Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

krudler

jaykhunter wrote: »

RE:Michael Cole, he's a very smooth play by play guy and a clear presenter but he has absolutely no credibility. Any aul shíte with Khali he's laughing his arse off and everything's the greatest match of all time, combine that with hocking the App and #WhatHashtagIsThisSegment, I automatically disregard everything he has to say. It's Vince's fault, but I think he's an empty shell, a mindless shill.

I met him in Orlando and he was a bit of a dick too. When he wants to be he can be good and he's come a long way since the attitude days as an interviewer but yeah the majority of what he's told to ram down our throats comes from Vince. It was like that worked shoot promo that Joey Styles did that time, they want people who are different but the same, know about wrestling but dont use move names and instead use all the corporate lingo.

GTR63

The new Rumble built up vid isn't a patch on the old one they used for a few years. Where was Bushwacker Luke getting eliminated & never breaking character for a second of it.

Reganio 2

Only seen the triple h segment where the crowd chant Daniel Bryan now. That is incredible Bryan's face just makes it you can see he is genuinely shocked and happy and all the other wrestlers smiling as well, great moment.

Omackeral

My father used to call Jobbers 'Wallies'. My mate used to call them 'ordinary guys'. What did ya'll call them?

Hematocyte

Omackeral wrote: »

My father used to call Jobbers 'Wallies'. My mate used to call them 'ordinary guys'. What did ya'll call them?

I remember (before I realized was amateur wrestling actually was) that I used to call jobbers 'amateurs'

I think I thought this because I'd always watched football and in things like the FA Cup you'd often have the best teams paired up against semi-pro or amateur teams (where, like wrestling, the amateur team would generally be destroyed).

So when I was a kid I literally thought the jobbers were just 'amateurs' (possibly just local guys from the town the match was on in' and it was 'amateur vs pro' (ie the susperstar) and that's why it'd always be a squash.

I didn't even realize that these jobbers had had to work just to get to the level where they wore the stupid ring attire and got squashed every week.

jimmychung

Jobbers.. I can't recall what I called them. It's actually annoying me now that I can't. Maybe it was as juvenile as 'crap wrestlers' My dad used to joke that if you look in the crowd you'd see the 'jobbers' wife and kids in the crowd holding his clothes till he gets back. Still cracks me up when I think of it.

beakerjoe

jimmychung wrote: »

Jobbers.. I can't recall what I called them. It's actually annoying me now that I can't. Maybe it was as juvenile as 'crap wrestlers' My dad used to joke that if you look in the crowd you'd see the 'jobbers' wife and kids in the crowd holding his clothes till he gets back. Still cracks me up when I think of it.

Me and my pop just called them nobodies in the early 90's.

rickydreamboat

Too much wrestling....

As ridiculous as it sounds as a wrestling fan I actually think there is too much WWE wrestling produced weekly, therefore over-saturating the market and leading to the current problems with the product (trading meaningless wins and losses, rematch after rematch etc..) Imagine if let's say, The Walking Dead for example was on 3 times per week. How would it stay compelling?

Positive note, the quality of wrestlers in WWE today is excellent in terms of diversity, athleticism etc. Negative note, most (not all) of the characters are so bland and underwritten they cannot maintain my interest in storytelling, inside or outside of the ring.

Mr.Saturn

rickydreamboat wrote: »

Too much wrestling....

As ridiculous as it sounds as a wrestling fan I actually think there is too much WWE wrestling produced weekly, therefore over-saturating the market and leading to the current problems with the product (trading meaningless wins and losses, rematch after rematch etc..) Imagine if let's say, The Walking Dead for example was on 3 times per week. How would it stay compelling?

Positive note, the quality of wrestlers in WWE today is excellent in terms of diversity, athleticism etc. Negative note, most (not all) of the characters are so bland and underwritten they cannot maintain my interest in storytelling, inside or outside of the ring.

'Underwritten' is still somewhat kind. With few key exceptions, 99.4% of heels in the last decade were pushed through the curtain with no other direction than 'be aggressive'. Oddly, it was the same advice they gave to the faces.

the groutch

GTR63 wrote: »

The new Rumble built up vid isn't a patch on the old one they used for a few years. Where was Bushwacker Luke getting eliminated & never breaking character for a second of it.

I miss not having The Fink there, when he said "and now it is time for the Royal Rumble match" he got you legit excited about it.

Hematocyte

rickydreamboat wrote: »

Too much wrestling....

As ridiculous as it sounds as a wrestling fan I actually think there is too much WWE wrestling produced weekly, therefore over-saturating the market and leading to the current problems with the product (trading meaningless wins and losses, rematch after rematch etc..) Imagine if let's say, The Walking Dead for example was on 3 times per week. How would it stay compelling?

Actually I was wondering about that too. I've only got back into wrestling in the past year or so, and as such the WWE is still a bit novel to me atm. So right now I watch all the PPV's/Raws/Smackdowns (and even watched TNA Impact until I dropped it fairly recently).

Do the veteran wrestling fans here watch all that or do they just skip smackdown for instance? I was kind of thinking of dropping smackdown from my schedule myself as it appears nothing really happens on it in terms of pushing the storyline along.

Angron

rickydreamboat wrote: »

Too much wrestling....

As ridiculous as it sounds as a wrestling fan I actually think there is too much WWE wrestling produced weekly, therefore over-saturating the market and leading to the current problems with the product (trading meaningless wins and losses, rematch after rematch etc..) Imagine if let's say, The Walking Dead for example was on 3 times per week. How would it stay compelling?

Positive note, the quality of wrestlers in WWE today is excellent in terms of diversity, athleticism etc. Negative note, most (not all) of the characters are so bland and underwritten they cannot maintain my interest in storytelling, inside or outside of the ring.

