Snitsky's back acne

17 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

 Punk barely said anything that everyone didn't already know. 

*Sean O Haire GIF*

18 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

- AEW roster is absolutely stacked but the shows don't really feel like it. Imagine if they had all the people Copeland listed actually on one show at the same time! It'd be fucking AMAZING and can't miss. They have enough people to stack all 3 weekly shows with top guys but it never feels like they do.

-

Maybe they only want to work one date a month and then shoot vignettes?  

1 hour ago, sukhy said:

 

Also, it's coming up to 2 years since Hangmans line that peeved him so much and he's still going on about it 

He was asked about it, in fairness. 

At the end of the day all of us are giving our perspective based on what we think happened at Wembley. Only the people there truly know and they will all have their own takes on it. People will believe which version they want based on who they feel more inclined to believe. 

Punk clearly didn't want to be there and the Elite and others didn't want him there. If they were not willing to sit and hash it out for the good of the company then let the one who wants to leave, leave. Everybody seems happier where they are now. 

17 minutes ago, Lorne Malvo said:

He's always entertaining to listen to, but when you consider a few years back he was doing these interviews about Triple H being a fucking idiot and WWE almost killing him, you have to take everything he says with a massive shaker of salt.

People change. You can think someone is an idiot until you encounter even bigger idiots. You can look back at things with different eyes the older you get. I certainly do. You can mean the things you said at the time and see them in a different light in hindsight. It doesn't necessarily make you a hypocrite or full of shit. 

A big lucha tag with the two factions would have been a good all action match I reckon

Oh well. 

1 hour ago, CharlesTuckerTheThird said:

Nice to see Jade on TV, always liked her work, but I have to wonder what there is for her to do on Smackdown. In my opinion the Smackdown women's scene has been pretty forgettable, so hopefully she can turn it around.

I can see when Charlotte gets back her Vs Jade would be the natural feud. 

1 hour ago, Loki said:

Err...

 

Aha! Serves me right for getting overexcited and not checking earlier in the thread. Apologies. Bloody good photo though. 

There's another pic going round of Cody lying on the ground with The Rock stood over him, in the rain but I've not idea how to embed it on here. 

Anyway, as has been said. Pure art. 

1 hour ago, air_raid said:

(Sigh) Yes, enough usage of “wank” by Brits and in British media mean that by now, North America knows what it means, and how to use it. Yes, the context in which Cody used it sounded exactly like it was meant to. There wasn’t much room for misinterpretation.

Yet they still say 'bullocks' and not 'bollocks'. 

'Don't shoot up ma kilt, ye perv!'

Give that man whatever he wants. 

Malia Hosaka wrestling at a military base in Cairo, Egypt with no ring, so they just take bumps on the ground.
 

34 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Nobody was micro-analysing anything. @LaGoosh asked a simple question, he wasn't asking for a thesis or anything. Nobody's advocating a deep-dive on all aspects of wrestling either. It's a wrestling messageboard, we're here to discuss and analyse wrestling. Or most of us are.

I agree. Its why the 'so you're saying we can't analyse ANYTHING, then!?' response to my comment seemed so bizarre. Who was saying you couldn't?  It was one comment made on a discussion forum. Be narked at the flippancy of it if you want but trying to make it something more than it was is just odd to me. 

Anyway....

21 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

What are we saying here? Because "it's wrestling" that we shouldn't read even the slightest meaning into anything? What a shallow and boring way to view it all.

No. It was flippant comment about one specific scenario, not all of wrestling. 

Even if it was about all of wrestling, surely micro analysing everything as opposed to just watching it, enjoying at and not overthinking it is the more shallow and boring of those two scenarios? Maybe I've been watching it all wrong these past 30 years plus, I dunno.

20 hours ago, LaGoosh said:

If you're making a point then actually explain your point. Just writing "it's wrestling" is completely meaningless.

It's not. It's wrestling. Going 'Nothing about Cody is Nightmare-ish, why is he called the American Nightmare?' is the ultimate 'Mate, it's wrestling' scenario.  It's not that important. 

4 hours ago, LaGoosh said:

Great post, thanks.

My point is, you're overthinking it. It's wrestling. It's really not that deep. 

