Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

QikBax

When is Waylon Mercy coming in as the leader of the Wyatts?

Hematocyte

krudler wrote: »

I think the product these days looks too "clean", I liked how messy certain aspects of it were years ago, the crowd sitting much closer to the ring, the railings, the lighting etc. It's kinda hard to describe but I much prefered the attitude era look to the HD one where everything is super shiny and all the sets look alike etc.

My own personal biography is that I used to watch WWF up to around 1990. Then totally lost touch it and came back to wrestling in about the last year or so. So I've basically got a gap of about 20 years where I didn't follow wrestling at all.

Lately I've been watching some of the stuff from around 1996-97 (sort of pre-attitude I guess) and it's far more exciting and entertaining than what's on offer today. I was actually surprised how good it is tbh. The fans were totally into it and were all trying to touch the wrestlers as though they were gods or something. They were really into it. The wrestlers were also very athletic and fast too, certainly much more impressive than what I had seen up to around 1990.

What I've already noticed that it was actually more 'violent' too. One match had a guy put a chair to his opponents head and then stomp on the chair in a way that looked pretty convincing. Another match had Mankind do that 'andre the giant getting tied up in the ropes' trick .... only Mankind did it with his head after running at the ropes. :eek: It was pretty amazing. I'm guessing they phased all this kind of stuff out as they didn't want kids copying it?

Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of this kind of stuff!

Ape Lincoln

The hangman between the ropes is a helluva spot. Tis how Mankind lost some of his ear.

Blame Kevin Dunn for WWE shows looking too glossy and overproduced. I miss when they had unique sets for the PPV entranceways, now it just like the wrestlers are walking out of a giant LCD screen.

GTR63

Watching TNA I can't help but think that Dixie styles her make up & eyeliner after Miss Piggy

B.A._Baracus

I really miss the uniquenes too. PPV sets were awesome back in the late 90s. Even WCW's ... Bash at the Beach being a person favourite.

Man wrestling has changed so much. Not for the better too.

BohsJohnny

Here's a random one for ya have been catching up on stuff i didn't get around to watching from last year in Japan and watched two Tajiri matches all i can say is when did he turn into a amazing technical wrestler,really good at counters and transitions into moves completely different to what i remember him like in WWE and ECW.

beakerjoe

Ah with The Streak and the untimely death of The Warrior, its brought wrestling into the watercooler discussions for people in my office who wouldnt be fans. Hearing some of the non fans thoughts on things is annoying me today to no end. Things that have annoyed me include :

" Sure wasnt Macho Man and the Warrior lad the same person"

" Wrestlings only for 6 year olds and its fake, sure why would adults bother?"

" I hear hes not dead but a storyline like Dirty Den in Eastenders"

"Sure the UFC is fake as well"

"Didnt Hulk Hogan make a sex tape with The Rocks sister or something????"

"Ah i think i remember this lad (The Warrior), didnt he used to fly to the ring on strings and wires???"

I feel like Alan Partridge when everyones discussing James Bond and getting it wrong!

krudler

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

The hangman between the ropes is a helluva spot. Tis how Mankind lost some of his ear.

Blame Kevin Dunn for WWE shows looking too glossy and overproduced. I miss when they had unique sets for the PPV entranceways, now it just like the wrestlers are walking out of a giant LCD screen.

The production side of the WWE is world class no doubt, it's one of the reasons I watch it tbh, to see how the arenas look and all that, visually it's always been compelling. I just preferred the era around say 97-98 when it had a much "messier" feel to it, seemed to more the atmosphere too where the show was unfolding on the fly not planned down to the second, even though it was, I'm probably making an arse of describing this but it makes more sense in my head lol

Hematocyte

krudler wrote: »

The production side of the WWE is world class no doubt, it's one of the reasons I watch it tbh, to see how the arenas look and all that, visually it's always been compelling. I just preferred the era around say 97-98 when it had a much "messier" feel to it, seemed to more the atmosphere too where the show was unfolding on the fly not planned down to the second, even though it was, I'm probably making an arse of describing this but it makes more sense in my head lol

I've been playing catch-up recently on stuff I missed (watching a lot of PPV's from the 90's) and I found it remarkable how different the shows looked (just from a production pov.

For instance (and this might be unpopular but) I don't actually like the current way the arenas are laid out (3x sides and a giant titantron). The old style of 4x sides of fans surronding the ring seems to create a much more exciting and intimidating atmosphere.

