General Wrestling Thread

[blueinsa]

I miss DX.

Was lucky to be at the MEN Arena a few years back when they did RAW and DX was just incredible.

 

[geek]

when I see bryan now I cant help but think teen wolf!

has anybody subscribed to the wwe network? I want to know if its worth the cash

 

[BimboBob]

when I see bryan now I cant help but think teen wolf!

has anybody subscribed to the wwe network? I want to know if its worth the cash

Like duh!

All the ppv's included plus hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of old WWE/ WWf/ ECW etc etc matches, shows..plus .insider stuff, specials lah lah lah...

 

[liamctid]

Has there ever been a more dominant WWE champion then Brock Lesnar? he's a machine.

WWE are lucky to have him. He deserves every dime he earns.

Then you get daniel bryan. Don't see what people see in him.

He's the talented underdog "held down" by the "forces that be". He appeals to the people who have no power in their lives and like to blame some big bad entity like their boss, their teacher or some facet of society.

He's essentially Stone Cold in a PG Era. This is a good summation of him:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsX1ATcyQxU[/video]

If you look at the way the WWE has booked him over the last few years it really is a masterful example of properly handling someone to further their character.

I'm not disagreeing that this is the case, but as a non-regular viewer for over a year now I just can't see the attraction of Bryan. I was completely taken in as a pre-teen with Austin's attitude and aggressive style.

Austin was a beer drinking hell raiser who would call the boss whatever he wanted and pull some mad stunts, whereas Bryan is like an Ewok who just shouts "Yes". Even though this is the "PG Era" I just don't think he offers much in the way of personality. Most of the faces don't to be fair, apart from maybe Ambrose and of course Cena, but his character has been done to death.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Then you get daniel bryan. Don't see what people see in him.

He's the talented underdog "held down" by the "forces that be". He appeals to the people who have no power in their lives and like to blame some big bad entity like their boss, their teacher or some facet of society.

He's essentially Stone Cold in a PG Era. This is a good summation of him:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsX1ATcyQxU[/video]

If you look at the way the WWE has booked him over the last few years it really is a masterful example of properly handling someone to further their character.

I'm not disagreeing that this is the case, but as a non-regular viewer for over a year now I just can't see the attraction of Bryan. I was completely taken in as a pre-teen with Austin's attitude and aggressive style.

Austin was a beer drinking hell raiser who would call the boss whatever he wanted and pull some mad stunts, whereas Bryan is like an Ewok who just shouts "Yes". Even though this is the "PG Era" I just don't think he offers much in the way of personality. Most of the faces don't to be fair, apart from maybe Ambrose and of course Cena, but his character has been done to death.

Bryan is nothing like Austin, him and the rock were one of a kinds.


Wwe network is class. Subscribed last week and currently watching backlash 1999. Hardcore match at the minute, these where the days!

 

[Damocles]

Bryan is nothing like Austin, him and the rock were one of a kinds.


Wwe network is class. Subscribed last week and currently watching backlash 1999. Hardcore match at the minute, these where the days!

Bryan is literally Austin without the attitude. How old were you in 1997?

By the way - the WWE Network just hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Guess the IWC isn't really that big of a deal financially.

 

[pudge]

Bryan is nothing like Austin, him and the rock were one of a kinds.


Wwe network is class. Subscribed last week and currently watching backlash 1999. Hardcore match at the minute, these where the days!

Bryan is literally Austin without the attitude. How old were you in 1997?

By the way - the WWE Network just hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Guess the IWC isn't really that big of a deal financially.

The general principle is the same; conflict with authority. The same could be said of many current wrestlers and how their development is being played out.

Other than that I can't agree, certainly not with the "literally" part.

 

[Damocles]

Bryan is nothing like Austin, him and the rock were one of a kinds.


Wwe network is class. Subscribed last week and currently watching backlash 1999. Hardcore match at the minute, these where the days!

Bryan is literally Austin without the attitude. How old were you in 1997?

By the way - the WWE Network just hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Guess the IWC isn't really that big of a deal financially.

The general principle is the same; conflict with authority. The same could be said of many current wrestlers and how their development is being played out.

Other than that I can't agree, certainly not in any literal sense.

He is the personification of the attitude of the audience and society in general at his time, a figure that they live vicariously through and are outraged at the treatment of. That's the entire point of Austin and it's why people give a shit about Bryan in a way that they don't give a shit about Ziggler.

It's nothing to do with the conflict with authority, it's do with the representation of the zeitgeist in society. Bryan is the 99%, so to speak.

 

[pudge]

Bryan is literally Austin without the attitude. How old were you in 1997?

By the way - the WWE Network just hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Guess the IWC isn't really that big of a deal financially.

The general principle is the same; conflict with authority. The same could be said of many current wrestlers and how their development is being played out.

Other than that I can't agree, certainly not in any literal sense.

He is the personification of the attitude of the audience and society in general at his time, a figure that they live vicariously through and are outraged at the treatment of. That's the entire point of Austin and it's why people give a shit about Bryan in a way that they don't give a shit about Ziggler.