22 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Yeah I understand it as a character concept but the "American Nightmare" isn't actually the character he's portraying. How has he opposed his Dad or portrayed a character in stark contrast to the American Dream? How is accomplishing more than his father make him the "Nightmare"? And I don't think he's stepping out of his father's shadow when he brings him up all the time, mentions his family at the start of his entrance music and has his nickname tattoo'd on his chest.

To me, the true American Nightmare would be someone who completely rejects his fathers character, values and spits on his family legacy. That would be a genuine opposite of the 'American Dream'.  His current character has loads in common with his father's character. So why is a character primarily based on virtuous values and principles calling himself the Nightmare? 

It's wrestling. 

10 hours ago, Thefatduck said:

LOD vs Nasty Boys. 

No DQ. No count out. 

 

 

Neither LOD are still alive

2 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

We've been arguing about this on here since the dawn of the forum. It's nothing new. I'd say, respectfully, you're wrong. Most successful doesn't mean best. Maccies burgers might be the best branded, best known or best promoted but there's no way on the planet they are the best. Wrestling is a creative industry. In any creative industry, music, films, TV, theatre, etc - what is popular isn't always what is good.

WWE does appear from all I read and hear to have hugely improved. Fair play to them. However, when everything you read and heard was about how fucking shit they were, how dreadful Dunn was, how out of touch Vince was, who was the most successful wrestling promotion in the world? Who signed mega deals with Fox and USA? Who sold to Peacock for billions? Yep. The "shitty" WWE.

It's cool. I think it's an interesting debate (which I will save for another time) but 'best' is subjective unless there are parameters other than 'most successful',

7 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Doesn't that ignore the fact that there's a general opinion that WWE's product has been better lately? Because the increase in attendance and sales etc lately surely shows that they can't just "put on any old shite" to get record ratings and attendance? Otherwise they would've been doing that year on year for however long?

Indeed. Plus I never really get the 'well just because they are the most successful doesn't mean they have the best product' narrative. It kind of does, actually.

It may not be your personal favourite but the fact that the majority are consuming it does make it 'the best'.

'Just because McDonalds sells the most burgers doesn't mean they're the best'. - yes, it kind of does. You may prefer another burger joint but more people prefer McDonalds.

Now, sure, I get 'habits' and 'established brands' etc. and the fact that some amazing companies do not have the resources that the large corporations do BUT 'the best' is subjective based on individual taste. The only true barometer we have to measure 'the best' is success, because that gauges overall consumption, and in that regard WWE is the best.

Apologies, I may have drifted off on a tangent there but it's a concept that interests me. 

Have to agree with what was said about who has been going over in the tag matches - DIY, Tyler Bate and Pete Dunne (bring back Butch!) at Mania? Eurgh.

Pretty Deadly, Creeds, Indus Sher, AOP, Street Profits - stick them in there. Proper teams, some high flying spots and a bit of meat too. I even like Angel and Humberto. Stick them in for some lucha spots. 

DIY and Bate and Dunne? No. Just no. 

8 hours ago, Chili said:

Good grief that Dalton Castle/Taya bit was tremendous! Nearly everything Taya said had me laughing. 

"THEY'RE WITH THEY'RE DADDY... ON A MOUNTAIN TOP... LEARNING HOW TO BE MEN!!!'

*Their Daddy.

....Sorry. 

'Final Boss' must surely be another thing Reigns takes umbrage with in storyline? No way the 'Head of the Table' will stand for that. 

I've no issue with LA Knight v AJ. It at least has some backstory to it. 

2 hours ago, Merzbow said:

It's less about him, more about business in general.  Bosses aren't paying over what they "need" to. Being the data guy that he is be probably has wages meticulously sorted anyway.

I agree with the "need' part. Plus it's what both we and Tony see as being 'over the odds'. As has been said, wrestlers have been notoriously underpaid for decades in comparison to 'real' athletes but at the same time, having dealt with footballers contracts, it wouldn't surprise me if Tony thinks £5-£10mill a year is a reasonable wage and what he "needs" to pay to get certain people. 

27 minutes ago, Merzbow said:

I'd love to believe that Tony is paying well over the usual odds for wrestlers, they deserve it after decades of being underpaid compared to other actors and sports stars, but I don't.

What is it, based on what is out there in the public domain about Tony Khan, that makes you think he isn't? Genuinely interested to know.