the psmag ps50

[Devon Malcolm]

what anoy's me is that if anyone is anti anything WWE and pro indie they get jumped on (quite rightly) but to be to be the oposite (if it's not WWE/TNA it's insignifigant) seems to be aceptable.

 

There are loads of people round here that like 'indie' stuff that never get any of this alleged treatment. There are also loads of 'pro-WWE and TNA' people who get an e-shoeing. Don't be wet.

[Dirty Eddie]

Pity just likes to stand in the middle of a room and do "funny, cutting" rants, so people think he's important.

That's never been my intention, but it's revealed a bit of an importance complex in yourself there. Someone once told me you were very bitter because you thought you should have been poster of the year and weren't, but I thought they were joking. But fear not, Eddie, you are important to folks here. The King was inundated with suggestions that you should be the one who received his royal, lyrical bounty, and be exiled from the forum until next year 2012, or as you'd call it, 2004. I'm kidding -- I know next year will still be 2003 to you as well.

 

He thinks the entire industry of pro wrestling is called WWE

One of your ilk (I'm fairly sure it was you specifically, but it may have been Carbomb) has used the "WWE is the wrestling industry" argument before when blaming Evil Vince for not stamping out drugs and preventing all the deaths in wrestling.

 

If everything was as you say Pitcos, then we should only ever embrace and enjoy the commercially successful things in life right?

 

So it's chart music and Hollywood Blockbusters all the way then yeah? Bye bye independent music or underground styles, goodbye intelligent Indy film makers and hello Michael Bay and Rhianna.

I love when people make that argument. It's indicative of genuine mental illness. Quick sidenote, check your spelling - "Indy" (short for Indiana) filmmakers means Lucas and Spielberg. You mean intelligent indie (short for independent) filmmakers, and do you genuinely believe that wrestling has the equivalent of intelligent indie films? Wrestling isn't a format, it's a genre. It's a much smaller field in terms of content and variety of emotional reactions. It's crowd-pleasing, lowest-common-denominator action. With underdeveloped romances tacked on occasionally, and now and again you get something (usually something maudlin) that tugs at the heart strings. There is no broad range. You've got WWE as Michael Bay, TNA as that straight-to-DVD company that rips off Michael Bay films, then everything else is just lads on Youtube doing their own stunts in shit camcorder videos that only their mates watch. Wrestling doesn't even have the equivalent of boring student films about suicide.

 

If you were being intellectually honest, you'd say "bye bye J-Pop and Rihanna tribute acts doing pub gigs, hello Rhianna." That is a more accurate equivalent of the wrestling scene that PowerSlam covers.

 

If you only care about and pay attention to WWE, why do you constantly feel the need to rip on a bunch of stuff you don't actually watch and therefore have no valid reason to comment on?

How often do I post in ROH threads, Dragon Gates threads, or even BritWres threads that don't have a promoter mong/scam/point of interest in them? I don't care what people watch. But in threads like this, where people pretend their own dirty niche interests are as valid as the proper companies, such conflict of opinion is inevitable. And as you've been told, it's not about what I care about and pay attention to -- I don't give a solitary toss about TNA, but they certainly have enough global reach and audience to be considered valid in credible lists.

 

 

All your posts sound like they were written in the style of Jeremy Clarkson trying to sound funny, except you don't have the excuse of trying to drum up DVD sales through controversy. It's pretty ironic that you think I care about Poster Of The Year awards, considering since you won it, you are are the only person who ever brings it up. For what it's worth (I'm assuming nothing, as no-one's opinion outside of your own counts for anything) I thought you used to be a very good poster, before you gained an extra sense of self-importance and started posting with far more over-opinionated tosh.

 

You clearly write-off anything non-WWE as being of poor quality. You insist that the best wrestlers in the world must work for the biggest company. That simply isn't the case. There is only so much room on the WWE roster. Even if they had no problem hiring non-English speakers there would still only be room for a certain amount of different types of wrestlers. They don't need the 15 best lightweight/highflying wrestlers in the world (just for example) because there is only room on their roster for about 5, so where do the rest go? Do they not count if they work in Japan, even though they are clearly talented? The mighty WWE dropped Chris Masters presumably because they didn't think they could make any money from him. Does that make him shit now?

 

The idea that there is WWE, TNA and then a bunch of shitty, low-level, 'kids filming in the basement' wrestling everywhere else is just plain stupid.

 

Also, well done on picking out a few petty spelling and grammar mistakes, that really makes your points more valid.

[Prince Nana]

what anoy's me is that if anyone is anti anything WWE and pro indie they get jumped on (quite rightly) but to be to be the oposite (if it's not WWE/TNA it's insignifigant) seems to be aceptable.

 

There are loads of people round here that like 'indie' stuff that never get any of this alleged treatment. There are also loads of 'pro-WWE and TNA' people who get an e-shoeing. Don't be wet.

 

it's just simply my preception whether it's correct or not.

