Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

B.A._Baracus

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yeah I never knew that they had a falling out before Andre's death.

Very sad to see Vince getting emotional whilst speaking about Andre's death. You can tell that he is a good guy at the back of everything.

Up for debate tho.
Andre was coked up going out at WrestleMania 3 due to his injuries. Vince had to of known but most likely approved it.

diusmr8a504cvk

Used to watch ROH before, from my time watching it and even now just keeping up with results it seems that the tag titles seem to always wind up with the Young Bucks in the finish. Am I wrong or is that the case?

Itssoeasy

I'm watching the 2009 draft and I'm not being funny but is there a reason why hispanic people or people who have spanish as a fleunt language can't say the T in Orton ? Vickie guerrero says it like Oren which I'd forgotten.

Itssoeasy

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Up for debate tho.
Andre was coked up going out at WrestleMania 3 due to his injuries. Vince had to of known but most likely approved it.

He was drunk or at least had a buzz going.

btw evan bourne I used to like him. Him and Rey as an opening match is a nice speedy opener.

martyos121

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm watching the 2009 draft and I'm not being funny but is there a reason why hispanic people or people who have spanish as a fleunt language can't say the T in Orton ? Vickie guerrero says it like Oren which I'd forgotten.

I recall Alberto Del Rio saying it alright. He actually put too much emphasis on the “T”, an over-correction. :pac:

Go to 0:52

Lithium93_

Taylor Gray Physician wrote: »

Used to watch ROH before, from my time watching it and even now just keeping up with results it seems that the tag titles seem to always wind up with the Young Bucks in the finish. Am I wrong or is that the case?

They definitely love racking up Tag Team Championship wins :pac:

Itssoeasy

According to wwe 13 years ago HBK hit the sweetest looking sweet chin music ever on Shelton Benjamin. I was unreal looking and it probably was like getting hit with a pillow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-y45gF6UQg

PopePalpatine

You won't see Jinder pull that off!

Neil3030

Is there a better promo than Adam Cole right now?

Itssoeasy

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You won't see Jinder pull that off!

Well it'd be like two ships passing by each other.

CastorTroy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

According to wwe 13 years ago HBK hit the sweetest looking sweet chin music ever on Shelton Benjamin. I was unreal looking and it probably was like getting hit with a pillow.

You sure it was 13 years ago? The way the camera annoyingly changed at the kick makes it look pretty recent

jaykhunter

CastorTroy wrote: »

You sure it was 13 years ago? The way the camera annoyingly changed at the kick makes it look pretty recent

2005, wow! It's been a while! that said it was before FB took off and Twitter was a thing. Eddie and...well, lots more wrestlers were alive.

gerrybbadd

I was just reading over Ryback's statement he released when he was sent home, shortly prior to his release from WWE.

He makes a lot of sense really. His point was, in a pre - determined sport, why are the winners paid more than losers? The loser has to agree to lose. Losers are often heels, and the more they lose, the further their star falls.

Also, faces have merch sales to supplement their income.

Ryback was looking for equal pay across the board. While this would never happen (and i'm not sure I agree with it), the structure of winners pay vs losers pay seems not only unfair, but nonsensical.

If anything, losers should be paid more for their agreeing to lose, furthering the career of the winner, with some exceptions, i.e. losers being on a different level in the card than the winner. So like if Curt Hawkins loses to Roman Reigns, of course he wouldn't be paid more.

gerrybbadd

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I was just reading over Ryback's statement he released when he was sent home, shortly prior to his release from WWE.

He makes a lot of sense really. His point was, in a pre - determined sport, why are the winners paid more than losers? The loser has to agree to lose. Losers are often heels, and the more they lose, the further their star falls.

Also, faces have merch sales to supplement their income.

Ryback was looking for equal pay across the board. While this would never happen (and i'm not sure I agree with it), the structure of winners pay vs losers pay seems not only unfair, but nonsensical.

If anything, losers should be paid more for their agreeing to lose, furthering the career of the winner, with some exceptions, i.e. losers being on a different level in the card than the winner. So like if Curt Hawkins loses to Roman Reigns, of course he wouldn't be paid more.

How many people can stay heel long-term? Like as long as a top face? Those few are very well paid.

gerrybbadd

Deleted User wrote: »

How many people can stay heel long-term? Like as long as a top face? Those few are very well paid.

Great point. There's few could pull it off.

Joey Samoey
HHH
CM Punk

To be a career heel in today's world is a rare thing

Lithium93_

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Great point. There's few could pull it off.

Joey Samoey
HHH
CM Punk

To be a career heel in today's world is a rare thing

I'll add Tommaso Ciampa to that list..

leggo

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I was just reading over Ryback's statement he released when he was sent home, shortly prior to his release from WWE.

He makes a lot of sense really. His point was, in a pre - determined sport, why are the winners paid more than losers? The loser has to agree to lose. Losers are often heels, and the more they lose, the further their star falls.

Also, faces have merch sales to supplement their income.

Ryback was looking for equal pay across the board. While this would never happen (and i'm not sure I agree with it), the structure of winners pay vs losers pay seems not only unfair, but nonsensical.

If anything, losers should be paid more for their agreeing to lose, furthering the career of the winner, with some exceptions, i.e. losers being on a different level in the card than the winner. So like if Curt Hawkins loses to Roman Reigns, of course he wouldn't be paid more.

It’s not how it works. Like I guarantee Triple H got paid more for losing at GRR than Cedric Alexander for winning, or Jericho got a bigger appearance fee for that night than Braun. He was probably being worked by Vince with a BS excuse for low paydays, didn’t know better then posted it publicly. The other alternative is he just made it up to try mislead fans into being anti-WWE because it didn’t work out for him. But, whatever, the case what he was saying was total bollocks.