I think it wouldn't be as bad if we still had the true brand split. People would stay on the one show bar the odd one off stuff and it'd be better (if only marginally).

gerrybbadd

I would consider myself a veteran fan, having watched since the 80s. I'd watch Raw, Smackdown, NXT & PPVS. However, Sky Plus is a great blessing. Especially for Raw with the breaks every 3.5 minutes, and Smackdown for the Raw Recaps, and shíte From the Vault matches (I hate when they show matches from recent history)

gnfnrhead

I've been watching since I could sit up, so '88-ish, and I only watch Raw and PPV's from WWE. I get my quality wrestling from other promotions.

gerrybbadd

NXT is WWE's best wrestling show weekly, by far!

Sirsok

rickydreamboat wrote: »

Too much wrestling....

As ridiculous as it sounds as a wrestling fan I actually think there is too much WWE wrestling produced weekly, therefore over-saturating the market and leading to the current problems with the product (trading meaningless wins and losses, rematch after rematch etc..) Imagine if let's say, The Walking Dead for example was on 3 times per week. How would it stay compelling?

Positive note, the quality of wrestlers in WWE today is excellent in terms of diversity, athleticism etc. Negative note, most (not all) of the characters are so bland and underwritten they cannot maintain my interest in storytelling, inside or outside of the ring.

The walking dead don't have up to 90 characters to write for....wwe should have writers for specific set off characters...have guys write for the lower division, main eventers etc...how could it get stale if you have creative minds writing for 10 characters at a time... Each wrestler only gets about at most 30 minutes of exposure that doesn't involve the physical aspect of wrestling, it should be easy.

Has Stephanie McMahon ever been attributed with writing anythin great in terms of booking

JrdanB

Sirsok wrote: »

wwe should have writers for specific set off characters...have guys write for the lower division, main eventers etc...

Totally agree with this, I've wondered it for ages - it makes perfect sense to do it that way.

They can structure it so that the newer, unproven guys write for the lower card while all the best are writing for the main event - with similar possibilities of moving up the card as a writer if you pull out an excellent Tyson Kidd/ Great Khali feud!

Machismo Fan

Was Undertaker a zombie before zombies were cool?

SureYWouldntYa

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Was Undertaker a zombie before zombies were cool?

yes thank god

Clemantis

I can't think of a worse name for a finish than The You're Welcome. The Girl Bye DDT is probably a close second.

CSF

Dlo Brown is a heavily underrated Attitude wrestler for me. Watching through a few old videos and Sky High is up there with my favourite finishers. I guess the Droz thing never did him any favours.

gnfnrhead

Under rated for me would be someone who doesn't get credit from anyone. D-lo got it from everyone bar WWE management. Under used would be a better description as I never see anyone down play D-lo. Nearly every time he gets brought up, it's mentioned how he deserved more.

CSF

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Under rated for me would be someone who doesn't get credit from anyone. D-lo got it from everyone bar WWE management. Under used would be a better description as I never see anyone down play D-lo. Nearly every time he gets brought up, it's mentioned how he deserved more.

Well maybe I'm going by how little I hear him talked about then. Probably that. Definitely one of the more entertaining in-ring workers of that time, moreso than a number of those from the upper card of that time.

Omackeral

The man is a former Euro-Continental champion, in other words, legend .

beakerjoe

In 98/99 he was on fire, was a fan of his chest. His feud with Xpac/Dx was great, Beat Hunter for the Euro gold as I recall too. Had a good feud with Jeff Jarrett but he kind of pettered out after that. The Droz incident killed his confidence and he never got back to those heights.

Was a fan of his chest protector too, was a unique look at the time

Riddle101

Meh, never cared for D'lo Brown at all. Didn't think he was anything special and I don't think he would have risen above the position he was in. Tbh there's not many attitude era mid-carders that I would have liked to have seen getting a push. A lot of them had memorable gimmicks but I just wouldn't be able to buy them as anything other then a mid-carder.

Take Big Bossman for instance. I actually liked that guy, he was good in his role as an enforcer for the Corporation and even later on he had some memorable moments(And i'm not talking his feud with Al Snow or Big Show). I still get kick out of watching him in old videos. But that being said, he never should have been pushed any higher then he was. Some people were just destined to be in the positions they held, and I include D'lo in that.

beakerjoe

Some people are great mid carders and would excel in a lower or supporting role. DLo was a great mid carder. never saw him as a top guy, but was sad to see him fall into jobber status with Heat only matches and Tag Teams that would go no where.

CSF

beakerjoe wrote: »

Some people are great mid carders and would excel in a lower or supporting role. DLo was a great mid carder. never saw him as a top guy, but was sad to see him fall into jobber status with Heat only matches and Tag Teams that would go no where.

Where do you think he would have fit in among the current roster? There aren't many there who I would prefer to watch work a match than D-Lo. With that said, his move set probably wouldn't be left alone as much as it was in that era. Can't think of a finisher I prefer to the Sky High though. That might be worth a thread of its own.

gnfnrhead

At worst, D-Lo is more useful than the likes of Ziggler and the Miz. He had a very good match with Angle last year despite being semi retired for years now. He could easily be the level of Ambrose, Rhodes, Christian etc.

beakerjoe

CSF wrote: »

Where do you think he would have fit in among the current roster? There aren't many there who I would prefer to watch work a match than D-Lo. With that said, his move set probably wouldn't be left alone as much as it was in that era. Can't think of a finisher I prefer to the Sky High though. That might be worth a thread of its own.

I was a fan of his Sky High, was a great "out of nowhere move". His frog splash (wityh or without the pro vest) was nice move that wasnt used by anyone on the roster.

Sadly if he was around this era Id imagine he would be in the R-Truth league of usefulness.