Screw Technical Wrestling - Page 2

**Dave Youell** · 02-27-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

Hell no boy, you better head for some fucking moutains. Ricky Steamboat wipes the floor with Flair as far as athletisism (sp?) goes...but other then that Ricky owes everything he has to Flair. Hell he got traded to Jim Crockett for One Man Gang. Before Flair got to him, he wasn't shit. He was a good athlet who got involved with wrestling. Ric Flair could go up to any wrestler, now or then, and make them a star. Steamboat (granted) has a few good matches to be proud of, but without Flair going out of his way to bring Steamboat up, he wouldn't be jack shit. I relate Steamboat to Shelton Benjamin. He has all the skills in the world, great look, and is marketable...but until someone can come along and make something out of his, he isn't shit. Ric Flair walked into anywhere he went and made himself "The Man". He made American Style Wrestling popular before there was a name for it. It is because of Ric Flair (and to a lesser extent Superstar Billy) that we have the type of wrestling we have right now. Now don't get me wrong, I think the world of The Dragon...hell anyone who has had his career and his match resume to back it up deserves respect...but he isn't a drop in the bucket of greatness that is Flair. Both him and Sting owe their entire careers to Flair for taking them to a level they could have never reached on their own.

That is what most people forget about Flair. Yeah he is the 18 time (not 16 time, look it up) World Champion, but more then that, he gave us an entire slew of credible wrestlers. He is the only MEGA Main Eventer (other then The Rock) to make his opponite look better then him, and STILL come out stronger for it. Flair was always "The Man" to beat. Like I said eailer in the thread, Flair usually wasn't even the highlight of the match...but he made Main Eventers, he made Legends, he made Icons...and he did it all by making guys look better then they ever could on their own.

Now point me in the direction of some hills, cause I got a friends ass to woop.

Ok it's all a matter of opinion

Wait! What are you doing with that Axe!

No!

NOOOOOOOOOO!

**The One** · 02-27-2006, 05:49 AM

Axe? Hell no, he comes a Figure Four...BI-YATCH!

Just kiddin, you know I love ya.

**Dave Youell** · 02-27-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

Axe? Hell no, he comes a Figure Four...BI-YATCH!

Just kiddin, you know I love ya.

*The one extends his hand*

*Dave looks around at the crowd, shakes it*

The HHH's music hits

*The one drops to one knee and gives the low blow and locks in the figure 4*

JR: He was in cahoots with the game all along!

**Pepsi Man** · 02-27-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Youell

Steamboat was the essence of a face though, i mean look at him. He's one of the worlds most attractive men ever! How could you boo that? Really, how?

I can't claim to be an expert, as I'm 100% heterosexual, and so I can't tell you how attractive a man is, but from women's reactions, there have been plenty of men in history that have been attractive but made great heels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Metal Ed

That's pretty much where the post loses credibility, I agree, some long matches are extremely better, and sometimes a 5 minute match would be better than 20, but the HBK-Bret Iron Man is a true classic that was awesome from start to finish.

With the other points, I agree, a good wrestling show has variety, like Mick Foley's "3 ring circus" theory. If you don't like the acrobats, you can watch 20 clowns come out of a car.

Raw was hot in the late 90s because you had a good mix of tag wrestling, a few cruiserweights here and there like Taka Michinoku or Essa Rios,, a great hardcore division, gimmicks such as Val Venis, Goldust and the Godfather, then in the 2000s guys like Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho were stealing the show.

Mentioning cruiserweights in the way you have kind of hurts this statement in general. I mean, back in the late 90s, cruiserweights were to Raw as juniors are to SmackDown!

**Dave Youell** · 02-27-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man

I can't claim to be an expert, as I'm 100% heterosexual, and so I can't tell you how attractive a man is

Stop there! Your defense is rested, Plus he could breath fire! No one else could actually breath fire! Like a Dragon!

DAVE WINS!

**Batsu** · 02-27-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man

So wait, screw technical wrestling, but give you Benoit and Angle? This seems to be more anti ROH/pro WWE than it is anti technical or anything, and that's coming from me, someone who finds ROH to be hugely overrated by a lot of the "smarks" myself.

Exactly. I was about to label this thread with the requisite "^^^^ PB&J ^^^^" until I read some of the replies.

Right now, I'm kind of a "WWE needs to get the F Back or get the F out" sort of mindset.

I like a balanced show like most other fans, because simply, you can't expect JBL to go turning suplexes into powerbombs or any other innovative offense.

On the other hand, hearing JBL talk about how he is a "WRESTLING ..... GOD" is hilarious, and should be a part of the show.

But WWE has a problem with making it too much about "the show", and this "Booking for Thrills" trend is a horrible example of how it backfires.

