Quote:
Originally Posted by Anybody Thrilla
Are you saying you would prefer the matches to be over-the-top and nonsensical? I'm not asking that to be a dick, but just trying to gauge your interest. One of the biggest critiques of wrestling over the years is that it's obviously predetermined and often cheesy. Ziggler matches always seem more 'legitimate' to me, and he makes it easier to suspend disbelief. I also find it difficult to buy that Ziggler isn't innovative. He's constantly doing things that I haven't seen before or adding a new twist on old traditions.
|
Actually, I don't prefer the matches to be over the top or nonsensical. Being predetermined has nothing to do with it either. I've always valued the art of wrestling and the stories it tells. Judging it for being predetermined would be ignorant if you've been watching for any length of time. Obviously calling it "fake" would be a dismissive way of ignoring what wrestling is. Ziggler's matches are sound from a psychological standpoint, but they aren't watchable to me. As far as him being innovative, he does a few moves I haven't seen, but otherwise shouldn't be considered an innovator. I'll admit he's got a unique style, but he's not a very exciting wrestler or character.
Quote:
|
His name is pretty much a moot point. It doesn't detract from what he does in the ring. Honestly, the cheesy nature of his name seems like it would be right up your alley, seeing as to how you apparently aren't a fan of making things seem too real.
|
I was actually agreeing with you there. WWE creative is a joke as far as naming wrestlers. It has nothing to do with seeming real. You assuming b/c I don't like Ziggler I'm not a fan of realism is a far stretch. The fact is I do like realistic wrestling, but being bland and boring in the ring is where my problem with him comes in. There's a difference between "suspending disbelief" and putting the crowd to sleep. As far as that goes, "suspending disbelief" and being realistic are polor opposites, so it's one or the other. He's either over the top or he portrays realism. Ziggler sure isn't over the top, so I agree it is more realistic, but in a very boring kinda way.
Quote:
|
What's wrong with hiding flaws? They're letting him showcase what he's GOOD at and not forcing his weaknesses down our throats. It's a pretty sound strategy, and we should honestly be thankful they are employing it. This tactic was what made Paul Heyman a wrestling deity.
|
The main issue with hiding flaws is it's ignoring the problems he has. To limit him on the mic to two words isn't gonna help him improve. He hasn't really had much mic time, so to limit him already is a bad move. Most of his career, someone else has done his talking. For all we know, he might eventually be a good mic worker. If they hide his flaws, they also take a shortcut and ensure he'll never be any better than he is now...
Quote:
|
You don't NEED to be great on the mic to be a top guy (read: Goldberg, Brock Lesnar, The Undertaker, Lex Luger, Yokozuna, Bret Hart, Rey Mysterio, etc.), even though it would definitely help. It's not necessary, though. There's no reason to pretend he's great when he's not. Just let him go on and continue putting on wrestling clinics, like he has been doing. He's perfectly capable of being a top guy in TODAY'S WWE.
|
It's not necessarily mandatory to have great mic skills, but it helps. However, it is mandatory to be good enough to get your storyline over. Ziggler has to rely on two words, Vickie Guerrero, or his opponent to carry him on the mic. I'll grant you WWE is partly to blame there, but Ziggler has to step up and not be complacent.
Quote:
|
As far as Vickie, she didn't do a single thing this past Monday besides stand at ringside. Sure they were using her heat at first, but Dolph seems to really be coming into his own as of late. Just because Shawn Michaels used Sherri's heat at first doesn't mean he was a shitty entertainer.
|
She didn't do much Monday, but she sure has been doing most all of his talking for him. Using her heat should be an advantage, for Ziggler though it hasn't benefited him. Which is a shame since he's a pretty decent heel. Shawn Michaels may have capitalized on Sherri's heat, but he evolved on the mic and became a good mic worker. Something thus far Ziggler has not and it the difference between being great and only decent...