Also the camerawork today is noticiably different from how it was in the 90's. There's far more cuts. There's a lot of 'shakey-cam' trying to replicate the current trends in cinema and tv. Cameras today are spend too much time 'in tight' to the action and as a result the impact of some spots (especially aerial stuff) are greatly diminished or often just completely lost).

Also the strong lighting on crowds today relative to the past is quite distracting and seems to take focus away from what is going on in the ring.

Overall I think I preferred how the presented the show back in the 90's.

jaykhunter

Don't focus on the ignorant, blathering masses lads. Their opinion isn't worth your time and focus. Today should be about Warrior and Warrior fans.

rovert

Too bad Warrior didn't follow that advice when Heath Ledger died.

Ape Lincoln

krudler wrote: »

The production side of the WWE is world class no doubt, it's one of the reasons I watch it tbh, to see how the arenas look and all that, visually it's always been compelling. I just preferred the era around say 97-98 when it had a much "messier" feel to it, seemed to more the atmosphere too where the show was unfolding on the fly not planned down to the second, even though it was, I'm probably making an arse of describing this but it makes more sense in my head lol

Nah I totally get what you're saying. WWE TV is very heavily produced today. In the past it was wrestlers and former wrestlers coming up with angles and now it's TV writers who aren't always clued in to how it used to be done. The "messier" feel of the Austin era was due in part to wrestling being hotter back then and WWF being on the back foot.

Wrestlemania this year was very different though to previous shows I thought and Trips and Steph booked it not Vince.

Fr. Sensini

Hematocyte wrote: »

Overall I think I preferred how the presented the show back in the 90's.

A big part of the reason for that might be because the WWF/E product has had the same look and feel since the late 90's with PG the only big difference. Compare that to how much things changed during the 80's and 90's and how little resemblance there was between the 80's boom years and the Attitude Era. The presentation from the early 90's feels fresher now because we don't see it anymore.

The crowd on four sides worked a lot better on PPV's with long entrances like Wrestlemania VIII. How crap would the Ultimate Warriors entrance have been if he was sprinting down a Raw ramp. The big entrances a all the lighting is done to make it feel like an entertainment show rather than a wrestling event.

gnfnrhead

I'm wondering, if Bryan goes on a massive run and has a long title reign, will people start complaining that he doesnt use his position to put over more people? Cena gets nothing but complaints, but Bryan would be doing the exact same thing if he beats everyone, so whats the difference other than people like Bryan?

Insect Overlord

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I'm wondering, if Bryan goes on a massive run and has a long title reign, will people start complaining that he doesnt use his position to put over more people? Cena gets nothing but complaints, but Bryan would be doing the exact same thing if he beats everyone, so whats the difference other than people like Bryan?

The 5 moves of doom.

GTR63

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I'm wondering, if Bryan goes on a massive run and has a long title reign, will people start complaining that he doesnt use his position to put over more people? Cena gets nothing but complaints, but Bryan would be doing the exact same thing if he beats everyone, so whats the difference other than people like Bryan?

Tbf Cena won his first title 9 years ago. Bout time he did a bit of groundwork.

irs

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I'm wondering, if Bryan goes on a massive run and has a long title reign, will people start complaining that he doesnt use his position to put over more people? Cena gets nothing but complaints, but Bryan would be doing the exact same thing if he beats everyone, so whats the difference other than people like Bryan?

People liking Bryan is a big difference. You're more likely to put up with the booking if you like the character that's been booked strong. People not liking Cena's character was a big reason for people turning on him. Plus although Cena was over his push to the top was the choice of WWE. Bryan's rise has been more organic and bottom up which would make it less likely for people to turn on him. The chances of Bryan getting a push like Cena in 2005 is pretty slim anyway.

gimmick

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I'm wondering, if Bryan goes on a massive run and has a long title reign, will people start complaining that he doesnt use his position to put over more people? Cena gets nothing but complaints, but Bryan would be doing the exact same thing if he beats everyone, so whats the difference other than people like Bryan?

There was always the feeling with Cena that he was being forced on us. Like his big title win at WM21 against JBL was met by silence. No one cared that he beat an almost year long champion heel.

The WWE had Kurt Angle go all anti USA in a fued with Cena and people still didn't get behind him. His push over the years was contrived in the extreme. Bryans recent push, as mentioned, certainly seemed almost completely organic. The fans just got with him. So the fans will give him a lot more rope than what Cena ever was.

gnfnrhead

gimmick wrote: »

There was always the feeling with Cena that he was being forced on us. Like his big title win at WM21 against JBL was met by silence. No one cared that he beat an almost year long champion heel.