 

Anyway I didn't just say people who like indie stuff it's people that like indie stuff AND berate the mainstream for example john cena. the "what I like is better than that other stuff atitude."

 

The person who likes ROH but isn't elitest about it so get's left alone isn't what i'm refering to.

[King Pitcos]

All your posts sound like they were written in the style of Jeremy Clarkson trying to sound funny, except you don't have the excuse of trying to drum up DVD sales through controversy.

 

It's pretty ironic that you think I care about Poster Of The Year awards, considering since you won it, you are are the only person who ever brings it up.

Yep, you don't sound bitter about it at all.

 

For what it's worth (I'm assuming nothing, as no-one's opinion outside of your own counts for anything) I thought you used to be a very good poster, before you gained an extra sense of self-importance and started posting with far more over-opinionated tosh.

I half-heartedly apologise for not posting about how great ROH is and how Evil HHH burying Da Young Guyz is bad for business, but former ROH champion CM Punk doing it is great for business. There's never been a time when I wasn't opinionated on here, though, and I don't think there's ever been a time when one of your lot wasn't getting upset about me.

 

There is only so much room on the WWE roster.

More than fifty, though, isn't it? Certainly more than the ten or so that Dirty Finny likes.

 

Even if they had no problem hiring non-English speakers there would still only be room for a certain amount of different types of wrestlers. They don't need the 15 best lightweight/highflying wrestlers in the world (just for example) because there is only room on their roster for about 5, so where do the rest go?

"Only room for so many" holds no water. Why is there only room for about five, if they're the fifteen best wrestlers in the world? And yes, I know you didn't state that your fifteen beloved flyers are the fifteen best in the world, but given that this isn't a PowerSlam "fifteen best lightweights" list, you must be implying it. Furthermore, it's just a silly notion. All of WWE's male champions at the moment are cruiserweights, or at least very close to it. Then there's TNA as well, their roster is probably as big as WWE's now. Between them, they have far more than 15 lightweight wrestlers. Your logic, combined with the reality, just further proves my point. If you're a cruiserweight who can't get a job in the big leagues, you're probably not actually one of the world's fifty top wrestlers.

 

The mighty WWE dropped Chris Masters presumably because they didn't think they could make any money from him. Does that make him shit now?

Have you confused me with a Chris Masters fan? He's certainly more valid for inclusion in a top 50 wrestlers list than High School Gym Moonsaulter #87, on account of wrestling in front of actual crowds for much of 2011, but he's not one of my favourites. And it's by the by anyway. As I said earlier, it'd be one thing to have a handful of wrestlers WWE and TNA have missed the boat on by sacking or not hiring. That would be understandable. But when the majority of the list is nobodies, it just points to the list-maker being a niche oddball.

 

The idea that there is WWE, TNA and then a bunch of shitty, low-level, 'kids filming in the basement' wrestling everywhere else is just plain stupid.

Enjoy your Rhianna pub tributes, Eddie.

 

Also, well done on picking out a few petty spelling and grammar mistakes, that really makes your points more valid.

My points are unequivocally valid already, infallible even. That's why I can make them so strongly. When I point out people's glaring errors of written English, I'm doing it to show them that not only are they wrong, they're also thick. I don't pick on typos though, as people could be sandbagged by a shite keyboard, like I am at the moment.

[Big Benny HG]

The elitist "What I watch is better than what you watch" argument is a stupid one, and I wouldn't really pay attention to anyone making it. Those types would be far better realising that a "What I watch is different to what you watch, but this is what I personally prefer" approach wouldn't get them the kicking they often deserve. That's always going to be the problem with the PS50, it's trying to find a common ground for comparison where one doesn't really exist.

 

I believe the PS50 is (or at least used to be) their 7-8 regular jounalists each coming up with their own top 15, 20, 25, whatever, in order to account for different tastes, and they always used to clearly state that it was purely based on in-ring performances, bell-to-bell. Even then, it's never going to stop those who don't watch anything beyond WWE/TNA thinking everything else is insignificant, irrelevent or second rate, while at the same time, not preventing those who do happen to look further than WWE/TNA in order to find something more accustomed to their own individual taste defending their preference.

 

I gave up reading PS some years ago, but I never use to mind the PS50. I might not have agreed with much of it, but you just have to recognise that is is purely an individual opinion to be agreed or disagreed with, for whatever reasons you may have.

[Dirty Eddie]

There is only so much room on the WWE roster.

More than fifty, though, isn't it? Certainly more than the ten or so that Dirty Finny likes.

 

Even if they had no problem hiring non-English speakers there would still only be room for a certain amount of different types of wrestlers. They don't need the 15 best lightweight/highflying wrestlers in the world (just for example) because there is only room on their roster for about 5, so where do the rest go?

