Powerful_Fox

Just on the tournament and the booking... They spend so much time stressing Robbie E is a serious wrestler now. Gone is the party side of things, etc, etc, and then he loses out in the first round to Davey Richards? What was the point in hyping up Robbie E? I'm not saying Robbie should have gone on and won the tournament but I don't see the point in hyping him up to go out in the first round. On top of that, Lashley over Aries? Nah, not for me. The ending of the match was so daft. I think I'm right in saying Aries just needed a draw, why did he not simply get out the ring at the end?

I don't know how long they have been doing it as I haven;t watched TNA in ages, but you would have thought losing the first round of a tournament would have been s good storyline catalyst for making someone more serious.

If the expected match with Lesnar V Reigns does actually go ahead I don't know where this leaves Triple H on the card. Especially now that we know there's no Rock and Rollins.

Tag Team of the Year

Thinking about Wrestling With Shadows and I was thinking the timing of the film was amazing. No doubt people have questioned that "convenience" behind it n the past but I was wondering what the original plan for the film was anyway as Montreal wasn't expected. Was the reason behind it to be just a short film on Bret over a year which turned out to be his final year? Did the filmmaker already know he was in discussion with WWF and WCW and though that itself was the material for it and Montreal was an added bonus in terms of content?

I was just thinking on my way to work today, without Montreal and without the contract issues, there isn't really much of a film there and I don;t know how it could have been foreseen. Anyone have any insight into it's origins?

The only issue I had with SKY was in the setup, they cancelled the order without me knowing. It was meant to start on Monday 2nd of this month (just moved in), I phoned them them saying I still hadn't got any signal through, they said I received a text saying the order was cancelled. Let me just repeat that there, THEY told ME that I received a text. I told them no such text arrived to which the woman just thought I was being argumentative as she got a bit sharp. I asked her if she thought I would be phoning her asking why it wasn't on if I already received a text. Logic prevailed and she told me it was a system issue - for those who are unsure, a system issue means they have no idea what went on and it is the easiest thing to say to get the least amount of questions. So she said she would re-do it and we had to wait another 10 days, now she also sent out a new SKY Hub (which I told her I didn't want or need as I already had one), so when I saw the ticket from the Royal Mail I just didn't go and collect it and it was sent back to them but they still charged me another £7 for the delivery. Another phone call, got it taken off at least.

Anyway, apart from that, the signal itself has been very good. Getting 30+Mbps continuously when connected and I did a speed test on my phone and it was 22Mbps. Never drops out either. Overall bad initial service but now it is all set up, it is going really well and streaming great, even the Network hasn't stopped to buffer once.

Is there anywhere in this country now that doesn't have a high enough internet speed to not be able to utilise services like the Network and Netflix etc?

I was told that to stream standard definition content, you need speeds of at least 2Mbps, I have rarely dropped below this to test it though. My thinking would be fans who want to see it but don't have a strong enough internet connection for the Network perhaps.

Kurt Angle did an interview with the Nottingham post (source), one of the things discussed was his idea of kayfabe needing to return to wrestling

"I think it would be good to go back to kayfabe. When you lifted the curtain and showed people backstage it was new and intriguing, but if you go back to how it was, it could be the change wrestling needs.”.

It got me wondering if he was being a bit naive or if other people believe it is possible to go back to this methodology? I personally think that it is surely a case of closing the door before the horse has bolted. Especially in this day and age with the modern outlet of news, media etc. People are no longer relying solely on dirtsheets, which were in limited circulation. How could people just unlearn everything? It would take at least a whole generation, and would it even be worth the effort?

With all the documentaries kicking about on the Network, I would love to see one on Jim Johnston's creation of various theme's etc. Would be a fantastic insight.

It's also not just '97:

Ep 29: Jan-Jun 1996

Ep 39: Jul-Sep 1996

Ep 40: Oct-Dec 1996

Ep 45: Jan-Mar 1997

Ep 48: Apr-Jun 1997

Ep 56: Jul-Sep 1997

That is what is there so far, also make sure to check out the brilliant "Trial of..." series. Really good fun. The other episodes are all in a more topical round table format but are all great. I genuinely haven't been disappointed by one of them mate.

That's it. I would also check out iTunes mate, that is where I usually listen to it.

I am eventually going to burn some onto disc so I have them for the hour+ long car rides to work. It's pretty much the only podcast in general listen to now, outside of the odd AoW or Austin ones.

But some of the women are hired purely on that basis though, regardless of talent, some are hired because they are fit, they in segments because they are fit.

As Mr. E pointed out, most straight males between 18-35 will play that same game Vince does simply because they are straight males between 18-35. If a diva is hired and presented as a look-how-fit-this-bird-is-type to a demographic of that nature, it is the expected, and natural, reaction to judge "yeah she is fit, you're right".

