|
Post by Jayman on May 22, 2017 22:00:53 GMT
That's correct, and the point being that there's more to being the full package then being able to have good matches. That's my issue with a lot of indy darlings, especially Finn Balor. Tremendous wrestler but boring beyond words otherwise. His promo skills are ass and when he isn't the demon king he looks bland. In this era where guys train and concentrate more on perfecting moves, it's more and more common. Thousands of guys are very good wrestlers and have very good matches, but everything else is lacking and they're incomplete workers.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 22, 2017 22:02:44 GMT
that's true, I don't feel sorry for thinking what I'm thinking. I guess just a misguided attempt at courtesy to my fellow forum friends who may be big fans of his i'll get tarred and feathered for this on here but so be it. how about 'the undertaker'. i get he was a 'look' and a 'persona' ala The Honkey Tonk Man. i get the mystique. his main event wars. was he ever really 'The Man' for an extended period of time? think about all the time he was around. was he ever really 'The Man'. ala hogan, hart, hbk, stone cold, rock, etc...... was he really a great in ring grappler? oooooooooohhhh!!! yeah - i get he could walk the ropes .................meh. 'taker was never my cup of tea I completely understand that. The man is known for having a rather bland personality which is why this dead man gimmick was perfect for him. The guy was always capable of having good matches and I totally respect the man. But I never took to that gimmick. Too cartoonish with all that supernatural stuff for my taste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 1:13:48 GMT
i'll get tarred and feathered for this on here but so be it. how about 'the undertaker'. i get he was a 'look' and a 'persona' ala The Honkey Tonk Man. i get the mystique. his main event wars. was he ever really 'The Man' for an extended period of time? think about all the time he was around. was he ever really 'The Man'. ala hogan, hart, hbk, stone cold, rock, etc...... was he really a great in ring grappler? oooooooooohhhh!!! yeah - i get he could walk the ropes .................meh. 'taker was never my cup of tea I completely understand that. The man is known for having a rather bland personality which is why this dead man gimmick was perfect for him. The guy was always capable of having good matches and I totally respect the man. But I never took to that gimmick. Too cartoonish with all that supernatural stuff for my taste. thank you. he's pretty much The Honkey Tonk Man with staying power because he was a company man that never created waves and trouble. a 'yes man' so to speak who never was 'the man'. you listen to people glowingly talk about 'taker and probably deserving so in many respects - but was he ever really 'the man' when he's held in such high regards? i can knock hogan, austin, trips, rock, hbk, hart, diesel, etc etc - at times they were regarded as 'the man' - when was 'taker ever that guy?
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 23, 2017 3:23:05 GMT
He was really good, but in this case it really was the gimmick that took off and got him so over. I think he would've gotten over anyways, but not to that extent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 19:25:29 GMT
He was really good, but in this case it really was the gimmick that took off and got him so over. I think he would've gotten over anyways, but not to that extent. agreed. the gimmick made him. i wonder if you put Sid, Nash or Kane in the outfit - if it would have gotten over. i think so. not hating on the guy - he's obviously a legend in his own right and one of the most important guys in the business - but in my eyes he's one of the few that benefitted for over a decade plus from the 'gimmick', story lines and booking. the character made him. not the other way around.
|
|
autopsy_12
Sophomore
@onedoomedspacemarine
Posts: 131
Likes: 57
|
Post by autopsy_12 on May 23, 2017 21:50:10 GMT
I will get massacred for this, but Bruno Sammartino.
I understand that he's a legend and he is a product of his time but everything about him bores me to tears. He had no charisma and his matches were all boring and slow. (and I am not completely chalking that up to his time period. I have watched and enjoyed a lot of 70's wrestling just fine, but have never been able to enjoy his work.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 22:08:38 GMT
I will get massacred for this, but Bruno Sammartino. I understand that he's a legend and he is a product of his time but everything about him bores me to tears. He had no charisma and his matches were all boring and slow. (and I am not completely chalking that up to his time period. I have watched and enjoyed a lot of 70's wrestling just fine, but have never been able to enjoy his work.) i agree with this 100% and have posted similar in the past. i never 'got' Bruno. another unpopular opinion. Roddy Piper. RIP. i get his legendary status in the business - going up against Hogan at 'Mania I with Mr. T. great heel. looked up his old school stuff with Flair and Valentine. i think people in life get a 'pass' in some instances for what they've done and not what they are currently doing. Piper to me is an example of a 'Legend' that lost touch. to me his interviews, promos for years upon years were just cringe worthy. came across 'off'. like he was trying too hard to be funny and cool and they just felt flat and awkward. to me Piper is a classic example of somebody who was better as one persona - i.e. a heel as opposed to a face.
