Michael_3165

20 hours ago, Steve Justice said:

Kane.

All variations of character and entrance music are fucking shit. Never got the gimmick. 

I loved the very original version as I did with Taker's first one. But as Kane's career progressed it turned a tad orchestral for my liking. It went from badass to rather meh.  Less is sometimes much more imo. 

Orton's "voices in my head" one was the shits. Slow, boring... 

Austin's post WM17 theme was IMO better than the original ghoulish know many people will disagree. Faster and a little more fierce sounding though his 1998 music was great too. 

I loved Savage's pomp and circumstance entrance, so much glamour and pageantry as Vince would say. Suited him perfectly. Flair is an odd one. Music suited his gimmick but it was a bit slow for me. That said you knew it was him.

Michaels was brilliant for him and iconic though a little embarrassing if heard by non fans. 

Nakamura first music in NXT was just brilliant. Fit him to perfection. 

It's weird, I could barely tell you who is coming out in todays WWE unless it's someone huge. Back in the attitude era I knew every single person's music. 

Didn't Diesel have that godawful trunk noise as an entrance for some time? 

14 minutes ago, Factotum said:

I wonder what the HR departments are like in wrestling companies? I'm assuming now every wrestler has to sign up to a code of conduct with one of the larger companies?

HR departments? Most of these companies have a handful of people who help flyer, book venues etc. They don't make enough for departments. From my experience at least. The smaller companies sometimes barely have a company at all. They just pitch up w a ring , book on the fly and do little else. 

Not sure about the likes of LDN etc. If they aren't full time or contracted employees then wrestlers won't need a HR dept. Though I may be wrong. 

Keith is right on this. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise and whilst a not guilty verdict in a criminal case means that there wasn't the evidence doesn't mean the person did it. I'm not all that comfortable with "he said, she said" court of public opinion because people (all people) inherently lie, misinterpret or perceive things in their own ways. Of course depending on what side of the battle they are on. Sadly people often don't report a rape until years later when all physical evidence is destroyed. POlice need to do much more to promote reporting in the moment so that they can get the evidence needed to prosecute.

38 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Are you saying one of the two people accused aren’t innocent until proven guilty?

I think he means that the accuser isn't the accused. Only the accused is in the frame. 

I'm not getting into the legal debate which I initially posted.

What astounds me is how the likes of Joey Ryan was allowed to get away with things for so long. I mean, he was hardly Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar - did he actually draw any money? I am not saying that drawing would be a reason not to bin someone, but I can see why promotors may be more reluctant to sack someone who is bringing in mega money. He is hardly some massive name in the industry. 

Maybe I am naïve and think that the world should be a better place! I am really torn between the need to validate a person's experience with the need for people to be treated fairly. It is a very fine balance. I don't want a society where men (and women) get sacked and/or slandered based on allegations that aren't founded and at the same time I don't want survivors of horrific abuse to be told they are making it all up. Having worked with many survivors of assaults I can see the level of distress they feel when a case doesn't go to trial. They feel completely powerless, let down and screwed over by society who should be looking out for them.  I have also worked with one guy who were falsely accused (demonstrably, he had CCTV evidence and a train ticket to prove he was not even in the county at the time of the alleged offense) and it ruined his life as he was fired, shunned etc. Whilst he could have done his employer for unfair dismissal, who would want to go back to an employer that does that to you? 

I am extremely non-emotive about this subject partly because I am a tad de-sensitised to it (I've been sexually harassed in the past as I've mentioned in previous posts and I am somewhat - probably unhealthily - dissociated from the whole thing) and partly because I am generally a rather critical, facts based person too. I also have a tendency to understand that good people do shitty things and shitty people have some elements of goodness even if its hard to see. I have worked alongside murderers, rapists, molesters, arsonists, drug addicts and dealers and it has certainly given me another perspective, particularly as I have also worked with the victims of sexual abuse, attempted murder and horrific traumas. 

I have been reading the Jim Ross autobiography "Slobberknocker" and its been rather fun in places. 

That said, it really strikes me how certain wrestlers have - over the years - gotten away with some outrageous behaviour which looking back in hindsight were down-right disgusting. Have we really come so far in the past 30 years or was it always unacceptable and people just tolerated this stuff. For example, JR recalls an incident with Ric Flair who - having had little interest from two air stewardesses - pulled his cock out in front of them (erect) in the back of a limo. This seems to be without the slightest interest in either Flair or JR who was mortified by the whole affair. Flair's excuse - he wanted to increase JRs chances by 50%. 