After Benoit and Co. came in from WCW, and the brand split first showed SmackDown with a fresher show, WWE was at its best in years. Then Vince and Co. started clamping down the good stuff.

I like to see cool finishers, too. But the way WWE is now, you won't see them. I'm surprised they even allowed the F-5 when they did.

I don't think I want to see ROH-ers in WWE now, because they would be watered down, and horribly misused. Ask any wrestler that was popular in other feds before coming to WWE.

**Mike the Metal Ed** · 02-27-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man

Mentioning cruiserweights in the way you have kind of hurts this statement in general. I mean, back in the late 90s, cruiserweights were to Raw as juniors are to SmackDown!

I agree, but for some part of 97-98, the WWF Light Heavyweight title DID mean something, but not for long. And I honestly struggled to think of anyone other than TAKA and Aguila, but they WERE there if you looked hard enough. There was still enough variety on Raw to make the statement worthwhile though.

**Pepsi Man** · 02-28-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Metal Ed

I agree, but for some part of 97-98, the WWF Light Heavyweight title DID mean something, but not for long. And I honestly struggled to think of anyone other than TAKA and Aguila, but they WERE there if you looked hard enough. There was still enough variety on Raw to make the statement worthwhile though.

Don't you mean Shotgun Saturday Night?

**Batsu** · 02-28-2006, 05:01 PM

Let's try something a little more coherent this time. The earlier post I made seemed more like a rant.

When one says "Screw Technical Wrestling", my first instinct is to say, "EH EHHHHHHHHHH!" as Steve Austin might say. Like it or not, technical wrestling is the bread-and-butter of the pro wrestling world. Without it, you might as well be watching a horribly choreographed bunch of brawls that serve as filler for a horribly written soap opera (This isn't just WWE specific, but as you see, mostly applies to WWE).

However, in the world of pro wrestling, especially as it's presented in North America, technical wrestling isn't enough to hook the fans. You need characters all over the whole spectrum, from low-key (Shelton and Charlie Haas before they gimmicked them all the way up) to the over-the-top (Boogeyman, Shark Boy, etc) to appeal to the wide mass of fans that tune in every week. But at the bottom of it all, no matter how over the character is, you still need to know how to wrestle at a basic level. Say what you will about JBL, but at least he knows how to do a Fall-Away Slam and a powerbomb, which are wrestling moves. Most people remember Stone Cold Steve Austin as a brawler, but he was one of the finest technical wrestlers out there -- and when he was heel, one got to see it more often. The same thing goes for The Rock, Ric Flair, HHH, even (Master of 5 Holds) Hulk Hogan. They all have to pull out technical wrestling at a very basic level to even be in the business.

A show all about technical wrestling nowadays just won't fly. But that doesn't mean the show has to be about a whole bunch of low-budget, on-the-seat-of-your pants, poorly booked crap either. I stand firmly in the fact that the reason ECW was so popular, even after its demise, was because even though it had (and pioneered) the "garbage" wrestling, table-breaking, foul language, and general "attitude" that is seen in most wrestling shows today, it never pretended to be anything other than a wrestling show.

I feel the problem with wrestling today, is not that it's missing a bunch of ROH/TNA/etc. guys that can fly all over the ring, and do all kinds of innovative offense. While I do feel that's an important component to a good wrestling show, the real problem at every time pro wrestling has had a downturn, is that once they hit a particular bit of success, they veer away from what made it great. The mid-90s WWE outside of Bret Hart and co. was ultra cartoonish, even in comparison to WCW (except when it copied WWE).

In the case of WWE, it's what I like to call a group of set barriers (WARNING: PREACHING TO THE CHOIR AHEAD):

1. "Booking For Thrills". The "Attitude" era has corrupted Vince and co. into thinking that wrestling fans want to know who fathered whomever's baby, who wrestlers are sleeping with, and all this other monkey crap that will be forgotten when the Universal WWE Continuity Clause expires. Characters bounce from heel to face for no reason at all, do things out of line with the character that has been established because of WWE's "reboot-happy" booking. Kurt Angle is a great example of this. Not to mention, it also fosters a situation where wrestlers are being brough up from the "farm leagues" before their time, and expected to perform at an unnatural pace. It also fosters a situation in which, just when WWE gets something right, it tanks because they go too far (see: Hassan).

2. The reluctance to let wrestlers (that have the capability to do so) just be themselves. Ever since Vince and co. got burned with the departure of Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, and all the others going to WCW, Vince is not content on letting wrestlers go out and be all they can be. It took a couple years for Steve Austin to ....well, be Steve Austin again. Wrestlers that were popular in other feds have it worst of all (see: Taz, Chris Jericho, Sean O'Haire, even Lex Luger), but when it starts happening to "homegrown" wrestlers like John Cena, then there's a huge problem.