It's nothing to do with the conflict with authority, it's do with the representation of the zeitgeist in society. Bryan is the 99%, so to speak.

It's not at all though, there's no seeing yourself through Bryan.

Austin did what everyone wanted to do to somebody "keeping them down", people could live through him in that way. It's not at all like that with Bryan.

Bryan's a little kid getting getting knocked down by a bully, like many other wrestlers, it's not exclusive to him which makes the comparison odd. It's "good on him" when he fights back not "that's me!" It's cheering on the underdog at best not wishing you were the underdog like how everyone wished they were Austin and did what he did.

Bryan's story line is a work that ironically represents what a lot of wrestlers actually go through in the business. Austin's was representative of blue collared workers wanting to give their boss the finger, literally.

Bryan's "plight" is publicized and focused on a lot more as that is the point, but it's not the personification of the 99%.

Although when I look at Bryan I don't see some underdog being kept down I see a cash cow who has headlined 95% of PPVs he's been available and being rather successful.

As for anyone who will argue people like him for his wrestling, take a look at Kenta. He's what Bryan wishes he was and what Bryan fans think he is.

 

[Damocles]

The general principle is the same; conflict with authority. The same could be said of many current wrestlers and how their development is being played out.

Other than that I can't agree, certainly not in any literal sense.

He is the personification of the attitude of the audience and society in general at his time, a figure that they live vicariously through and are outraged at the treatment of. That's the entire point of Austin and it's why people give a shit about Bryan in a way that they don't give a shit about Ziggler.

It's nothing to do with the conflict with authority, it's do with the representation of the zeitgeist in society. Bryan is the 99%, so to speak.

It's not at all though, there's no seeing yourself through Bryan.

Austin did what everyone wanted to do to somebody "keeping them down", people could live through him in that way. It's not at all like that with Bryan.

Bryan's a little kid getting getting knocked down by a bully, like many other wrestlers, it's not exclusive to him which makes the comparison odd. It's "good on him" when he fights back not "that's me!" It's cheering on the underdog at best not wishing you were the underdog like how everyone wished they were Austin and did what he did.

Bryan's story line is a work that ironically represents what a lot of wrestlers actually go through in the business. Austin's was representative of blue collared workers wanting to give their boss the finger, literally.

Bryan's "plight" is publicized and focused on a lot more as that is the point, but it's the personification of the 99%.

Although when I look at Bryan I don't see some underdog being kept down I see a cash cow who has headlined 95% of PPVs he's been available and being rather successful.

Yeah I agree that this is the kayfabe reason why people like him. I just think most wrestling fans are now marks who think that because they know what a heel and a face is that it's impossible to work them. I'm talking about why people like him though not that their booking is schizophrenic.

My point is that Daniel Bryan is presented as the "voice of the voiceless" to nick a Punk phrase and a man who is shit on by corporate interests. He is held down because he doesn't look the right way or sound the right way and his talent is not enough. It's the idea that corporate interests now rule our lives in Government and the economy and all those other things. Daniel Bryan is the UKIP of the WWE. Those who felt disenfranchised by the authority in power are finally getting somebody who they can stand behind and support who is "not like those fatcats in Washington". And they legitimately believe it too, they believe that this man is the saviour of all of the ills real or imagined of the WWE or Westminster.

Me and you aren't sat at his feet worshipping him like some but we've been around the block and see the work in it. Others, like the Philly crowd the other day, are absolutely a believer in him. They count the amount of shirts Bryan has at the merch table and compare it to other superstars then go online and post conspiracies about how the WWE are massaging numbers so that they don't have to book him on top.

Daniel Bryan is over. And by that I mean actually over. Not a person people cheer for because they are supposed to cheer for him, or not a guy that they admire little bit like Ziggler but properly over where a bunch of their audience have made an emotional investment in him. And they really believe he is "held down by the powerbrokers like Vince and HHH". Not kayfabe believe, I mean they actually believe it, despite the main event matches that you pointed out.

The comparison with Austin comes because of a few similarities. Firstly, Austin was super over in the same way. People honestly thought that Vince wouldn't let him win the title and embarrass him - though the internet community was smaller then and a bit smarter than it is now, there were even murmurings of this online. Secondly, he's the personification of the attitude of society at that time. Whereas early 2010s was about corporations and the 1% and bankers and MPs expenses/government corruption in the States, lobbying, etc, the late 90s in the States was a time of Jerry Springer and anti-authority in a much more violent and in your face way. A backlash from the Family Ties type programming they had been receiving and the music at the time was angry in all directions. Thirdly, there is the blurring of lines between reality and not reality. They are using the knowledge that the audience has about how the WWE works and using this as motivation in the script procedure. McMahon was a commentator but actually the boss which is why Hart and then Austin went after him which was pretty groundbreaking at the time. Bryan is a smaller guy and not the "big man" in the NY territory which is acknowledged in the script and plays with people's expectations.

I could go on and the similarities are obvious when you think about it. He will probably never be as successful as Austin and certainly not as entertaining but that wasn't the point. The point was that people identified with Bryan in the same way that they identified with Austin.