I really struggle to see how wrestling - and society more widely - thought that was acceptable in the 80s. It is not that long ago, I was alive at the time! Is this some quirk of the wrestling/entertainment/Hollywood industry or was it wide spread back in that era? I knew Flair always had a reputation for being outrageous but I always assumed that the women he got with or approached were willing, consenting adults not harassment victims.

All seems very sordid and messy to me, yet the business still treats people like Flair as though they are these icons.  I can appreciate his work and his gimmick but I can't condone the shit he did in real life (if what JR and others have said is true).  

We will just have to wait for the outcome of the investigation. I'm assuming she is going to take action and has evidence of this occurring. In which case throw the book at him. 

I am always in the middle when it comes to taking sides. I'll always err on the side of 'innocent till proven guilty' and the belief the burden of proof is on the accuser. I'm not a fan of trial by twitter. At the same time in no way should anyone abuse her for coming forward. It shows how shitty people are and I sometimes wonder what drives them to defend or damn  people without the full facts. 

I wonder where accused stand if they get accused with little evidence? I know slander and libel laws are alot looser in the US. 

Given that I'm far from an avid viewer but surely they are at risk of saturation point w their programming? Less is more.

Foley first winning the WWF title on Raw.

What's interesting is that case in the UK where James 'Jay Knox' Riley  assaulted  his trainee during a match and got a prison sentence for it, rightfully. 

I suspect that precedence will certainly come into play if any other incidents occur like that again. I believe its a simple case of bullies believing they can get away w taking liberties. It's not okay and needs stamping out (no pun intended). That said you hear less of it nowadays.

The WM 12 and 13 sets were great for me. Minimalist but effective, no messing around. I loved that black and red set for WM14 too, it was rather different. 

RAW circa mid 1997 is my all time favorite raw set, prob as I started watching around that time. 

There was one set where they had a load of cars stacked up which looked cool.

18 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Please describe what you're referring to. Because I've never seen, heard, or read any of this from any LGBT+ organisations or people. I have heard it from reactionaries and conservatives pushing back against the progress being made, but I don't wish to ascribe that kind of motivation to you off the bat, so I'd appreciate some kind of detail.

I think the problem is that I do not like the politicisation of the LGBT cause. I am very much in favour of equality though I get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that Stonewall's agenda is more about promoting the LGBT cause to the point that we are a distinct group - outside from the mainstream "straight norm". My sexuality does not - nor should IMO - define me. I am merely pointing at the tendency for some in the community to cling onto one aspect of their lives (sexuality) as their key defining feature. I am bisexual but I am not defined by it. 

I believe we have made huge steps in the right direction, though Stonewall and the major activists have - in my view - a strong reason to maintain the narrative that we are all somehow second class citizens, treated appallingly etc. For example, I abhor how we as a community use Pride events as a way of strutting around in hot-pants, groping each other and almost throwing disinhibition in the public's face. It makes us all look bad and singles us out as "different" to the mainstream. I believe the likes of Stonewall love it, because it keeps them in a role. If we admit that things have drastically improved, what need is there for the likes of Stonewall et al? 

In short, I do not like the fact that there is a huge, political industry that is designed to keep the narrative that we are victims. We aren't and I don't appreciate people making the case that we are. 

I can see why you would want more information. I am left leaning socially/middling right economically. I find that when I raise these issues (and they are just an opinion, I have no monopoly on the truth) I get a mildly hostile response from some people in the community. I am not "queer enough", similar to ethnic minorities that go against the Critical Race Theory grain and get accused of colluding with racists. Its nonsense. Gay people don't inherently have to be leftists, though I do define myself as a liberal in the traditional sense. 

Hope that makes sense. Again, it's a view and there will be differing views. Maybe it is my distain for the idea that I am supposed to somehow be oppressed. I am not, nor ever will be, a victim. I do not appreciate those that want to use their sexuality as a badge of honour which is how Stonewall et al seem to like playing it. I would like to say that I have a huge number of acquaintances who actively go against the Stonewall grain because they see it as a way too politicised force. Back when it was created that was certainly needed; we needed a voice, action taken etc. I now feel it is mildly redundant and they often pick fights about fairly trivial things in the UK. I would suggest that they focus less on the UK and more on the horrific practices in other countries (death penalty, public floggings, concentration style camps for gays etc).  