3. Related to #2, the pussification of in-ring product. Yes, pro wrestling is a multi-million dollar business that hinges on the good health of its competitors. However, what has happened in WWE, especially since the piledriver ban (something instituted with good reason, after the Stone Cold incident), seems to not only piss on the moves of wrestling tradition, but limited the innovation of up and coming wrestlers. The same boring slams and drops are being replicated over and over, when you know some could be doing much better. Don't think that John Cena wasn't "influenced" to stop making his F-U a sitout move. Not everyone has to pull out an "F-5", but no one should be using something as lame as a Pumphandle Slam as a finisher in this day and age.

4. Related to #1 and #3, the de-emphasis on wrestling. If WWE is to be a place where storylines supercede characters, they should at least try to inject some sense into the booking, and never forget that the WWE Title(s) are the main goal. During the best runs of WWE, it all centered on title chases. Even now, people seem more enthused in seeing who gets to dethrone HHH (or Cena, or Batista, or whoever) than well, whose poo Boogeyman happened to fling at someone. While you can't put everyone in a title match, sometimes it wouldn't hurt but to remember where the show is grounded.

5. The inability of Vince and Co. to accept its losses and take moves for the better of their company's constituents. This is not saying Vince should still try to "Get The F Back" (by now I'm used to it being called WWE), but also, he 0should take steps to make it so that he doesn't pretend that the "F" never existed. Shell out whatever it'd cost for that stupid Fund to STFU about the initials "WWF" being said on TV. On that note, shell out to Ventura or whoever circumvented the snakey policies of WWE regarding ownership of intellectual property, long after superstars leave the company, so that we can view old broadcasts as they were originally intended. Shell out for the REAL music as heard on PPVs and elsewhere. (This one's a stretch, because it's not just a WWE problem, but a problem for any TV program that used licensed music, see: SCTV, WKRP...) As seen with the Bret Hart DVD and the use of Bret Hart's image in official WWE merchandise (video games especially), it pays to see mended fences.

6. The inability of WWE to get with the times when it counts. If not for one Steve Austin being allowed to let loose, WWE would have been eaten up by WCW in an instant. The success of Stone Cold allowed The Rock, HHH, and others in that "class" to flourish. Somehow, somewhere, the clamps came down again. While wrestling has always been grounded in stereotypes, some of the ones WWE employs are way too outmoded. Shelton's mama comes to mind. I remember not being too enthused with Eugene and Hassan at first, though....

All in all, it seems that WWE could enjoy great storylines (ala the original cable programming that's the rage now), and still have some good wrestling behind it. But because of these barriers (#1 in particular), WWE will never get there.

Going back to the original point, the most important thing of it all, is that a wrestling show has to have wrestling to get over. Cool moves, and feuds, is what it's all about. Otherwise, why is anyone even watching the crap?

02-27-2006, 05:49 AM	#42
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	Axe? Hell no, he comes a Figure Four...BI-YATCH! Just kiddin, you know I love ya.

