yeah! Baaaaa <--sheep noise" *cough cough*

 

I don't see why the matches being predetermined should go in their favor.  If anything in the world of make believe the underdog wins the matches and feuds more often.

 

I guess you missed that my personal opinion part.

 

When fights are predetermined I feel that it's unrealistic for the "underdog" to win. Does that make me wrong? Nope. It makes me have a differance of opinion

 

I couldn't have expected you to actually READ my post before clicking that reply button to retort though, could I? Of course, had you just said "In my opinion" before making that statement, this arguement would have never came up. I'm sure that's "what you meant" thought right?

[Guest Austin3164life]

I'm just saying that a lot of the people on these forums DON'T think for themselves.

 

How would you know that? I'm not trying to rip on you, as I feel that your opinion is yours and you have a right to it, but saying that no one thinks for themselves because they agree with a majority is a pretty dumb thing to say, no offense.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Jago, you said "If you wanna bring 'realism' into this, Big Show should've beat Benoit in five seconds and should be an undefeated monster...kindof like Andre the Giant." I gave you examples of where a MUCH smaller man beat a MUCH bigger man and I gave you how they won - that could be transferable to Big Show and Benoit. Am I saying that Benoit would beat Big Show in real life? No. I am just saying that it's possible/believable because instances like that have happened before "in reality"... It's just a matter of how they do it.

 

Andre wasn't undefeated.

 

When fights are predetermined I feel that it's unrealistic for the "underdog" to win.

 

You might want to explain your "opinion" a little more rather than just saying that it's your opinion. How can you find something "unrealistic" when it happens in REAL LIFE??

[Guest Coffey]

Ok, you're joking right?  My attention to internet sarcasm is a bit lacking...

 

Why would I be joking? I've never heard of any of the guys that you named before. It's not like they show up randomly on my local news. So how do I know that you didn't just make all that shit up? Besides, it didn't really add anything. There are exceptions to every single rule of all time. What goes up must come down. Well what if the object going up goes into outspace? Guess it's not coming back down is it? Damn, guess that makes the whole goddamn hypothesis wrong.

 

Benoit lost to 3 different men clean who each lost to Brock clean.  Benoit must be having a lot of bad days... That's a cop-out anyways since they haven't made light of it.

 

Maybe Brock is just having good days? Maybe, since Benoit has been around A LOT longer than Brock he is easier to scout? Oh no, that would probably go against your 'suspension of belief.' Don't wanna do that now do we.

 

Then Benoits title reign won't be successful because they won't find Benoit winning to be believable.  They will say "yeah right" and not bother with it.  To be a credible champion you must be a credible challenger... Unless they play up the underdog aspect, which they haven't so far and Benoit has already been in 3 or so title feuds.  The fans see Brock as a credible champion because when he got his title shot he was built well.

 

So, if Benoit loses he's fucked. If Benoit wins he's fucked? Sounds pretty fickle to me. It sounds to me like you just want to fucking bitch for the sake of fucking bitching. They might as well fire fucking Benoit. I mean, it's SO obvious that his career is over. I mean, he lose THREE COMPLETE PREDETERMINED MATCHES! Fuck, what was he thinking getting into the professional wrestling career. I mean, I'm sure that he thought to himself "What if I get booked to lose!"

 

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?  Who uses rhetorical questions?

 

Yeah, it means I wasn't looking for you to answer that particular question. Guess that went over your head. Who uses them? Well apparently I do.

 

Which part?  The storylines part or what I would do after they all wrestled each other part?

 

Actually, I was talking about the roster part. I'd like to see you fill 6 hours of wrestling time a week. Yeah, then do it for a month. Then do it for a PPV. Now do it for years without ever sucking. Eventually you're going to run outta ideas. That appears to be what the WWE is going through right now...which is why they are recycling things that have worked in the past. If nothing else it should give them time to think of new things, no?

 

I know that the 'big names' are important.  But I like to look to the future and I know that *new stars* are just as, if not more, important.

 

We're pretty much in agreement there. However, you have to USE to big names. You can't just throw Hogan on a card anywhere and make the main event whatever you want it to be. It has to be what the fans want too. That involves building guys up. Yeah, you can argue that the WWE never does that, however Brock & Angle came outta nowhere...

 

Yeah - by default -, but when?  A year?  2 years?  Guess what? It should have happened 3 years ago.

 

Actually, it should always be happening. It's easier to type about than to actually do it though, don't ya think?

 

Yep.

 

Which is why you shouldn't try to argue shows with people when you haven't seen the shit they are talking about.

 

I still enjoy analysing wrestling, and it's not the same thing.  I can tell you the scores in all the latest hockey games - but I do not watch them.

 

I enjoy analysing wrestling with other people who analyse it. If you didn't watch the show, what are you analysing? The text you read? Damn, hope they don't forget any commas! Your example was AWFUL as well. If you know the score of a hockey game, you can't analyse shit. You can tell me who won, but can you tell me who scored on who and when? You really hammered that point in there champ!

 

I like to look at things on a term by term basis, you tell me where I am wrong in my specific points and we'll discuss it further.  2 years from now I won't be talking about the WWE at all, but everything they do is still fresh to me right now.

 

You don't LOOK at shit. You've admitted that you don't watch anymore. You look at some text maybe. You look at a computer screen. Where are you wrong? Shit, where are you right? All you ever say are things that everyone else had said before you. It's not like you ever bring anything to the table. By the time you say some negative shit, everyone else has already heard it from the LAW and read it from Scott Keith. It's easy to build up material when everyone is trying to achieve the same goal as everyone else. It's not so easy when you're on the other side of the spectrum. I guess that's where the "two brains are better than one" phrase came from, no? Oh wait, we determined earlier that all cliches are obsolete because you provided two or three scenario's of a big man losing.

 

But with the WWE it's more like I read the same book as you, but with blue ink.

 

It's more like you're reading a biased version of it. God forbid you watch and form your own opinions based on that. Instead, you read about it, from a negative perspective, then proceed to remain negative. You're so cool by boycotting the WWE. God forbid you stick with them through the thich & the thin. "I have, I got tired of waiting" blah blah blah. Save that shit for someone who gives a fuck.

 

Hey, were you really joking up there with my Pride Analogy?

 

Was your mom really joking when she told your dad she was preggors?