Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

Itssoeasy

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I think the Nobel thing was a straight up powerbomb on the outside, used as an angle to retire Jamie.

That was straight up scary, Noble's selling was masterful

Oh yeah I remember that. I don't think the razors edge is any more dangerous that any other wrestling move. If done by someone who doesn't know what they are doing it's dangerous.

ShagNastii

I think the main reason the High Cross was dropped had nothing to do with its safety.

It's a really impressive, devastating move but was no doubt lumbered. The set up was slow and doing the move on larger guys would be troublesome.

Bit like Ambrose when he dropped the oringinal DDs. Didn't have that "snap" impact that is pretty much a necessity for finishers nowadays.

SureYWouldntYa

There's worse moves for a finisher

How many people throw a forearm in a match yet a springboard one from AJ Styles is a finisher, I'd rather see something a little more devastating that looks like a finisher and is treated and protected as such

It's a pity Joe doesn't use the muscle buster anymore, I'd love for him to have used it against Brock to give that moment where you think Joe has it for sure

leggo

I don't know why it was dropped tbh but I'd much rather take a standard powerbomb than that. With a powerbomb it's a straight back bump (though the person giving it can add a lot of force to it if they want), Razor's Edge onto the knees is a handy, short landing but the running one where you're just kinda thrown at the end has potential to get messy.

Kolido

I always thought Hogans running leg drop was one of the most underwhelming finishers in wrestling.

jaykhunter

Better or worse than Warrior's big splash off the canvas?

One of my buddies absolutely sandbagged it when he found out that was UW's finisher :P

Ruat Caelum

Looking up WWE PPVs on wikipedia .... and was a bit surprised to learn that the wrestler to appear on most pay per view events is Kane, who has appeared on 170 pay per view cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events#Most_PPV_matches

PTH2009

So WWE will be on Sky Sports action or arena ???

Don't really watch much soccer, dont watch F1 or Cricket so I will only subscribe too Action/Arena and Main Event

I wonder how much the WWE network has killed PPVs on Sky Box Office ??

IncognitoMan

Has to have killed the ppvs almost 100%. I know there's probably still a few lunatics paying 25 quid for some but it has to be almost non-existent. As for buying separate channels, what are the prices like in Ireland when you don't have the normal sky package? I remember seeing the difference between owning 2/3 channels and the full set was very little and in the end you were as well get the lot?

Angron

Ruat Caelum wrote: »

Looking up WWE PPVs on wikipedia .... and was a bit surprised to learn that the wrestler to appear on most pay per view events is Kane, who has appeared on 170 pay per view cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events#Most_PPV_matches

I was more surprised to see Christian in the top 10 given his time in TNA, and that he hasn't had a match since 2014.

ERG89

jaykhunter wrote:

Better or worse than Warrior's big splash off the canvas?

Speaking of which how ridiculous was it thst Ryback was suggesting that the original plan at WrestleMania 30 was a match between him & Warrior.
His podcast seems to be him talking about a reality that exists in his own mind.

beakerjoe

Ruat Caelum wrote: »

Looking up WWE PPVs on wikipedia .... and was a bit surprised to learn that the wrestler to appear on most pay per view events is Kane, who has appeared on 170 pay per view cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events#Most_PPV_matches

I wouldnt be surprised, hes been around since 95 and never had a big injury.

Very reliable and decent worker with an over gimmick for most part

leggo

beakerjoe wrote: »

Very reliable and decent worker with an over gimmick for most part

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but a random thought of mine is how everyone always flips their opinion on Kane and it's always near-unanimous. When he's not active, the above opinion is what everyone says. When he's active in a big storyline, everyone is like "Ugh why is KANE getting this in this day and age he's so lame?!" When he's in a midcard storyline, everyone says "Does anyone remember what Kane was like when he first debuted? Look at him now, what a waste!" Oddly, the only time everyone unanimously loves him these days is when he does comedy!

Lord TSC

ERG89 wrote: »

Speaking of which how ridiculous was it thst Ryback was suggesting that the original plan at WrestleMania 30 was a match between him & Warrior.
His podcast seems to be him talking about a reality that exists in his own mind.

Ryback has carved out a niche for himself as the guy who spouts off the most ridiculous nonsense and gets attention for it.

beakerjoe

leggo wrote: »

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but a random thought of mine is how everyone always flips their opinion on Kane and it's always near-unanimous. When he's not active, the above opinion is what everyone says. When he's active in a big storyline, everyone is like "Ugh why is KANE getting this in this day and age he's so lame?!" When he's in a midcard storyline, everyone says "Does anyone remember what Kane was like when he first debuted? Look at him now, what a waste!" Oddly, the only time everyone unanimously loves him these days is when he does comedy!

