Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
And this is the part where you just ignore the upcoming quotes and pretend what you just said is true to try to validate your point to yourself...
|
Yeah? Let's see....
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
Orton is quite possibly the best in-ring psychologist in wrestling today. The man can be jobbed left and right and be involved in boring storylines and still get the crowd going during his matches (Post-WrestleMania crowd excluded but... I mean... come on.)
So, after years of having him shoved down their throats, the fans react to Orton almost as well as they react to Kane. The biggest difference being that Kane's bad storylines and job stretches tended to have beginnings and endings, and arcs and decent matches and entertainment vale and...
So, yeah, Kane is pretty fun.
Wait, I was talking about Orton. Yeah, Orton is boring as an individual, is what I meant to get to, it's not just his storylines. He's just incredibly dull and repetative in speech and action, which is where the whole "psychological mastery" claim, starts to fall apart like a cobweb in a hurricane.
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
As a face he was fucking money in the Christian feud and in the Mark Henry feud. If you want a good example of how amazing Orton is in the ring just look at those Mark Henry matches. The one where he lost the title and the Hell in a Cell rematch. Probably the best matches Mark Henry has ever had. I can't even think of a close third. Instead of Henry just looking like a generic monster they actually put on matches that made it seem like Orton was a stud but just couldn't quite overcome. It was awesome storytelling. Storytelling you can't find most of the time in today's WWE where every match is basically the same.
O.k., again, saying "he was money" and "he's a stud" is not actually saying anything. You honestly expect me to give Orton credit for Christian having a good storyline? You think it was he who somehow made Henry "less generic"? Not only are these just silly things to say after ten years of observing Orton in television, but you're still not saying fucking WHY you believe anything you're saying. How has this simple fact not yet occurred to you?