Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 21, 2011 Quote from one of Raven's blogs that got me thinking: The sheets crapped on the former ECW guys who werent in shape, but decry when wrestlers used steroids. Make up your mind. Benoit who until he became a double murderer was the biggest steroid user in the business and without steroids he never would have had a career, yet he was never buried for it. Other guys were. Dont you love people who pick and choose their favorites when condemning society. He's right isn't he? Â Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 21, 2011 Depends what people are complaining about. If people are simply saying "using steroids = bad", then yes, it's unreasonable to defend roiders with workrate. If people are saying "pushing people with no talent because they have roided bodies is unfair/wrong" then it's perfectly fair to defend good workers who have to use steroids to compete. If somebody is among the best workers of the past couple of decades but "without steroids he never would have had a career" then it's absolutely reasonable to be "condemning society". Â Nobody with any sense ever complained about wrestlers choosing to use steroids, they complained about promoters pushing those people regardless of talent and the way this then pressured other people to use steroids. Â As for "The sheets crapped on the former ECW guys who werent in shape, but decry when wrestlers used steroids", that's creating a false dichotomy. Saying somebody isn't in shape is not the same thing as saying they should have a physique only achievable with steroids. And if, as I think I recall, he's talking about the ECW reunion show in TNA, that's nothing to do with people not using steroids and everything to do with booking retired wrestlers on a few week's notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Depends what people are complaining about. If people are simply saying "using steroids = bad", then yes, it's unreasonable to defend roiders with workrate. If people are saying "pushing people with no talent because they have roided bodies is unfair/wrong" then it's perfectly fair to defend good workers who have to use steroids to compete. If somebody is among the best workers of the past couple of decades but "without steroids he never would have had a career" then it's absolutely reasonable to be "condemning society". Nobody with any sense ever complained about wrestlers choosing to use steroids, they complained about promoters pushing those people regardless of talent and the way this then pressured other people to use steroids.  As for "The sheets crapped on the former ECW guys who werent in shape, but decry when wrestlers used steroids", that's creating a false dichotomy. Saying somebody isn't in shape is not the same thing as saying they should have a physique only achievable with steroids. And if, as I think I recall, he's talking about the ECW reunion show in TNA, that's nothing to do with people not using steroids and everything to do with booking retired wrestlers on a few week's notice.  Now that's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted October 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 22, 2011 Quote from one of Raven's blogs that got me thinking: The sheets crapped on the former ECW guys who werent in shape, but decry when wrestlers used steroids. Make up your mind. Benoit who until he became a double murderer was the biggest steroid user in the business and without steroids he never would have had a career, yet he was never buried for it. Other guys were. Dont you love people who pick and choose their favorites when condemning society. He's right isn't he? Â Discuss. Â Dead right. In the past I've mentioned that I live to the "Bob Holly rule" which is if you'd moan about it if Bob Holly did it then you should moan about it regardless. For example, if Bob Holly dispatched his wife and child I doubt he'd be getting all the RIP and shite that Chris Benoit does because he's not a great worker or IWC sweetheart. I honestly do think that good workers get leeway for doing all kinds of shit because they are good in the ring. I don't remember Benoit (he's doing well for himself) getting loads of shit for being a bully for throwing Matt Striker out of changing rooms and treating people harshly if they don't do the whole "respect the business" thing. It was seen as paying dues and the like. Bob Holly does it, he's a bully. Â Also see Layfield, John Bradshaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimufctna24 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 It can work in other ways though. Â Scott Hall gets a lot of sympathy for his problems with drugs and behavior. Where as Matt Hardy is roasted for his, I am not defending Hardy I was one of the posters doing it. Â I think it can be one of those situations where if you like a performer or the human being that plays him/her they will get a bit of leeway, it is a double standard for sure though one that most wrestling fans including myself are guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I've noticed this a lot in discussions of CM Punk since MITB, plenty of people were queuing up to slag him off when his performances on the mic (and the ratings) went downhill yet when Nash came back everyone was saying his mic work was shite because he'd been scripted, the week after he came out with just bullet points of what to say and he was arguably even worse yet people were still defending him  I suppose that's more a case of simply defending your favourites rather than ignoring the positives in others but it is similar to what the topics about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldy Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I defend my favourites because my favourites were the best. It doesn't matter to me if they ended up dead because of it, or are still living, but as a vegetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2011 I've noticed this a lot in discussions of CM Punk since MITB, plenty of people were queuing up to slag him off when his performances on the mic (and the ratings) went downhill yet when Nash came back everyone was saying his mic work was shite because he'd been scripted, the week after he came out with just bullet points of what to say and he was arguably even worse yet people were still defending him  Surely the fact that Nash had to come and deliver his promo how they told him is the precisely the reason TO defend him? We all know how great he can be on the mic when he is given a certain amount of free reign - the fact that he was clearly given none was surely most of the reason he wasn't very good.  