I dont think Kane was ever a great wrestle to watch in the ring a side from his many gimmick matches. Thats the sad truth. He was a poor mans Taker in between the ring. In the early part of his Kane Run (say until he took off his mask) he had a great look and presence about him that masked (no pun intended) his in ring work.

He has got by over the years due to his character, which has always been questionable at best since 2000. But Vince always liked him and some fans always had a soft spot for him. He never got injured, which helps a huge deal.

But while his in ring work was always average at best and his serious character way past his sell by date after 17 years, his ability to deliver comedy has kept him relevant as a charcter whetehr its the side kick in Team Hell No or the Bill Lumberg esque authority figure.

I dont want to see Kane wrestle ever again but i dont mind seeing him on screen as a character.

beakerjoe

Lord TSC wrote: »

Ryback has carved out a niche for himself as the guy who spouts off the most ridiculous nonsense and gets attention for it.

Id say he takes a backstage idea (you know one thats just thrown out by a writer at a meeting) that was shot down for being a non runner like Warrior v Ryback for example and runs with it in his own head.

sky88

from the bits ive heard of his podcast ryback is as delusional as they come.

leggo

beakerjoe wrote: »

I dont think Kane was ever a great wrestle to watch in the ring a side from his many gimmick matches. Thats the sad truth. He was a poor mans Taker in between the ring. In the early part of his Kane Run (say until he took off his mask) he had a great look and presence about him that masked (no pun intended) his in ring work.

He has got by over the years due to his character, which has always been questionable at best since 2000. But Vince always liked him and some fans always had a soft spot for him. He never got injured, which helps a huge deal.

But while his in ring work was always average at best and his serious character way past his sell by date after 17 years, his ability to deliver comedy has kept him relevant as a charcter whetehr its the side kick in Team Hell No or the Bill Lumberg esque authority figure.

I dont want to see Kane wrestle ever again but i dont mind seeing him on screen as a character.

Oh I'm a complete hypocrite like, I tend to flip my opinion on him as much as the next guy depending on what he's doing. I can't help but harp back to when I liked him when I see him getting easily jobbed to midcard guys, but I can't take him seriously as a main eventer either, and I really enjoy his comedy timing. The only consistent view I'd have of Kane would be that he's extremely underrated, a definite Hall of Famer and I absolutely see why WWE still employ and use him (see also: Big Show and Mark Henry). The latter is how I feel as about him as a man and as someone who tries to judge these people as performers on quality of performance alone and separate to booking, the former is how I feel as a fan being asked to invest time in him. So I'm as guilty as the next guy there, I just find it funny point out the fickleness and inconsistencies we as fans can have while still being expected to be taken seriously.

beakerjoe

leggo wrote: »

Oh I'm a complete hypocrite like, I tend to flip my opinion on him as much as the next guy depending on what he's doing. I can't help but harp back to when I liked him when I see him getting easily jobbed to midcard guys, but I can't take him seriously as a main eventer either, and I really enjoy his comedy timing. The only consistent view I'd have of Kane would be that he's extremely underrated, a definite Hall of Famer and I absolutely see why WWE still employ and use him (see also: Big Show and Mark Henry). The latter is how I feel as about him as a man and as someone who tries to judge these people as performers on quality of performance alone and separate to booking, the former is how I feel as a fan being asked to invest time in him. So I'm as guilty as the next guy there, I just find it funny point out the fickleness and inconsistencies we as fans can have while still being expected to be taken seriously.

I think WWE found great use of him in Team Hell No.

It gave him a team, so it could hide his flaws by allowing his Partner to do most of the work.

His Partner was a man on his way up, Daniel Bryan. I may get a lot of flack for saying this but DB benefited greatly by getting the rub off Kane, a household name to many casual fans.

Kane got to show a differnet side to him and in turn his chemistry with Bryan was excelllent. Both have great comic timing.

He was steady in the mid card, the perfect position of an older star on his way down. He was able to get others over and take the falls for DB.

He was positioned perfectly in that role.

When DB went to main event stardom, he was the obvious choice for a feud based on their history and the timing of the feud (the filler months after WM30). Plus he was obviously positioned to be fodder for the new champ. It made sense. But it did have its downsides as Kane cant work long matches anymore plus D-Bry himself was injured.

WinnyThePoo

Big show was a handy side kick for the Miz a few years ago. That's the position I would want these in.

billion dollar baby

Going back to the world title debate for a second. Would any Women's titles be considered as World titles?

I think All Japan Women, during it's lifespan, had a Women's title that had a lineage dating back to the 1930s with Mildred Burke. I think surely that has to be considered a World title?

In the modern era the WWE Women's Championship / Diva's Championships may have been considered a bit of a joke at some points but they were certainly the most valued titles for women at that point in the industry. The current format of having two Women's titles does dilute that somewhat but again they are the most valuable Women's belts in the industry at the moment. The fact that there is no major Joshi promotion in Japan means that every other Women's title is considered an Indy title.