|
|
autopsy_12
Sophomore
@onedoomedspacemarine
Posts: 131
Likes: 57
|
Post by autopsy_12 on May 23, 2017 22:21:37 GMT
I will get massacred for this, but Bruno Sammartino. I understand that he's a legend and he is a product of his time but everything about him bores me to tears. He had no charisma and his matches were all boring and slow. (and I am not completely chalking that up to his time period. I have watched and enjoyed a lot of 70's wrestling just fine, but have never been able to enjoy his work.) i agree with this 100% and have posted similar in the past. i never 'got' Bruno. another unpopular opinion. Roddy Piper. RIP. i get his legendary status in the business - going up against Hogan at 'Mania I with Mr. T. great heel. looked up his old school stuff with Flair and Valentine. i think people in life get a 'pass' in some instances for what they've done and not what they are currently doing. Piper to me is an example of a 'Legend' that lost touch. to me his interviews, promos for years upon years were just cringe worthy. came across 'off'. like he was trying too hard to be funny and cool and they just felt flat and awkward. to me Piper is a classic example of somebody who was better as one persona - i.e. a heel as opposed to a face. Piper was one of those guys I liked more for what he did outside of the ring than inside. I love a lot of his cheesy action movies as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 23, 2017 22:32:23 GMT
There's no wrong answers here. Not everybody took to Bruno. I watch some of the MSG 70's house shows on youtube and they are coma inducing. Bruno had some decent matches and I understand why he got over. But compare that kind of world champ to Harley Race or Bockwinkle, or Brisco and it's a different kind of champion that's not for everybody. But also you have to remember that that was the wwf style. Somewhere along the line somebody decided that it was ok to be lazy and the wwf was always known as a lazy man's territory. Guys were so scared of outshining the main event that they did next to nothing in their matches. Then when it got to the main event, it was still slow and boring but the crowds went apeshit for it. I guess that was their formula. Never outshine the main event. It worked for them because the WWWF didn't have to draw in the same buildings every single week like the rest of the territories. They ran most buildings like 7 or 8 times a year and the big ones 12 times a year. So if you only get to see wrestling live once a month, you're damn sure going to show up once a month and you'll most likely eat shit and enjoy it. Well, not me but the fans did.
|
|
autopsy_12
Sophomore
@onedoomedspacemarine
Posts: 131
Likes: 57
|
Post by autopsy_12 on May 23, 2017 22:47:59 GMT
There's no wrong answers here. Not everybody took to Bruno. I watch some of the MSG 70's house shows on youtube and they are coma inducing. Bruno had some decent matches and I understand why he got over. But compare that kind of world champ to Harley Race or Bockwinkle, or Brisco and it's a different kind of champion that's not for everybody. But also you have to remember that that was the wwf style. Somewhere along the line somebody decided that it was ok to be lazy and the wwf was always known as a lazy man's territory. Guys were so scared of outshining the main event that they did next to nothing in their matches. Then when it got to the main event, it was still slow and boring but the crowds went apeshit for it. I guess that was their formula. Never outshine the main event. It worked for them because the WWWF didn't have to draw in the same buildings every single week like the rest of the territories. They ran most buildings like 7 or 8 times a year and the big ones 12 times a year. So if you only get to see wrestling live once a month, you're damn sure going to show up once a month and you'll most likely eat shit and enjoy it. Well, not me but the fans did. Thank you for not resorting to the "How can you say he is overrated when he was such a draw?" argument. As if that has anything at all to do with my overall personal enjoyment of him. He was a huge draw and that is a fact, I never dispute facts. I just always found him dull as dishwater personally.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 23, 2017 22:59:37 GMT
No problem buddy. We all have our likes and dislikes. That's also what was always good about having more wrestling out there than just the WWE. more contrast in styles, different types of stars, and as a result, each fan, and each territory had different styles that the fans grew up with and different tastes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 7:27:42 GMT
Yeah I agree that anybody could make an argument in regards to anybody being over rated. If somebody gets offended by that choice because said person is their favorite then I question the maturity/age of the offended person. As long as you can put forth a reason as to why instead of "he's over rated because he sucks" then I see no reason why the opinion can't be respected.
I disagree to an extent in regards to The Undertaker but I understand the argument. His gimmick is considered by many to be the most successful gimmick in wrestling history. Early on in his career I felt like the gimmick carried him but as time went on I felt it was an attribute to Mark that he was able to make the gimmick still work. To me he's the most talented big man performer the WWE has ever seen so that helped a lot. But like I said, I completely understand if somebody feels he's over rated.
Another guy I'd consider to be over rated would be Ric Flair. Now mind you if I grew up in his era of the NWA I'm sure I would of loved Ric Flair. However I remember him VERY briefly in his first WWF run and he was nothing that stood out to me as a kid. Then as I grew up and watched the Monday Night Wars I never saw the appeal of Flair. He always came across as a joke to me with him doing things like getting naked and elbow dropping his jacket. His matches all felt too scripted in they tended to all go the same way. I mean how many times did we have to see the turnbuckle spot where he then climbs up and gets thrown off. It was the same spot in basically every match. He feels like the definition of a guy who "wants to get all his shit in". Flair COULD be good if the story was right. However just watching him in a bubble for me personally I never got it.
