Damocles said:
pudge said:
Exactly, you're saying that ballet is a form of story telling; the "same thing" as WWE.
No I'm not. I didn't say anything of the sort. I said wrestling as a storytelling mechanism is the same thing as ballet.
Those tiresome gimmicks; of rolling special guests and celebrity matches, downplay and devalue the aspect of story telling and the talent it requires to pull off convincingly and drags wrestlers in all sorts of tangents; so no sustainable style is attainable.
And I didn't say "What I like is what's right and everyone's wrong"
It's my opinion that what passes for good story telling and entertainment nowadays is hideously sub par. Not just in contrast to the acclaimed high points of the past but in general.
The incompetence of Cole and the unfortunate showing of age from Jerry Lawler don't make up for the lack of legitimate and prolonged feuds. It's hard to keep up with who the Wyatt's are after, it's poor form to have 2 belts in the US and IC going unchallenged for months on end and then a string of random "contenders" competing for them and subsequently given an application form to be a full time jobber.
The story telling in the ring that seems to garner all the attention is "I'm going to let you hit me with everything you've got, no sell it, and then hit a few of the same moves and win because I'm a scrappy fucker"
Arguably the best at selling the heel with his in ring performance is Orton, I don't rate him that highly but as has been seen, if you put him in the ring with someone like Cesaro who's technical ability is outstanding then the match itself is of a higher quality and the "brute/thug/scrappy" aspect of Orton is enhanced and performed better.
Not even taking into consideration the fact that wrestlers like Big Show should at this point be putting other wrestlers over instead of dragging them down by having them try and lose convincingly to a sauntering, overweight giant. What story does Big Show and his matches portray? "Here's a big, lazy bastard that's too big to conquer"?
You portray some knowledgeable insight into wrestling but, and again this is my opinion, you seem too eager to accept a substandard job in all aspects as to justify the fandom. I could even say that your style of posting is of the same kind you feel mine is, however I realize it's about opinions not condescension; "I cannot believe I am having to tell somebody this."
You didn't have to tell anyone anything, as again it's my opinion and I respect others. Once again, does't mean I agree with it but it doesn't mean it's wrong.
WM30 is a poorly and somewhat rushed together affair, yet it will be heralded as a great success with matches for the ages. When in reality, the story telling is poor and shoved together like 2 jigsaw pieces that just don't fit. However, it will pander; so regardless of quality it will gain the approval some are eager to give already.
This further convinces me that your problem is that you just cannot see the story as they are told in the ring. Story is a bad description as you are getting it confused with angles; we're talking about the psychology of matches.
Orton has absolutely zero psychology. In fact he is literally the worst person on the roster for this and he still after 14 years in the business cannot control a match nor pop a crowd. Cesaro has shown no ability to tell a story. Big Show has great psychology.
It's also funny that because our tastes differ and I don't believe that everything is just shit then I'm somehow desperately eager to give the WWE my approval. I can't just hold an opinion on quality you see, it must be because of a deep psychological need to say that the WWE is great. Because anybody disagreeing with you must be attempting to bend the fabric of reality to not see the pure and shining correctness of your opinion.
To be honest this isn't new. Once I saw you said Daniel Bryan was "a poor technical wrestler" I sort of knew immediately that you'd be one of "those fans". Daniel Bryan, the man who has won Torch Wrestler of the Year for the past 3 years running and won the Observer Technical Wrestler of the Year for a record 9 years running (and Outstanding Wrestler 3 times) apparently "isn't a good technical wrestler". The man who is literally the most recognised technical wrestler of the past 30 years.
I've been around the IWC all the way back to the newsgroups days and fans like you always pop up. They declare that everything is shit, the wrong people are in the wrong spots, certain people are massively overrated or underrated yet continue to watch the program. Wrestling is the only art form I've ever known where there are hardcore fans who watch it entirely to complain about how they didn't like it. They seem to have a perverse pleasure in saying that anything that is a widespread opinion must just be wrong
Well done, new heights of condescension, arrogance and irony right there.
"Big Show has great psychology" is as laughable as the Bryan nut hugging. Every man and his dog can see the poor standard of all aspects within WWE, and poor management of talent, as it seems you are incapable of seeing or acknowledging this it's not unfair to say you're turning a blind eye to it.
You keep pigeon holing people though. "you don't rate Daniel Bryan, so you're the kind of person that doesn't rate anything or know what they're taling about." is how that comes across.
Side note; the fact Bryan won Observer Technical Wrestler of the Year this year, shows how flawed it is. As even through his biggest fans admissions his move set has been limited throughout his push. His shins and sloppy drop kicks that account for 90% of his matches shouldn't have him down as a nominee let alone winner. I've accepted and acknowledged his time in ROH and skill set then, it's drastically lower in standard and technicality now, and hideously repetitive and poorly executed; so the award means very little in terms of recognition.
You bringing up that instance of my opinion of Bryan and your examples to refute it further convince me that you don't understand or appreciate the art of good technical wrestling, He's not even top 5 in the WWE let alone the best in wrestling across the world. It also seems that you have pigeon holed me simply due to me not liking a wrestler that you do.
I should have know from all those videos and numerous breaking bad references when people questioned why people like wrestling that you would be a rather uppity, know it all fan. Although I'll still respect your opinion until that latest post which is just one condescension filled post too far for me to disregard the personal aspect of it.
I'm not a fan that takes pleasure in complaining about it. I take annoyance when wrestlers deserving of air time and recognition get cast aside for gimmick soaked leotards.
Yet I enjoy just watching my favorite wrestlers perform, instead of crying about when they don't. I wouldn't go to an event and chant "Curtis Axel" for 3 hours.
I know exactly what you refer to with regards to story telling and regardless, my opinion is the same. As I said this will be a back and forth with a boring and predictable ending. As fitting as that would it would as equally pointless.
What is this great psychology that Big Show has, I'd liked to know that at the very least. He has zero back and forth and provokes zero emotion, he doesn't commit wholly himself in each match let alone bring out the best in his opponent.