DM_7

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I was just reading over Ryback's statement he released when he was sent home, shortly prior to his release from WWE.

He makes a lot of sense really. His point was, in a pre - determined sport, why are the winners paid more than losers? The loser has to agree to lose. Losers are often heels, and the more they lose, the further their star falls.

Also, faces have merch sales to supplement their income.

Ryback was looking for equal pay across the board. While this would never happen (and i'm not sure I agree with it), the structure of winners pay vs losers pay seems not only unfair, but nonsensical.

If anything, losers should be paid more for their agreeing to lose, furthering the career of the winner, with some exceptions, i.e. losers being on a different level in the card than the winner. So like if Curt Hawkins loses to Roman Reigns, of course he wouldn't be paid more.

But that probably already happens, Ryback was likely paid the going rate for what he brought. He became a mid to low card loss taker for a reason.

I expect Miz, who loses a lot is paid a lot more for what he brings to the company

At some pointt it is up to the person to decide if they are happy with their spot and pay. WWE just have to pay a rate based on the value they see the person having. It is not hard to find a replacement for what Ryback was.

gerrybbadd

leggo wrote: »

It’s not how it works. Like I guarantee Triple H got paid more for losing at GRR than Cedric Alexander for winning, or Jericho got a bigger appearance fee for that night than Braun. He was probably being worked by Vince with a BS excuse for low paydays, didn’t know better then posted it publicly. The other alternative is he just made it up to try mislead fans into being anti-WWE because it didn’t work out for him. But, whatever, the case what he was saying was total bollocks.

I made that point in my post.

He did go very anti WWE in his career after leaving / being released. I think he's a bit of a lunatic nowadays to be honest. Is he still doing the podcast?

x43r0

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Great point. There's few could pull it off.

Joey Samoey
HHH
CM Punk

To be a career heel in today's world is a rare thing

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I'll add Tommaso Ciampa to that list..

Surely Miz is the best current example?

leggo

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I made that point in my post.

He did go very anti WWE in his career after leaving / being released. I think he's a bit of a lunatic nowadays to be honest. Is he still doing the podcast?

No idea, I haven’t heard a bit about it in months though. So either it flopped or he’s still doing it and it’s being widely ignored, which is probably worse tbh.

gerrybbadd

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Great point. There's few could pull it off.

Joey Samoey
HHH
CM Punk

To be a career heel in today's world is a rare thing

Yeah and they get paid better. It's pretty simple really.

HandsomeBob

x43r0 wrote: »

Surely Miz is the best current example?

I think Miz can do a decent job as face. He resonates with the American audience and with what they see as a typical American guy so that's a solid foundation in itself to be a good face.

But yeah, no doubt heel is his element.

Itssoeasy

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I'll add Tommaso Ciampa to that list..

https://twitter.com/ProjectCiampa/status/992115493636059136

Yep, i'd add him to the list.

Itssoeasy

2009 April episodes of raw. I have say better then I remember honestly. Beth Phoenix had/still has very good comedic timing. The stuff with her and santino stil made me laugh this evening.

Infernum

leggo wrote: »

It’s not how it works. Like I guarantee Triple H got paid more for losing at GRR than Cedric Alexander for winning

As true as it is, that would be more so because of the fact Triple H has a strong history with the company, is part of the McMahon and has a cemented position in the company, whereas Cedric is just glorified card filler talent.

briany

I find it unbelievable that the first apparent direct public admittance of wrestling's fakery only came in 1989 when Vince McMahon said it in a senate hearing in order to prevent his company's practices being subject to the regulations of the state commissions. That's over 100 years into the history of the sport.

Wrestling was at one time considered a sport you could bet on, back in the old Frank Gotch days, but lost that status when its legitimacy as a sport came into doubt. Was there a senate hearing to investigate this at the time?

I know there was another earlier promoter who crashed out of the business and bitterly complained to the press of wrestling's faked nature, although his name escapes me at the minute.

But say a wrestler had been taken to court back in the proper Kayfabe days, and asked if wrestling was fixed. I wonder if they'd really have committed perjury in order to 'protect the business'.

Itssoeasy

briany wrote: »

I find it unbelievable that the first apparent direct public admittance of wrestling's fakery only came in 1989 when Vince McMahon said it in a senate hearing in order to prevent his company's practices being subject to the regulations of the state commissions. That's over 100 years into the history of the sport.

Wrestling was at one time considered a sport you could bet on, back in the old Frank Gotch days, but lost that status when its legitimacy as a sport came into doubt. Was there a senate hearing to investigate this at the time?

I know there was another earlier promoter who crashed out of the business and bitterly complained to the press of wrestling's faked nature, although his name escapes me at the minute.

But say a wrestler had been taken to court back in the proper Kayfabe days, and asked if wrestling was fixed. I wonder if they'd really have committed perjury in order to 'protect the business'.

1989 wasn't the first time the business was exposed. It happened in the 1930's with a New York promoter who wanted to get revenge and exposed the business. There was a senate hearing in the 50's or 60's because it was claimed the NWA was a monopoly, but the NWA convinced the us congress it wasn't. I think the CIA or FBI bugged Vince Sr and Jim Crockett Sr talking about something at the time.

Edit: the promoter was the asshole that was Jack Pfefer.

Itssoeasy

The higher power reveal was telegraphed big time in hind sight. I mean Vince says " I'm close enough where I am already." I love JR's call though when it's revealed it's Vince.

oneilla

This book was published in 1937 and covered wrestling non-kayfabe

Fall Guy: The Barnums of Bounce : the Inside Story of the Wrestling Business, America's Most Profitable and Best Organized Professional Sport by Marcus Griffin

http://www.crowbarpress.com/fallguys.htm