The WWE had Kurt Angle go all anti USA in a fued with Cena and people still didn't get behind him. His push over the years was contrived in the extreme. Bryans recent push, as mentioned, certainly seemed almost completely organic. The fans just got with him. So the fans will give him a lot more rope than what Cena ever was.

JBL was an awful champion. Hardly anybody cared about any of his matches so I wouldn't blame that on Cena.

Let's say Bryan has a long title reign and by the end of the year he has beaten Wyatt, Cesaro, Reigns, Ambrose, etc etc and they all go back to the Midcard after, will Bryan get the same complaints that Cena gets today. Not during his title reign but today. Every time Cena wins, people complain he didn't put over and elevate his opponent like a man in his position should. If Bryan does the same, will those same people complain or is it simply a double standard because people like Bryan more?

The question isn't about the title reign really, it's about Bryan and how he will likely win just as much, if not more, than Cena but will be given a free pass.

Machismo Fan

Champions shouldn't be putting people over. They should do their best to make the person they're beating look as good as possible but as long as Bryan is champ he shouldn't be putting people over. What matters is when he isn't champion.

DM_7

Sure Bryan put over Wyatt at the Rumble

Agree that its not the Champions job to put people by losing matches. They have a chance to put someone over at the end of their run as Champion and maybe one shot during if they get into a good back and forth feud

Bounty Hunter

gnfnrhead wrote: »

JBL was an awful champion. Hardly anybody cared about any of his matches so I wouldn't blame that on Cena.

Let's say Bryan has a long title reign and by the end of the year he has beaten Wyatt, Cesaro, Reigns, Ambrose, etc etc and they all go back to the Midcard after, will Bryan get the same complaints that Cena gets today. Not during his title reign but today. Every time Cena wins, people complain he didn't put over and elevate his opponent like a man in his position should. If Bryan does the same, will those same people complain or is it simply a double standard because people like Bryan more?

The question isn't about the title reign really, it's about Bryan and how he will likely win just as much, if not more, than Cena but will be given a free pass.

I've heard a lot of people say the opposite infact, that he needs a long title reign and to beat a lot of stars to solidify his position as a new top dog or A+ player to use the kayfabe term of the moment. Until he has done that nobody can think of him in the same way as they do Cena etc those lads like Cena people bemoan not putting others over as they really don't need anything more at this stage, they can't move up any more / establish themselves anymore (unless a Rock, Austin etc returns in which case then they can by having the bigger star put them over like Rock eventually did for Cena) unlike a Bryan who is only just getting to the top.

rovert

Came this close to shouting Внимание at a Polish person talking on the phone loudly tonight.

RodVelvet

Was reading about Lionheart not being that comfortable in taking the Styles Clash but not saying anything to AJ about it. Is the Styles Clash that dangerous a move? Having looked at it a few times there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of impact when he does it.

Is the onus on the person taking it as there doesn't seem to be alot AJ can do to screw it up.

Machismo Fan

RodVelvet wrote: »

Was reading about Lionheart not being that comfortable in taking the Styles Clash but not saying anything to AJ about it. Is the Styles Clash that dangerous a move?

It's gone wrong three time - Lionheart and Strong this year and Kazarian years back. All the same way when people tuck their head forward. The responsibility is on the person taking it, otherwise there is very little that can go wrong. It's not like it's a new move or anything.

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

It's gone wrong three time - Lionheart and Strong this year and Kazarian years back. All the same way when people tuck their head forward. The responsibility is on the person taking it, otherwise there is very little that can go wrong. It's not like it's a new move or anything.

I get all that but still it is a specific move with a fairly specific instruction that AJ should have passed on no matter how much of a big name he is or how well known the move is. Health & Safety/better safe than sorry and all that.

Bounty Hunter

Really can't explain it properly but then again this is the random thoughts thread...

Rockstar Spud reminds me of Hornswoggle

Hashtag_HEEL

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Really can't explain it properly but then again this is the random thoughts thread...

Rockstar Spud reminds me of Hornswoggle

Take it back, or Spud, 3MB and Hashtag_HEEL will hold a concert outside your house

764dak

Lana and Emma are like the hottest divas now.

Brock deserved to beat Undertaker.

Reebrock

Lana is growing on me big time. There are some amazing photos of her pre WWE online.