|
|
autopsy_12
Sophomore
@onedoomedspacemarine
Posts: 131
Likes: 57
|
Post by autopsy_12 on May 24, 2017 14:25:02 GMT
Yeah I agree that anybody could make an argument in regards to anybody being over rated. If somebody gets offended by that choice because said person is their favorite then I question the maturity/age of the offended person. As long as you can put forth a reason as to why instead of "he's over rated because he sucks" then I see no reason why the opinion can't be respected. I disagree to an extent in regards to The Undertaker but I understand the argument. His gimmick is considered by many to be the most successful gimmick in wrestling history. Early on in his career I felt like the gimmick carried him but as time went on I felt it was an attribute to Mark that he was able to make the gimmick still work. To me he's the most talented big man performer the WWE has ever seen so that helped a lot. But like I said, I completely understand if somebody feels he's over rated. Another guy I'd consider to be over rated would be Ric Flair. Now mind you if I grew up in his era of the NWA I'm sure I would of loved Ric Flair. However I remember him VERY briefly in his first WWF run and he was nothing that stood out to me as a kid. Then as I grew up and watched the Monday Night Wars I never saw the appeal of Flair. He always came across as a joke to me with him doing things like getting naked and elbow dropping his jacket. His matches all felt too scripted in they tended to all go the same way. I mean how many times did we have to see the turnbuckle spot where he then climbs up and gets thrown off. It was the same spot in basically every match. He feels like the definition of a guy who "wants to get all his shit in". Flair COULD be good if the story was right. However just watching him in a bubble for me personally I never got it. People do not understand that overrated is just as subjective of a term as calling something good. People act like there is an objective quality to determining what is overrated.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 24, 2017 15:30:12 GMT
I agree. Most people who use overrated just use it to mean something they don't like or don't get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 16:04:46 GMT
I agree. Most people who use overrated just use it to mean something they don't like or don't get. Animal House
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 24, 2017 16:10:22 GMT
Yep, it's a tough habit to break. But I'm trying.
|
|
autopsy_12
Sophomore
@onedoomedspacemarine
Posts: 131
Likes: 57
|
Post by autopsy_12 on May 24, 2017 16:20:54 GMT
I agree. Most people who use overrated just use it to mean something they don't like or don't get. Animal House I never cared for that movie either honestly. I've never liked comedies like that anyway. Where it's just about a huge party and stuff goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 25, 2017 3:21:47 GMT
Another guy I'd consider to be over rated would be Ric Flair. Now mind you if I grew up in his era of the NWA I'm sure I would of loved Ric Flair. However I remember him VERY briefly in his first WWF run and he was nothing that stood out to me as a kid. Then as I grew up and watched the Monday Night Wars I never saw the appeal of Flair. He always came across as a joke to me with him doing things like getting naked and elbow dropping his jacket. His matches all felt too scripted in they tended to all go the same way. I mean how many times did we have to see the turnbuckle spot where he then climbs up and gets thrown off. It was the same spot in basically every match. He feels like the definition of a guy who "wants to get all his shit in". Flair COULD be good if the story was right. However just watching him in a bubble for me personally I never got it. He was a parody of himself in the late 90's. His time had passed by then. But people have different opinions on Flair. I am a fan. He was the new world champ when I first started watching so he was the man right off the bat, but it took me awhile to appreciate him. Plus you didn't see him on tv every week because he had about 20 territories he had to split his time with so you'd only get to see the guy 3 or 4 times a year in each particular area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 5:28:52 GMT
Another guy I'd consider to be over rated would be Ric Flair. Now mind you if I grew up in his era of the NWA I'm sure I would of loved Ric Flair. However I remember him VERY briefly in his first WWF run and he was nothing that stood out to me as a kid. Then as I grew up and watched the Monday Night Wars I never saw the appeal of Flair. He always came across as a joke to me with him doing things like getting naked and elbow dropping his jacket. His matches all felt too scripted in they tended to all go the same way. I mean how many times did we have to see the turnbuckle spot where he then climbs up and gets thrown off. It was the same spot in basically every match. He feels like the definition of a guy who "wants to get all his shit in". Flair COULD be good if the story was right. However just watching him in a bubble for me personally I never got it. He was a parody of himself in the late 90's. His time had passed by then. But people have different opinions on Flair. I am a fan. He was the new world champ when I first started watching so he was the man right off the bat, but it took me awhile to appreciate him. Plus you didn't see him on tv every week because he had about 20 territories he had to split his time with so you'd only get to see the guy 3 or 4 times a year in each particular area. Yeah I see that. Like I said had I actually watched the territory stuff when he was really in his prime I likely would of been a fan of his as I appreciate some good mic work. I have a very hard time erasing my first impressions of a guy too so my first, second, third, fourth and so on impressions of Flair were all as you described a parody of himself. I feel like I would of been a fan of the Freebirds too if I was alive and watching in that era. Now? I just can't stand Michael Hayes he's just a huge mark for himself and it's annoying to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on May 25, 2017 20:08:27 GMT
Is Micheal Hayes that bad now? I really haven't listened to much of his recent interviews.
|
|