Not really familiar with Lucha wrestling so unsure if AAA of CMLL have Women's belts that would be considered World titles.

Independent wrestling has had a huge resurgence recently so maybe the Shimmer championship would have the best shout at being considered a World title too I guess that depends on your definition of a World title.

Thoughts?

Omackeral

TNA knockouts title during Awesome Kong vs Gail Kim must be in the hat in that discussion.

Itssoeasy

billion dollar baby wrote: »

Going back to the world title debate for a second. Would any Women's titles be considered as World titles?

I think All Japan Women, during it's lifespan, had a Women's title that had a lineage dating back to the 1930s with Mildred Burke. I think surely that has to be considered a World title?

In the modern era the WWE Women's Championship / Diva's Championships may have been considered a bit of a joke at some points but they were certainly the most valued titles for women at that point in the industry. The current format of having two Women's titles does dilute that somewhat but again they are the most valuable Women's belts in the industry at the moment. The fact that there is no major Joshi promotion in Japan means that every other Women's title is considered an Indy title.

Not really familiar with Lucha wrestling so unsure if AAA of CMLL have Women's belts that would be considered World titles.

Independent wrestling has had a huge resurgence recently so maybe the Shimmer championship would have the best shout at being considered a World title too I guess that depends on your definition of a World title.

Thoughts?

The WWF women's title (1956-2010 version)traces its roots directly back to the NWA women's title which moolah won in a battle royal after mildred Burke and June Byers had their little incident which is a fascinating story about how shady pro wrestling was then.

Now the whole WWE story about moolah being undefeated for 28 years is actually false, and she did lose it on three occasions(off the top of my head)and won it back and moolah then sold the physical belt to the then WWF in 1983 when the WWF left the NWA for the last time. So the lineage of the WWF women's title that trish won 7 times is just a branch off of the NWA title.

And the NWA women's championship is still in existence and the current champion is jazz.

I'm a huge fan of the history of wrestling(yes I know it's history of a sport not on the level but still) and you can't talk about the world titles both men and women of the major US promotions down the years without mentioning the NWA as the male world titles of the AWA, WWE, WCW all broke away from the nwa title in 1960,1963, and 1993 respectively.

Pro wrestling history in the US after a certain point all goes back to the national wrestling alliance. Every major promotion of the past was once apart of it.

Frank O. Pinion

Debating about the legitimacy of wrestling titles is like debating about the legitimacy of the world title in the Rocky franchise.

beakerjoe

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Debating about the legitimacy of wrestling titles is like debating about the legitimacy of the world title in the Rocky franchise.

What about The Simpsons? I always felt Drederick Tattum always carried the belt well.

Belts always depen on who carrys it and how that person is portrayed as a Champion.

The holder makes the Title.

Ruat Caelum

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Debating about the legitimacy of wrestling titles is like debating about the legitimacy of the world title in the Rocky franchise.

To be honest, it's about the same as debating the legitimacy of most world titles in professional boxing (and after last year's Olympics, amateur boxing too).

leggo

I love empty, meaningless kayfabe conversations! Give me them over "what does actually this MEAN for the business though??" When it gets to discussing backstage/business stuff, spade a spade a solid 80% of the content (no matter how well thought out) is guesswork because none of us have been backstage in WWE and don't actually know the people involved (meeting them for an autograph or interviewing them doesn't count). And tensions always run high when that becomes apparent because nobody likes their opinion questioned. But in kayfabe chats, everyone gets a say because everyone knows enough about the on-screen stuff and you can get really deep and interesting as a result.

Omackeral

Anyone fancy discussing the prestige of Tag Team titles? I was flabbergasted when WWE unified them back in 2010 and continued the lineage of the World Tag Team Titles that were created in 2003 on Smackdown, in favour of the original WWE Tag Titles they had going back to the 60's (I think).

Which WWE brand's tag title would you put above the other at the minute and why?

In New Japan, what's the prestige difference between the jr and hvyweight tag titles in your opinion?

leggo

I'd say the NXT Tag Titles have more prestige than Raw or SmackDown. The SmackDown belts have been booked more sensibly since they were introduced, but didn't get a Mania match whereas Raw did, and big teams seem to be going to Raw. So same as usual: the SmackDown belts are better but Raw gets preferential treatment.

In NJPW, the tag belts are the one downside of the promotion. For a guy who spent his career as a tag specialist, Gedo seems shockingly lost when booking for those divisions (the NEVER 6-man belts are a joke, I can't even tell you who holds them right now).

Oddly, the tag division is probably the one area TNA/GFW outshines both WWE and NJPW. Such a shame as there are super talented teams out there today.

Angron

Main thing I hated about unifying the belts was replacing the old ones with the really ugly ones that looked like pennies. The current designs are at least a bit less ugly, but they don't come close to looking as good as the original World and WWE tag titles.