If a different diva is pushed as a good hand, talented, solid in ring performer, chances are the primary reaction will be "she is decent... pretty fit too", that isn't a womanising, sexist, old-fashioned viewpoint. It's pretty natural. Granted some may focus more on the fit-ness than talent but that again comes with the years of previous sexploitation from WWE and each individual males personality.

Take Asuka here as an example, a decent hand in the ring and (my own personal preference) she is good looking. Now, I would judge the talent first as she is presented to me as such, as a male I am also going to naturally think "she is also quite fit". In contrast, Stacy Keibler is fit but she was always presented as a fit bird, so my first judgement is going to be on her fit-ness, in fact solely on her fit-ness as that is the only reason she was ever there.

 

 

 

 

 

SmackDown spoiler, doesn't relate much to RAW but relates to the general discussion on this thread of WWE's direction as a company.

 

Tyler Breeze debuts on SmackDown and is hit with Summer Rae. This company has no idea what to do with anyone. I mean who debuts on a SmackDown these days?

 

She's a kiss of death. Awful in every respect, and I'd even say uglier than Bayley.

 

It's harsh to say she's uglier than Bayley, but Summer does have a problem in that looks-wise, she is an uglier version of the prototypical diva. Paige is really good-looking but can get away with physical flaws because she's got her own niche. Bayley's ugliness is part of her gimmick, kind of. And for Summer, the role of Bootleg Lana was perfect -- but separated from that, she'll struggle again.

 

Do you read what you've written here and feel OK with it?

When WWE stop presenting the majority of its women as useless idiots employed solely to sell sex based on their looks, then people will stop treating them as such.

 

Wait. Did you essentially just use the "if they don't want to get raped they shouldn't dress like that" defense?

 

Your behavior should not be dictated or excused because of how things are presented to you. 

 

He didn't use that defence in fairness. The key difference is that WWE want to present things in that way because they wanted people to think that way of the divas. They are purposely being presented in a way to make a male audience watch them.

It isn't the same thing as "if they don't want to get raped they shouldn't dress like that", as a real life woman who chooses to dress a certain way is expressing herself as she sees fit, there should be no repercussion of this choice. WWE divas are presented in a way with the goal of adding sex appeal to the product, thus the key aim is to make the male audience think of them in a "looks first" manner. Whether this is reflected in the current "Dvias revolution" is a different debate, but there is no denying this has been the target in the past.

I am currently re-watching through 1997 RAW's at the same time listening to the Squared Circle Gazette Radio podcast timeline. It's so interesting putting the pieces together as I wasn't able to do it before either a) It was 1997 and I didn't have a clue what was going on backstage or b) The backstage drama was discussed but the time in reference had long passed.

It is almost becoming cliche to praise SCGR but it's just another reason for me. Really good replay-ability in their stuff too as a few bits and pieces fall through the cracks first time around.

About to enter the HBK heel-turn phase soon, just won the tag belts with Austin... I fucking love this time. Sadly though it is making me acutely aware that I am preferring the storyline above actual wrestling. I am now trying to look back over years where this hasn't been the case.

 

 

And it's a bit ridiculous that you decided to make a point of someone using a throwaway remark like that, and make an issue out of it.

 

I wasn't making a point like "you bloody bigot" or anything, I was just using it to point that there's a divide in what different people find acceptable to say - regardless of what side of the divide they're on or how acceptant they consider themselves, and no true consensus to speak of so such a gimmick would only be bad times with that in mind. WWE especially doesn't really have a track record of positive minority gimmicks, Darren Young happening to be gay in real life and it never being mentioned is about as much as we can ask from them, as for a negative/heel one..well it's not 1998.

 

They suck the dick of mainstream acceptance so badly these days that I think all they put out is naff these days.

They like mainstream acceptance but don't really do anything to actually fit in with the landscape of modern culture.

The attitude era was at a time when we had stuff like Jerry Springer and South Park. We wanted trash TV. Transvitites were funny and a girl flashing her tits went down a treat. Now people watch stuff like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones but wrestling doesn't reflect that. People love superheros again, but the closest we have is Neville wearing a cape and Stardust acting like a nutter.

We live in a time where everyone binge watches series, it's the norm to stick on a TV show and just watch several series in a month. Getting people to watch 3 hours or Raw every week shouldn't be that hard.

 

It would be easy for people to accept lots of long intricate stories (I mean actual stories not just rematches.) Everyone should be doing something with a goal, stories overlaping and leading onto other feuds. People want can't miss episodic television. I don't think it would be possible for WWE to keep up with that

 

I haven't thought about it in this light before (in the sense of it not reflecting modern audience TV preferences), but it is superbly put mate. It was always clear that back then the outrageous TV was the height of popularity but I have never personally made the connection that these days they aren't catering to that change in demand. It may not be so much that the existing product is stale, just wrong compared with what the mainstream demand is.

