You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
General Wrestling Thread
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
leighton
Well-Known Member
Finns Move Sets?? I think his finisher can be adapted. Fuck me Cena won clean with the weakest STF ever so there is weak moves that wins from even the best aka Rock with the Peoples Elbow. So you can have a weak finishing move to win at the top. Hogans Big Boot into the Leg Drop the list goes on and on.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Finns Move Sets?? I think his finisher can be adapted. Fuck me Cena won clean with the weakest STF ever so there is weak moves that wins from even the best aka Rock with the Peoples Elbow. So you can have a weak finishing move to win at the top. Hogans Big Boot into the Leg Drop the list goes on and on.
well I know I'm a numpty and completely wrong on this*, but it just lacks something for me. I agree on the STFU, but the others (Austin/Rock) have a real sense of occasion and bravado to them, that Finn's doesn't. I think he needs to either change it, or add an additional step to the move to make it work better. Just think his move set could be reordered to be structured better and made stronger as a result.
*Damocles Disclaimer
Yaya_Tony
Well-Known Member
All the big names had their finishing sequence. Bret Hart, lauded as once of the best (and my own personal favourite too) had a back breaker, atomic drop, elbow of the second rope, figure 4 round the post and pin or sharp shooter. Predictable moves are nothing new.Finns Move Sets?? I think his finisher can be adapted. Fuck me Cena won clean with the weakest STF ever so there is weak moves that wins from even the best aka Rock with the Peoples Elbow. So you can have a weak finishing move to win at the top. Hogans Big Boot into the Leg Drop the list goes on and on.
Nj if Maria had the internet would break.
leighton
Well-Known Member
well I know I'm a numpty and completely wrong on this*, but it just lacks something for me. I agree on the STFU, but the others (Austin/Rock) have a real sense of occasion and bravado to them, that Finn's doesn't. I think he needs to either change it, or add an additional step to the move to make it work better. Just think his move set could be reordered to be structured better and made stronger as a result.
*Damocles Disclaimer
I know what your saying surprised he doesnt use the finisher he had in Japan. Seems a better finisher Bloody Sunday and he could hit it both ways too. Just all about opinions and I hate to say it but I just think WWE will fuck it up like they have with Bray Wyatt and will do with Kevin Owens. But I am hopeful they dont fuck it up.
well I know I'm a numpty and completely wrong on this*, but it just lacks something for me. I agree on the STFU, but the others (Austin/Rock) have a real sense of occasion and bravado to them, that Finn's doesn't. I think he needs to either change it, or add an additional step to the move to make it work better. Just think his move set could be reordered to be structured better and made stronger as a result.
*Damocles Disclaimer
The biggest star in the history of wrestling's "moveset" consisted of two punches, a boot to the face and a pretty shitty looking leg drop.
The second biggest star in the history of wrestling had a jumping tackle, punches and kicks, and a jawbreaker.
You presumably are one of those people who like Heyman. Did you not listen to him where he said that he could make a headlock the most over finisher in the company in about 6 weeks?
Talking about the moveset of a wrestler is spectacularly missing the point of wrestling, and one of those internet discussions that people have when they use words such as "workrate" and "heat" and other terms that they don't seem to understand the meaning of.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
The biggest star in the history of wrestling's "moveset" consisted of two punches, a boot to the face and a pretty shitty looking leg drop.
The second biggest star in the history of wrestling had a jumping tackle, punches and kicks, and a jawbreaker.
You presumably are one of those people who like Heyman. Did you not listen to him where he said that he could make a headlock the most over finisher in the company in about 6 weeks?
Talking about the moveset of a wrestler is spectacularly missing the point of wrestling, and one of those internet discussions that people have when they use words such as "workrate" and "heat" and other terms that they don't seem to understand the meaning of.
I meant move set in terms of the way he transitions from point A to the end point of the match, not his actual repertoire of moves. It's going to sound bizarre, but I preferred the start of the Owens/Balor match, where they were just going toe to toe, to the end, because it honestly just didn't feel like Balor had done enough to "put Owens away".
Now, perhaps that's just the legacy of the 2 Cena matches, perhaps that's because it was a lot more traditional than the spot fest of the current WWE matches, but having watched 2 Cena v Owens matches, it just didn't click with me that a) Owens would lose clean to a 190lb guy in the middle of his super Cena feud, b) that he would fail to get so much of the offense in that he had in matches against Cena and c) that Balor would be able to put him away clean "so easily".