Great topic and much appreciated. 

I have mixed feelings about Pride as a (then) gay person who has attended many pride events and have seen a massive boom in the corporate involvement in the whole thing. Whilst I appreciate the interest that companies have in promoting LGBT awareness, I personally find it to be a rather meaningless, showy performance to show they are "progressive". This feels like jumping on the bandwagon despite their (likely) best intentions. 

The question I have had to wrestle with over the years is the disconnect between LGBT people who just want equality and those that identify as "queer" which tends to be a political movement. Personally I want to be treated EXACTLY the same as the next person on the street. Sure there are the occasional homophobic faux-pas that people make when they don't know I am gay and put their foot in it but the majority of people are reasonable respectful. I have to really try not to take any criticism of my character as an attack on my sexuality because any minority group can have a tendency to see isms and phobias in every interaction. 

Then there is the politically active groups who are "fighting" for LGBT people to be treated as a separate identity group of its own - very much making queerness (or LGBT) a central part of their identity and the politics that come along with that. I personally find this unpleasant and is fuelled by the likes of Stonewall and other organisations that often come across like wanting special treatment for us gays. 

As for the leaps and bounds in how homophobia has petered out over time, one only has to look at the comedy 30 years ago, newspaper articles from 20 years ago, comics etc. The list goes on and on. I remember when Tracey Smothers came out at a 1PW show (as a babyface) and got the audience (with a huge child/teenager fanbase) to chant "Faggot! Faggot! Faggot!" Barely anyone batted an eyelid at the time and me and my then partner left feeling deeply uneasy about the whole experience. I believe that over the next 20 years we will have many of the actively homophobic people dying off leaving a more liberal or at least thoughtful society. Since I have been bisexual and married a woman, the key issue I found was the slurs my now in-laws have said before they knew I am bisexual. The terms "poofter", "willy woofter", "pansy", bumder" (yes people have adopted that from Inbetweeners not that long ago!) and "shirt lifter" were routinely used at the dinner table when talking about gay celebrities. 

In sort... Equality Yes. Special treatment. Nope.

I think a few things happened which have made wrestling what it is today. I am not going to try to go into the "psychology" aspect of it as 1) I am not an established wrestler and don't want to pretend I have some sort of specialised, insider knowledge and 2) because it is so subjective that people just fight over semantics. 

Why should we care?

The key thing that I feel has changed over the past 20 years has been the complete lack of interest I personally have for any of the people involved. Part of that is the fact that all of the lads and ladies are now on social media and bare no resemblance to what they are like in the ring. Most of the guys have no gimmick and I started watching wrestling for larger-than-life characters (Michaels, Hogan, Hart, Rock, Austin, Angle). I simply don't "buy into" them anymore because I have no reason to. I am unsure why this is the case because there is no real reason for it. I think the issue I have is that they have tried to make wrestlers relatable and that simply isn't what I watch for. I almost liken it to Peter Parker going against Clarke Kent rather than Spiderman versus Superman. One has some intrigue, the other is just two fairly average guys having a scrap. Even the massive lads like Strowman, Reigns etc just have something missing. 

Meaninglessness

Again not something that is unique to the current product though with the high saturation of wrestling (esp. WWE) we seem to have the same matches happening year in and year out. I can only watch Ziggler versus Kingston so many times before it all becomes meaningless. What separates one show/event from the next? I can honestly not tell you a single card top-to-bottom since about 2002. That said, they have tried to add some uniqueness in the past year or two (including McIntyre, Lashley etc into top spots) so I can't totally blame them on that front. 

Stupid Shit

This one has changed since the 1980s - yes in the 1990s it was becoming a problem but not on the scale of what it is now. Cinematic matches, maggots transposed onto the ring mat, Houses of Horror, Swamp Matches, matches that jump between eras and locations, Bliss bleeding gunk from her hairline. Sure the Undertaker and Kane were ludicrous for some aspects of their act but you could forgive it because it was used relatively sparingly. I've noticed more nonsense in the past year than the whole of the 1990s combined. It simply isn't wrestling, its artsy nonsense. If I have to actively suspend my disbelief for any length of time there is something really wrong. We all know you can overlook things like an Irish Whip but people being burnt alive and regenerating? No sorry that's ridiculous. 