Quote:
|
I guess I would have to ask you what some of your favorite matches of all time are. Before you even answer, I'm willing to bet that they were longer than most matches and pretty well thought out.
|
My favorites are ones that are entertaining while doing a good job of wrestling. And yeah, some are longer although the ones I like don't put me to sleep. Being a great match doesn't mean having a strategy. You think guys like Bret Hart, Austin, The Rock, Angle, Undertaker, Benoit, Guerrero and HBK had to use that to get over??? I admired all those guys more b/c they didn't have to plan the match down to every detail. They pretty much went out and did it on the fly. You can tell with Ziggler his matches are meticulously planned, with only makes his matches more boring.
Quote:
|
You said that having Vickie as a manager meant that you weren't a good entertainer. That's simply not true. It's not like Edge was some extreme outlier. The only other person to compare anything Vickie-related to is Eric Escobar, and I'm kinda furious that I've just been reminded of his existence.
|
When she does most all of your talking it's not a good thing. And yeah, it does say to me that you aren't a good entertainer if she talks 90% of the time for you. At least Edge did all his own talking for himself and was entertaining enough to stand on his own. It's clear using Vickie as a mouthpiece was the intention WWE had to hide Ziggler's inability on the mic. As for Eric Escobar, I was also hoping to never hear that name again. He's another good example though of someone WWE paired with Vickie to talk for him...
Quote:
|
I wasn't actually accusing you of not knowing wrestling, you dork. I was ribbing you a bit and making a point. I feel I've earned that right by now, since this definitely isn't the first go-round we've had on the boards. I swear, not everything is a personal attack.
|
It sure sounded like you said I didn't know wrestling. I've actually been watching close to 20 years, so I think I have some insight on wrestling. Ribbing me b/c you think it's your right proves nothing. All that does is make you look more immature and attempting to make it personal. I could care less if you think I'm a dork, as I call it like I see it. I'm sure this won't be the last time we don't see eye to eye, but I always try to be objective rather than focusing on winning an argument...
Quote:
|
As far as Ziggler being stuck in the mid card, he's already been a World Heavyweight champion, so somebody (that mattered) somewhere at least saw a little something in him. He's clearly being groomed for the future.
|
He was champion for what, 5 minutes??? You can't really count that fluke win as WWE thinking he's the future. He may be groomed for the future, but that doesn't mean he's ready for it. And if he impressed someone that mattered, more power to them. That will hardly change his progress so far lacking or my current opinion of him. Just b/c WWE pushes someone as the future doesn't mean I like them. They earn my respect when they can be something more than one dimensional...
Quote:
|
Why does it always seem to come back to the all-time greats with you? I was even more careful with my wording of this thread title as to not get you up in arms about it (you're welcome).
|
The reason I do that is to gauge how well a superstar is progressing. While I realize he needs more time to be considered in that league, his evolution(or lack thereof)hasn't been too fast. If you felt you had to censor your wording b/c of me, I feel sorry for you. Having discussions on topics is the only way to objectively view things. Too often ppl on here let their bias toward a wrestler bind them from discussing something objectively. I'm more than willing to say why I do or don't support someone or something. I can understand you not agreeing with me, but trying to avoid an actual discussion is detrimental to the topic...
Quote:
|
Here's the bottom line: Ziggler is very good in the ring. While in the past he was presented as a bit of a joke, the character seems to be coming to the point now where he can be taken as a serious threat, and he can easily become a top player in today's WWE landscape. The only part of that you seem to disagree with is that he is very good in the ring, and to me, that's laughable.
|
To me the bottom line is Ziggler is nowhere near ready for the ME. He pretty much hasn't evolved any as a character or much as a wrestler. While WWE may use him eventually, IMO he needs vast improvement in order to advance from mid card to main eventer. His in ring work is solid, but not very watchable. I honestly have never paid much attention to anything Dolph Ziggler related, and I think that is telling about how bland and boring he is...