Paid Members air_raid Posted January 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 22, 2011 most years they do print letters with peoples opinions on the list ,usually takes up most of the page. this year one letter saying it was great. Â Are you fucking blind? The very next email after the "The PS 50" one, complimentary from Stu Rodgers, a chap called Jamie Wynters says : Â Regarding the PS 50: I didnt think Tyler Black (now Seth Rollins) deserved to be in the top 10. I thought Alex Shelley should have been ranked higher than Chris Sabin: without the charismatic Shelley by his side, Sabin would be lost in TNA's shambolic X Division. And why wasn't Austin Aries included? He is one of the best wrestlers working today. Â Have you read the letters, or just the nice red titles? Â It isnt a matter of opinion to say that John Cena is one of the top 50 wrestlers in the world. Â Of course it is. Does it not depend on your definition "top?" If its by success, drawing money, profile, then of course he is. If it's by "best" in terms of quality of execution and matches, which the PS50 in its introduction makes it clear as day that it is based on in ring performances, then its subjective. And 44% of Power Slam's voters in the year end awards said Cena was the worst wrestler they've watched in 2010, more than double his nearest rival for that title. Â P.S. No one says they think Cena is shit because it's "cool." A wrestling fan pronouncing anything in wrestling they like/dislike and thinking it makes them "cool" is a contradiction in terms. You'll find people saying Cena is shit, think he's shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 22, 2011 For me, it wasn't just about the PS50, the whole tone of the magazine was wrong. It was the tone of someone who is above pro-wrestling but is happy to make money off it. I've always felt that PS was well delivered enough that I could appreciate the opinion even when I disagreed with it. However it's become more and more sarcastically bitter with each month. I couldn't bring myself to finish this months issue. The top 50 was almost a parody. Â I don't know if Fin Martin will care if I buy it or not this month but he should. I've bought 141 consecutive issues of PS. I've no intention of buying January's issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgmilne Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 For the sake of debate they should post some of the negative letters, if only to create debate. I had a letter printed a few years ago when I criticised them for never complimenting the likes of Steve Blackman (this was around the time he was hardcore champion) while fawning all over the Hardy Boyz. Â There is bound to be someone who wrote in to say 'Why were there so few WWE wrestlers in your list'. Then they could at least have replied. Â The tone of the magazine was the same this month too re: Cena. It's pretty tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 22, 2011 How high up the PS50 would Dolph Ziggler have been had h worked for ROH at some point? That was scandalous. So was their assessment that his career has "already peaked". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 22, 2011 New PS is out this month with the 'hilarious' alternative awards. There's an award called something like the "John Cena Breaking Kayfabe, killing an Opponents Gimmick Award" which was given to ... John Cena, believe it or not. They also have an odd shot at Bret Hart, where he says"Maybe Bret came frame this magazine and put it up on his wall with the rest of his awards". This magazine that went full-on agenda-ridden shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Glad I never bothered picking it up and as long as Fin "NPSTFU BRET HART DIG LOL" Martin is being a bitter, indie/puro fapping cunt I'm finished with the mag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 That Ian Hitman Hart is a good poster. He mentioned that Miz should be higher up when no one else seemed to. He's had a brilliant year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Of course it is. Does it not depend on your definition "top?" If its by success, drawing money, profile, then of course he is. If it's by "best" in terms of quality of execution and matches, which the PS50 in its introduction makes it clear as day that it is based on in ring performances, then its subjective. If it's based on in-ring performances, why do so many of the write-ups go on about quality of promos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted January 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2011 If it's based on in-ring performances, why do so many of the write-ups go on about quality of promos? Â They don't, majesty. Â Having just re-read it on the throne, so to speak, here are the only entries in this year's to mention promos. Â The Miz (42) "Won the second of the two Money In The Bank Ladder matches at Money In The Bank on July 18, following which he cut an impassioned promo... Impressed WWE bigwigs with his hard work, mic skills and contacts in the mainstream media..." Â Edge (47) "As a face, his promos were too aggressive for him to drum up much support in his feud with Chris Jericho which never sparkled as brightly as fans and the wrestlers themselves hoped it would... Â Two, out of fifty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bit odd that they mention promos if it's based purely on in-match performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted January 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2011 The final line in the intro is "Here's the 50 and what they did." If I can play devil's advocate, the ranking is based 100% on (their words) "in-ring showings" and "what they did" means "what they did this year in getting there." Â Miz's passage explains his promotion to the main event which segues into the matches he'd had since and what the future holds. Edge's failed babyface turn had a knock on effect on the quality of his matches. Â I wouldn't hold it against their ranking criteria given that they managed to list the top 41 and in total 48 out of 50 without mentioning mic ability in the blurb, and that John Cena (capable of stunning mic work and undoubtedly the industrys top star) doesn't feature because they think these 50 had a better in-ring body of work. I think the list holds true for judging on the criteria they choose to use, regardless of whether you or I agree with it. Â As an aside, the idea that Cena has had fewer exciting matches than Swagger, Sheamus or Christian is somewhat of a joke, regardless of execution/MOVEZ. But that's a seperate argument entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted January 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2011 So it's based on ring work then. Where's Dolph Ziggler? Why is Daniel Bryan so low? Why are two guys who had exciting matches 4 nights a week lower than turds who wrestled for ROH once or twice a month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Let's be honest. None of us are thick enough to believe the criteria is anything other than "who Fin likes best." The equation for the magazine is Generic Tugtug Opinion + Fin's Bias* = Power Slam. Â Â *"Fin's Bias" is Latin for "Chris Jericho and Bret Hart aren't as good as you think they are." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted January 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 24, 2011 So it's based on ring work then. Where's Dolph Ziggler? Why is Daniel Bryan so low? Why are two guys who had exciting matches 4 nights a week lower than turds who wrestled for ROH once or twice a month? Â Have you thought about putting these thoughts to Fin? His list, not mine. It's a subjective list made on the PS writer's opinions, and it's incredible how many people are getting their backs up about it. We'll all disagree for various reasons - my own being Cena's absence - but is it really worth getting worked up about? Â I did start writing what I thought about Ziggler and Bryan's years, but as I said, it's not my list, and frankly I can't be bothered after the "turds" remark. Â None of us are thick enough to believe the criteria is anything other than "who Fin likes best." Â Yeah, that'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAVEN_ROCKS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Smarky bullshit. Mag ain't worth the time of day anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.