On the flipside, for me, Punk was given too much leeway for too long and started to become shit and deserved the criticism. A lot of that criticism, I must point out, came from people like me who are fans of his and not just his acknowledged critics on here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I've noticed this a lot in discussions of CM Punk since MITB, plenty of people were queuing up to slag him off when his performances on the mic (and the ratings) went downhill yet when Nash came back everyone was saying his mic work was shite because he'd been scripted, the week after he came out with just bullet points of what to say and he was arguably even worse yet people were still defending him  Surely the fact that Nash had to come and deliver his promo how they told him is the precisely the reason TO defend him? We all know how great he can be on the mic when he is given a certain amount of free reign - the fact that he was clearly given none was surely most of the reason he wasn't very good.  On the flipside, for me, Punk was given too much leeway for too long and started to become shit and deserved the criticism. A lot of that criticism, I must point out, came from people like me who are fans of his and not just his acknowledged critics on here as well.  Yes I agree with that part but the following week everyone was saying that he'd be allowed a bit more freedom and wouldn't be nailed down to saying exactly what was scripted then Raw came around and he was terrible again, I'm not blaming Nash entirely because, as you say, we know how great he can be and maybe the tone of the promo they wanted him to do just wasn't right for him (I've always preferred Nash's cocky promo's to his trying to be a bad ass ones)  The point is there were still people defending him after his second terrible promo simply because it was Kevin Nash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted October 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 22, 2011 It's human nature, I guess. Venkman's Nash/Punk thing is a good point, folk were slagging one and then defending the other, when in hindsight both were shit. Â When people have a go at Sting, I rarely see the bad. Most of us are like that with our favourites. Â We shouldn't confuse thinking someone is shit with "he's a bully boy"/"knob" all the time. Crimson and Abyss are fucking awful, but I don't know anything about them to hate them personally. They're just shit at wrestling. They may have positives (both are big) but they have so many negatives that it is hard to ignore them and go "Wow, how much does he weigh?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 There's no excuse for Nash being poor, same as there's no excuse for Punk being poor. They were both crap, and it was a shame, because Internet Hate Figure costing Internet Darling the WWE title should've made for great TV (at least for us Internet people). Instead, their encounters were just muddled insider bullshit that did nothing for anyone, combined with a shitty Whodunnit storyline that went nowhere. Everyone who defends Punk or Nash by blaming the writers is guilty of exactly the point of this thread. Even if the storyline was shit (which it was), if they were the glorious promo guys people want to claim they are, they should've been able to spin it into gold or at least make the individual speeches interesting in their own right. Â And more than that, anyone who ever tries to absolve the likes of Punk, Nash, Cena, HHH, Orton or any of the big dogs for anything by blaming the writers is just being a cunt. All of those guys have the power (and responsibility) to play the "that doesn't work for me, brother" card if something's crap or alter it to their liking when they go out there. Punk is on record as saying he has done this for years in WWE. Everything he does on-screen is something he's signed off on. He's one of my favourite wrestlers at the moment, but I'm nowhere near any of the "he can do no wrong, Evil Vince is sabotaging him" idiots. If the writers are responsible for his failures, then they're responsible for his successes as well. It was the same company with the same creative staff before Money in the Bank as it was after SummerSlam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Yeah, it's absolutely human nature to act that way some of the time. Â The way I see it is that if someone/something has given you reason to like them for years, then you can forgive the odd letdown or fuck-up. For example, if a Band I love release an album that's a bit shit, it won't suddenly make me not like the Band any more. Odds are I will forgive them for the letdown and hope for a better effort next time. Faith in people is earned and it takes more than the odd blip to ruin that faith. Â As for the bully/Benoit/Holly thing that Butch brought up; I think its common in all walks of life to forgive people from doing bad things (not as far as the Benoit situation, obviously) when they are super talented. Talented film stars often act like pricks on set, famous singers are often Diva-ish nightmares to deal with, main event wrestlers act like petulant children backstage. The thing is, if you are making money for yourself and everyone who works for you, people put up with the shit behavior. People are less likely too if you are one of the extras on a film, or the opening support band at an Ozzy gig. Â Doesn't make it right, but it's not unique to wrestling. Â Oh, and I agree with Lister's post completely, regarding steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Nobody with any sense ever complained about wrestlers choosing to use steroids, they complained about promoters pushing those people regardless of talent and the way this then pressured other people to use steroids. And presumably, they also complained about the fans who responded to the pushes of all these untalented steroid monsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.