Thread: All Elite Wrestling
View Single Post
Old 05-16-2019, 01:04 AM   #1059
Tom Guycott
I W C DEEZ NUTZ!
 
Tom Guycott's Avatar
 
Posts: 10,137
Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Tom Guycott makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan View Post
Randy Orton winning 100% of his matches with an RKO might not matter. If you know that he wins 100% of the time he hits it though, suddenly every “almost” RKO is an edge of your seat moment. I don’t think the idea is to have useless stats for stat nerds. It’s to build stories within matches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 View Post
This. It was like when Austin used to hit the stunner. Shit was over. And every time he went for the boot to the gut, you got that anxious feeling that the end was near. It meant something.

If Austin was around nowadays, he'd have to hit 2 or 3 stunners a night to win a big match. And not just at Mania, where it makes sense to throw in a kick out. But every ppv. Guys would he kicking out at TLC.
Tangentially related; it was one of the reasons why the end of Brock Lesnar vs Samoa Joe was so "bad".

In truth, it really wasn't a bad finish... until you consider that the problem goes back to all the matches WWE had with 800 spammed finishers. And now, suddenly, one F5 puts out the guy who was built to be this badass threat in the center of the ring for a clean pin? In fact, Joe should have been one of the few guys who could take multiple F5s given how he was built to that point. Even if he had still lost, he took everything the champ had to give to get that victory. Instead, you basically just told everyone this guy was a sack of shit and didn't deserve to be there. Because they didn't bother protecting finishers up to that point, a match where it was done right buried the guy doing the job.

And that's the issue with wins and losses. The idea that wins and losses "mean nothing" doesn't quite mean what WWE tries to make it sound like. I'm not 100% behind the stat-tracking thing AEW wants to try, primarily because anyone who has done this before always eventually does away with it... but at the same time, we prob'ly won't get shit like hotshotting the brown guy for an India tour after telling everyone for years through actions that he wasn't worth a damn, or jobbing your next big thing into oblivion but paradoxically expecting him to stay over with the fans. People tend not to back losers unless there is something charming or redeeming about it... and even that is a rarity.
Tom Guycott is offline   Reply With Quote