02-28-2006, 05:01 PM	#49
Batsu Capcom's Corporate Champ Posts: 2,571	Let's try something a little more coherent this time. The earlier post I made seemed more like a rant. When one says "Screw Technical Wrestling", my first instinct is to say, "EH EHHHHHHHHHH!" as Steve Austin might say. Like it or not, technical wrestling is the bread-and-butter of the pro wrestling world. Without it, you might as well be watching a horribly choreographed bunch of brawls that serve as filler for a horribly written soap opera (This isn't just WWE specific, but as you see, mostly applies to WWE). However, in the world of pro wrestling, especially as it's presented in North America, technical wrestling isn't enough to hook the fans. You need characters all over the whole spectrum, from low-key (Shelton and Charlie Haas before they gimmicked them all the way up) to the over-the-top (Boogeyman, Shark Boy, etc) to appeal to the wide mass of fans that tune in every week. But at the bottom of it all, no matter how over the character is, you still need to know how to wrestle at a basic level. Say what you will about JBL, but at least he knows how to do a Fall-Away Slam and a powerbomb, which are wrestling moves. Most people remember Stone Cold Steve Austin as a brawler, but he was one of the finest technical wrestlers out there -- and when he was heel, one got to see it more often. The same thing goes for The Rock, Ric Flair, HHH, even (Master of 5 Holds) Hulk Hogan. They all have to pull out technical wrestling at a very basic level to even be in the business. A show all about technical wrestling nowadays just won't fly. But that doesn't mean the show has to be about a whole bunch of low-budget, on-the-seat-of-your pants, poorly booked crap either. I stand firmly in the fact that the reason ECW was so popular, even after its demise, was because even though it had (and pioneered) the "garbage" wrestling, table-breaking, foul language, and general "attitude" that is seen in most wrestling shows today, it never pretended to be anything other than a wrestling show. I feel the problem with wrestling today, is not that it's missing a bunch of ROH/TNA/etc. guys that can fly all over the ring, and do all kinds of innovative offense. While I do feel that's an important component to a good wrestling show, the real problem at every time pro wrestling has had a downturn, is that once they hit a particular bit of success, they veer away from what made it great. The mid-90s WWE outside of Bret Hart and co. was ultra cartoonish, even in comparison to WCW (except when it copied WWE). In the case of WWE, it's what I like to call a group of set barriers (WARNING: PREACHING TO THE CHOIR AHEAD): 1. "Booking For Thrills". The "Attitude" era has corrupted Vince and co. into thinking that wrestling fans want to know who fathered whomever's baby, who wrestlers are sleeping with, and all this other monkey crap that will be forgotten when the Universal WWE Continuity Clause expires. Characters bounce from heel to face for no reason at all, do things out of line with the character that has been established because of WWE's "reboot-happy" booking. Kurt Angle is a great example of this. Not to mention, it also fosters a situation where wrestlers are being brough up from the "farm leagues" before their time, and expected to perform at an unnatural pace. It also fosters a situation in which, just when WWE gets something right, it tanks because they go too far (see: Hassan). 2. The reluctance to let wrestlers (that have the capability to do so) just be themselves. Ever since Vince and co. got burned with the departure of Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, and all the others going to WCW, Vince is not content on letting wrestlers go out and be all they can be. It took a couple years for Steve Austin to ....well, be Steve Austin again. Wrestlers that were popular in other feds have it worst of all (see: Taz, Chris Jericho, Sean O'Haire, even Lex Luger), but when it starts happening to "homegrown" wrestlers like John Cena, then there's a huge problem. 3. Related to #2, the pussification of in-ring product. Yes, pro wrestling is a multi-million dollar business that hinges on the good health of its competitors. However, what has happened in WWE, especially since the piledriver ban (something instituted with good reason, after the Stone Cold incident), seems to not only piss on the moves of wrestling tradition, but limited the innovation of up and coming wrestlers. The same boring slams and drops are being replicated over and over, when you know some could be doing much better. Don't think that John Cena wasn't "influenced" to stop making his F-U a sitout move. Not everyone has to pull out an "F-5", but no one should be using something as lame as a Pumphandle Slam as a finisher in this day and age. 4. Related to #1 and #3, the de-emphasis on wrestling. If WWE is to be a place where storylines supercede characters, they should at least try to inject some sense into the booking, and never forget that the WWE Title(s) are the main goal. During the best runs of WWE, it all centered on title chases. Even now, people seem more enthused in seeing who gets to dethrone HHH (or Cena, or Batista, or whoever) than well, whose poo Boogeyman happened to fling at someone. While you can't put everyone in a title match, sometimes it wouldn't hurt but to remember where the show is grounded. 5. The inability of Vince and Co. to accept its losses and take moves for the better of their company's constituents. This is not saying Vince should still try to "Get The F Back" (by now I'm used to it being called WWE), but also, he 0should take steps to make it so that he doesn't pretend that the "F" never existed. Shell out whatever it'd cost for that stupid Fund to STFU about the initials "WWF" being said on TV. On that note, shell out to Ventura or whoever circumvented the snakey policies of WWE regarding ownership of intellectual property, long after superstars leave the company, so that we can view old broadcasts as they were originally intended. Shell out for the REAL music as heard on PPVs and elsewhere. (This one's a stretch, because it's not just a WWE problem, but a problem for any TV program that used licensed music, see: SCTV, WKRP...) As seen with the Bret Hart DVD and the use of Bret Hart's image in official WWE merchandise (video games especially), it pays to see mended fences. 6. The inability of WWE to get with the times when it counts. If not for one Steve Austin being allowed to let loose, WWE would have been eaten up by WCW in an instant. The success of Stone Cold allowed The Rock, HHH, and others in that "class" to flourish. Somehow, somewhere, the clamps came down again. While wrestling has always been grounded in stereotypes, some of the ones WWE employs are way too outmoded. Shelton's mama comes to mind. I remember not being too enthused with Eugene and Hassan at first, though.... All in all, it seems that WWE could enjoy great storylines (ala the original cable programming that's the rage now), and still have some good wrestling behind it. But because of these barriers (#1 in particular), WWE will never get there. Going back to the original point, the most important thing of it all, is that a wrestling show has to have wrestling to get over. Cool moves, and feuds, is what it's all about. Otherwise, why is anyone even watching the crap?