I've watched it 3 times now and it just doesn't click for me, and I don't like Balor's finisher. I don't know, it just doesn't come across to me as having the impact, but then I can refer back to things like both of these guys throwing punches, and neither of them scuff their foot on the mat at the same time to make the noise to give it impact, they just throw punches, it's something that makes Owens punches vs. Cena look weaker than Cena's, because Cena stomps the mat. I enjoyed Balor's early offense in taking Owens down with the dives and kicks, but there was just no moment to me where it screamed "Oh my, that's got to put Owens away here". That's the disconnect I've struggled with since I saw it first time around, but me and my way of seeing it can't get over the disconnect of Owens losing that way to Balor, after 2 seriously tough matches against Cena and in the middle of a feud where he keeps getting back up from everything, and displaying such tremendous offence, against the supposed toughest guy in the company. The nuances of booking and wrestling may point to something completely different, but that's how comes across to me, that Owens walks away really weak.
The reality era.
The reality era is a term that pseudo-marks have invented to explain their really poor understanding of wrestling and how it works as a show. This isn't really about you to be honest but is just a general frustration about the state of wrestling fandom, especially in the new generation of wrestling fans who would be early college age.
This massive overanalysis of wrestling has disconnected them ironically from the reality of the show and instead they live in a world which has invented rules, which of course wrestling always breaks because they aren't playing by the same rules. I personally blame Dave Meltzer for this and was posting on message boards when he was just a knobhead with a newsletter that everybody used to laugh at for getting shit wrong on a daily basis and blowing Ric Flair like he was his personal whore. Now apparently he's this accurate reporter who people should listen to and appreciate his stolen star rating system. In reality he's a weeaboo who prints whatever he is told to print by people with agendas.
But this idea that the pseudo-marks have gotten about wrestling comes almost entirely from his influence. Let me explain exactly what I mean in the form of an analogy.
If you speak to wrestling fans these days and ask them who are the greatest wrestlers who ever lived, the answers generally come back with things like Chris Benoit, Bret Hart and Daniel Bryan. These are all objectively wrong answers. The possible answers are Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and Ric Flair. Because the point of wrestling is to draw money and not to make a tiny subsection of the fanbase dazzled with your wonderful work rate. It's also why the Young Bucks may as well call themselves The Indie Superstars Who Will Never Draw Big Money.
Now, ask yourself these questions:
1. Is Finn Balor now in a position to draw more money because of this match?
2. Is Kevin Owens now in a position to draw less money because of this match?
The answer to 1 is yes, Finn Balor has been legitimized onscreen as a rising star who people should pay attention to. The answer to number 2 is no, because Kevin Owens is currently IN A FUCKING PROGRAM WITH THE BIGGEST STAR OF THE PAST 15 YEARS and a single loss on the WWE Network in some Japanese house show isn't going to matter because next week he again gets to stand next to THE BIGGEST STAR OF THE PAST 15 YEARS.
It's like those complete morons who argued that Bray Wyatt shouldn't have lost to Taker at WM or shouldn't have been in a program with him. This would be the program that put him front and centre on TV and gave him 10 minutes of mic time every RAW leading up to WM, only to face off against the biggest legend in the industry in his once a year showing on the biggest possible stage. Oh yeah I'm sure he was gutted at that.
Single wins and losses do not matter. They didn't matter even when people thought that this was real, they matter even less now. What matters is whether you are been promoted and given time to show your character to a global audience and get yourself over/in a position to start drawing some money. Nobody gives a shit who wins and loses and nobody ever has.
This massive overanalysis of wrestling has disconnected them ironically from the reality of the show and instead they live in a world which has invented rules, which of course wrestling always breaks because they aren't playing by the same rules. I personally blame Dave Meltzer for this and was posting on message boards when he was just a knobhead with a newsletter that everybody used to laugh at for getting shit wrong on a daily basis and blowing Ric Flair like he was his personal whore. Now apparently he's this accurate reporter who people should listen to and appreciate his stolen star rating system. In reality he's a weeaboo who prints whatever he is told to print by people with agendas.
But this idea that the pseudo-marks have gotten about wrestling comes almost entirely from his influence. Let me explain exactly what I mean in the form of an analogy.
If you speak to wrestling fans these days and ask them who are the greatest wrestlers who ever lived, the answers generally come back with things like Chris Benoit, Bret Hart and Daniel Bryan. These are all objectively wrong answers. The possible answers are Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and Ric Flair. Because the point of wrestling is to draw money and not to make a tiny subsection of the fanbase dazzled with your wonderful work rate. It's also why the Young Bucks may as well call themselves The Indie Superstars Who Will Never Draw Big Money.
Now, ask yourself these questions:
1. Is Finn Balor now in a position to draw more money because of this match?
2. Is Kevin Owens now in a position to draw less money because of this match?
The answer to 1 is yes, Finn Balor has been legitimized onscreen as a rising star who people should pay attention to. The answer to number 2 is no, because Kevin Owens is currently IN A FUCKING PROGRAM WITH THE BIGGEST STAR OF THE PAST 15 YEARS and a single loss on the WWE Network in some Japanese house show isn't going to matter because next week he again gets to stand next to THE BIGGEST STAR OF THE PAST 15 YEARS.