All I want in wrestling is a story - good guys versus bad guys. I want to care that they win or lose and I want someone who has lost a big fight to have to redeem themselves before getting another shot. I want things that I give a shit about. Any other drama can pull it off, its not that difficult. Unfortunately they have tried to be too creative, too "mainstream" and it has simply turned off older fans like me. All I want to see is a fuckin fight with a winner, a loser - people I desperately want to see win and an arsehole heel that I want to see lose. Other than MJF and maybe Sammy Guevara I haven't seen a great twatty heel who I believe in for years. 

I'm not all that up for spoon feeding other professionals. I just point out that I hope she has some major liability insurance. It's an extremely unusual situation if she does indeed carryout investigations. Raised an eyebrow w me as the legal risks are immense. 

As for the young lady, I'd personally allow her to make unwise decisions if she has capacity to choose. Seems that the gatekeepers of what's deemed right, thought she is too fragile to have an adult relationship. I'll be interested to see more details. Though the post is so vague I wonder why she put it out there to begin with. If the profession is doing as she says it's rather disgraceful. But there are always two sides

I'll be nice and politely thank you for your feedback 

I'm intrigued by this so called Safeguarding expert given that Safeguarding has a statutory definition and responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of health and/or social care authorities. It isn't something taken lightly, especially if someone dies or gets injured after Safeguarding has concluded. Huge potential for prosecution if it all goes wrong. 

Also how old is this woman? Safeguarding ONLY apply to people who are in need of health or social care support and can't defend themselves. Or children obviously. These companies really need to look at the legals around this, its an absolute minefield. It's why there are teams of highly skilled professionals that do the things as teams. 

I'm unsure who asked for it but her business should be her own. 

13 hours ago, Big'Olympic_Hero'Pete said:

Wasn't sure where to put this, so adding it here.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/wrestling/57548121

If its just an lgbt in wrestling article I'd move it from here. Don't want the old trope of lgbt being paedos being spread here. Sorry if that sounds defensive, just something I've noticed over the years.

Has Vince had plastic surgery at some point? His face looks like a candle melting. It looks fucking bizarre. 

5 hours ago, Hoptimus said:

In hindsight the speaking out movement may have benefited from having not started the movement until this time this current year as shows are about to return back. 

I guess the reason why the movement had got so much traction on social media was due to the down time during the pandemic. 

Looking on Twitter I see a lot of hurt from a lot of the women in the business reliving the outpouring of the abuse received and telling all. 

There seems to be upset that all is in vain and nothing will change. 

It got me thinking about is there enough of the internet audience to care and want to be proactive to make a difference?

In what way make a difference? So in a sense they need to become activists in the fight. 

So it would mean a bit of disruption at live events. Maybe having chants at abusers during matches to draw attention to the talent for their actions that the family show audience will not be aware of. 

Leafleting the line of an independent show they are attending. 

Bombardment of social media when promoters make announcement of abusers on their events highlighting it. 

Having enough like-minded fans to care and to galvanise and get organised to mobilise their activist hopes of changing the industry. 

Whilst I do appreciate your stance on this, I really don't believe enough people give a shit to go to that much effort. We are a relatively aware group on here, but the average punter isn't likely to know about the issues nor give a fuck about it if they do. Maybe I am just way too cynical but that's the impression I get in the UK in 2021. I'll gladly be wrong though. 

Wow he is unfortunate looking.. like some sort of surrealist, abstract face!

On 6/9/2021 at 7:22 AM, scratchdj said:

Saw this too, which made me realise I’d never seen him before without the mask.

I still haven't. What he look like? I could never really tell.

17 hours ago, wandshogun09 said:

He’s the Honky Tonk Man, he’s cool, he’s cocky and he’s a creepy old bastard. 

The epitome of the #metoo movement in one gif! This hasn't aged well! 

2 hours ago, Hoptimus said:

With events expected to return in some format within the next few months in England and later on this year in Scotland I am concerned that a good number of accused talents are found resurfacing on events around the country. 

My main concern is that the internet forum and social media fans of wrestling won't hold enough influence or clout with voting on where they spend their ticket money from. Largely the parents who see wrestling advertised on a poster inside the local kebab shop window and take the kids aren't going to know anything about the social media movement of speaking out or follow the promotion or talents themselves to know the backstory and the ins and outs.

 

Whilst I by no means justify shitty behaviour, accusations are just that. So we black ball people without any evidence? I say this as someone who was sexually harassed BTW.