Well said.

On the Rajah site, it says "Credit: Wrestling Observer Newsletter" but I don't know if you are having a go at the site I got it from or me directly. Regardless, surely it is the news item itself that should be the focal point of the discussion.

I have just been reading Rajah (I seem to get annoying ad's and pop-up's everywhere else) and this really annoyed me:

- Regarding Cesaro, WWE has appeared to have broken his fan base. While there were still some "Cesaro Section" signs in the crowd in Boston, there were very few of them. "The King of Swing" still receives good reactions from the fans when he comes out, but the feeling is his crowd reactions have been way down from about a month ago when he was heating up again.

This really grates me but it probably shouldn't anymore. You have a star who is blatantly over, but you try and diffuse it so you can work on getting someone else over.

The logic baffles me.

 

I haven't watched TNA in lord knows how long but I am actually pretty curious about this. Any time when I was little and had the hasbro's out, I always did tournaments like the world cup so it has got my nostalgia engine revving at least.

 

Does anyone know when this is to kick off? And what day and time TNA is on Challenge? Cheers.

Are you at work on Monday? I'd be up for watching it on Sunday night

 

I am i'm afraid mate, if it's on at 9, won't be a problem watching it live though.

I haven't watched TNA in lord knows how long but I am actually pretty curious about this. Any time when I was little and had the hasbro's out, I always did tournaments like the world cup so it has got my nostalgia engine revving at least.

Does anyone know when this is to kick off? And what day and time TNA is on Challenge? Cheers.

I have just had a random thought about it... it's not Saville is it?

I am afraid I have no idea in regards to context, just saw it randomly myself.

Not really a thought, but this is one of the oddest things I have seen:

https://i.imgur.com/cWcDogB.gifv

Imagine trying to catch someone like that, even having the bottle to do the jump.

I assume with Ambrose is that it is a gimmick that is over with the crowd still and his loose cannon character compliments it. I think it has toned down slightly but I can only guess it is a case of "if it ain't broke...". As he has dropped from the top rung for the time being, they are probably just going to let him coast for a bit.

My guess will be that his next "gimmick change" will be the exact same character but with the volume turned up again.

It screams TNA.

Win by either hanging the belt above the ladder... or managing to stay outside the ring for 10 seconds without your opponent pushing you back in, TNA proudly presents the reverse lumberjack match.

 

A lad I work with just showed me this and went "you seen the state of that?"

 

He doesn't watch Wrestling either, it came up on his feed.

 

https://www.facebook.com/events/1501692126789410/

 

Peter Staniforth is still going

 

The fuck’s he doing promoting a show all the way up here?

 

He is doing a "Charity wrestling event to be held at the Billingham rugby club in aid of charity".

There is a post on there already about the card changing due to "talent unable to fully commit to their prior booking". It's lucky it is in Billingham actually as a Billingham Battle Royal and Billingham Brawl Street Fight match would sound silly anywhere else.

 

I keep hearing people complaining about how Seth Rollins is being booked as champion. The main complaint is that he's being booked weakly by only barely keeping the title, a point that is only valid for face champions in my opinion. A relatively small heel being booked to constantly use underhanded tactics is perfectly logical. Is it just my Facebook feed that's seeing this negative reaction to his title run? Personally I think it's been excellently done.

 

...

For me, part of the problem is how strong he looks in matches. He doesn't really play the cowardly heel until the finish a lot of the time, he does the epic match and flashy move stuff for the first 90%. That's just the same old "why didn't the Horsemen run in the first time Flair was under attack?" wrestling logic though.

 

I think he's quite good. He's trying hard to be 2000 Triple H style proper top heel, but something about it feels a bit off or false to me. Good but not great.

 

The only think I would say to that KP is, is that not done by design? It adds to the frustration for a fan and thus the story. Rollins has the tools to win clean but opts not to which is what is even more infuriating than just cheating to win. I think his character is exceptional at the minute, the reason he maybe having trouble in this comparison to Triple H is that he is being made to be too much of a comparison to Triple H if that makes sense?

Maybe if his character was able to be fully distinguished it may help, but I still see him as being in the embryonic phases of his real main event scene (if the plan is to have him there for years anyway). As that is the case, now maybe the time to make his character that bit more unique, how that happens, I don't know but I find that the only thing now holding him back is the obvious Triple H comparisons.

I enjoyed what she did in NXT, and when she got bumped up I did think it was a breathe of fresh air. If I remember right, she had an alright match with AJ too. Yep, then she went shit.

I wouldn't have said she was good, but there was something there that "could have been".  

... transitioned into absolutely nothing of note with a horrible sense of entitlement.

100% this.