It's like those complete morons who argued that Bray Wyatt shouldn't have lost to Taker at WM or shouldn't have been in a program with him. This would be the program that put him front and centre on TV and gave him 10 minutes of mic time every RAW leading up to WM, only to face off against the biggest legend in the industry in his once a year showing on the biggest possible stage. Oh yeah I'm sure he was gutted at that.
Single wins and losses do not matter. They didn't matter even when people thought that this was real, they matter even less now. What matters is whether you are been promoted and given time to show your character to a global audience and get yourself over/in a position to start drawing some money. Nobody gives a shit who wins and loses and nobody ever has.
njmcfc1894
Well-Known Member
Ultimate warrior in a shoot interview (2004) on his wrestling achievements " am I as good a wrestler as Chris Benoit ? No! But in 15 years (2019) ask fans who they want to see and it will be the ultimate warrior " (obviously this was pre Benoit going mental) That statement showed why Flair, Bret,Dibiase etc didn't like him, he pissed all over them money wise and came in to Wwf for 4 years made a Bomb and didn't need the wrestling business, yes wwe will release DVDs etc of the warrior but he was clever with his money so his wife and kids are set up for life, Savage was every bit as good as the 3 names above, he never slagged the warrior off cause they made money together (and great matches) , I'm an old school fan but love watching a Warrior as much as Hart, Dibiase, Savage, Perfect, HBK
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
"single wins and losses don't matter".
Apart from the paragraph above where the win matters to put Balor into a marketable position...
Fully understood the title change, BUT I don't agree that wins and losses do not matter, because you have to use them to build guys up, as you've just proven.
The manner of the title change was the issue for me, because I'm an individual fan and I want, as a fan, to see some logical continuity in a story line sense, something that makes sense to me. Owens as this heel who is a huge threat to Cena, yet loses to Balor in that fashion, right in the middle of his biggest feud, and we're expected to believe as fans now, that Owens can come back in 2 weeks and beat Cena clean. What does that say for a) Owens, b) Cena and c) Balor?
You see, as you correctly point out the WWE is only interested in money-making stars. Thus, KO Owens will maybe win the feud with Cena and become the next smark superstar they can draw money off. However, as a week-to-week fan, you see these perceived inconsistencies, that in the larger money-drawing picture are irrelevant, but to me, make a difference, in the same way Lesnar losing to Cena on his return, and losing to Triple H, didn't make sense to me, especially when they finally went with how Lesnar should always have been booked, and he had such a powerful 2014 as a top star.
The big picture will plough on and will work for the WWE long-run, as the end result on Saturday will help achieve. However, to a fan, it's the little things that change your reaction to something from "awesome" to "well, wtf?". Enough ex-pros pick apart the inconsistencies they see on a weekly basis, in reality, it's how you perceive the story that takes you to the end money-making result that is the difference between us.
I get Balor winning on Saturday, I like Balor winning on Saturday. The way it was done, didn't work for me, does that make it wrong or detrimental on a money-making basis, no, but I don't sit and watch wrestling to say "oh wow, that will draw money".
Apart from the paragraph above where the win matters to put Balor into a marketable position...
Fully understood the title change, BUT I don't agree that wins and losses do not matter, because you have to use them to build guys up, as you've just proven.
The manner of the title change was the issue for me, because I'm an individual fan and I want, as a fan, to see some logical continuity in a story line sense, something that makes sense to me. Owens as this heel who is a huge threat to Cena, yet loses to Balor in that fashion, right in the middle of his biggest feud, and we're expected to believe as fans now, that Owens can come back in 2 weeks and beat Cena clean. What does that say for a) Owens, b) Cena and c) Balor?
You see, as you correctly point out the WWE is only interested in money-making stars. Thus, KO Owens will maybe win the feud with Cena and become the next smark superstar they can draw money off. However, as a week-to-week fan, you see these perceived inconsistencies, that in the larger money-drawing picture are irrelevant, but to me, make a difference, in the same way Lesnar losing to Cena on his return, and losing to Triple H, didn't make sense to me, especially when they finally went with how Lesnar should always have been booked, and he had such a powerful 2014 as a top star.
The big picture will plough on and will work for the WWE long-run, as the end result on Saturday will help achieve. However, to a fan, it's the little things that change your reaction to something from "awesome" to "well, wtf?". Enough ex-pros pick apart the inconsistencies they see on a weekly basis, in reality, it's how you perceive the story that takes you to the end money-making result that is the difference between us.
I get Balor winning on Saturday, I like Balor winning on Saturday. The way it was done, didn't work for me, does that make it wrong or detrimental on a money-making basis, no, but I don't sit and watch wrestling to say "oh wow, that will draw money".