"Only room for so many" holds no water. Why is there only room for about five, if they're the fifteen best wrestlers in the world? And yes, I know you didn't state that your fifteen beloved flyers are the fifteen best in the world, but given that this isn't a PowerSlam "fifteen best lightweights" list, you must be implying it. Furthermore, it's just a silly notion. All of WWE's male champions at the moment are cruiserweights, or at least very close to it. Then there's TNA as well, their roster is probably as big as WWE's now. Between them, they have far more than 15 lightweight wrestlers. Your logic, combined with the reality, just further proves my point. If you're a cruiserweight who can't get a job in the big leagues, you're probably not actually one of the world's fifty top wrestlers.

 

The mighty WWE dropped Chris Masters presumably because they didn't think they could make any money from him. Does that make him shit now?

Have you confused me with a Chris Masters fan? He's certainly more valid for inclusion in a top 50 wrestlers list than High School Gym Moonsaulter #87, on account of wrestling in front of actual crowds for much of 2011, but he's not one of my favourites. And it's by the by anyway. As I said earlier, it'd be one thing to have a handful of wrestlers WWE and TNA have missed the boat on by sacking or not hiring. That would be understandable. But when the majority of the list is nobodies, it just points to the list-maker being a niche oddball.

 

 

I'm not going to get into this dissecting of every line bullshit, but instead to try and stick to the points I feel matter...

 

There are about 48 full-time wrestlers on the WWE roster. By your logic the vast majority of those should be in a "World's Best 50 Wrestlers" list. Are those guys all the very best wrestlers in the world? Or is it possible that some of them are just guys who managed to live on the $500 a week developmental deal, hoping for a chance for long enough. Could some of them be people who have made friends backstage or acted humble enough in the back to be given a chance. My point is, not everyone on the WWE roster is there because they are stand-out, main-event potential talents. Some just fill a role, the likes of Tyler Recks and the other lower-card guys are just bodies to put people over, how are they better wrestlers than people working in front of thousands in Japan, winning belts and putting on amazing matches?

 

The WWE roster is separated into different spots where WWE want certain types of talent. They want a few small guys like Rey and Evan, they want a few monsters like Big Show and Henry, a few muscle guys like Mason and Zeke. That doesn't mean there are no other wrestlers out there talented enough to get those spots, just that WWE only has room for a certain amount. There are loads of reasons why a wrestler doesn't get hired. A wrestler can be incredibly talented but he might hate the WWE travel, not want the schedule, not want to have to suck up to people all the time, not be willing to take the pay cut to work in development for a year etc...

 

It's not nearly as simple as you try to make out. There are plenty of American wrestlers who happily make a good living touring in Japan and have no desire to sign their life away to Vince and hope for the best. That doesn't make them bad wrestlers.

[sgmilne]

The Cena thing rankles with me a bit.

 

We all know that wrestlers in WWE have their promos scripted for them and that what they do in the ring (to an extent) and the length of time they have to do their matches are controlled by other people, so making a list based on that is flawed from the start.

 

But even allowing for that, even the most hardened Cena hater would have to admit that he's one of the top guys when it comes to promos, even though some of the stuff written for him is dreadful. He's certainly better than Orton. And while people might criticise his in ring ability he still manages to pull off some fantastic matches (such as the CM Punk match at Money in the Bank).

 

Fin Martin himself thought the CM Punk match was tremendous, yet presumably believes that 100% of the credit must go to Punk, which is nonsense.

 

Also, even allowing for what he considers to be Cena's flaws, how can he justify putting The Miz in there? I can't remember Miz having a good match with anyone other than Daniel Bryan and Jerry Lawler, and his promos recently have been horrendous. Even allowing for the content being written for him, Miz has been totally unable to sell himself as the 'hard nut' that he's supposed to be.

 

I still buy Powerslam despite my opinion of Fin Martin, and maybe that's the problem...

[Dirty Eddie]

But even allowing for that, even the most hardened Cena hater would have to admit that he's one of the top guys when it comes to promos, even though some of the stuff written for him is dreadful. He's certainly better than Orton. And while people might criticise his in ring ability he still manages to pull off some fantastic matches (such as the CM Punk match at Money in the Bank).

 

Fin Martin himself thought the CM Punk match was tremendous, yet presumably believes that 100% of the credit must go to Punk, which is nonsense.

 

Also, even allowing for what he considers to be Cena's flaws, how can he justify putting The Miz in there? I can't remember Miz having a good match with anyone other than Daniel Bryan and Jerry Lawler, and his promos recently have been horrendous. Even allowing for the content being written for him, Miz has been totally unable to sell himself as the 'hard nut' that he's supposed to be.

 

I completely agree than Cena (when given the right direction to go) is a fantastic promo, certainly better than Orton. Does the PS50 count promo's or is it just bell-to-bell action?

 

If it's just matches it's based on, there is no way Miz should be on the list and Cena not.

[sgmilne]

I completely agree than Cena (when given the right direction to go) is a fantastic promo, certainly better than Orton. Does the PS50 count promo's or is it just bell-to-bell action?

 

If it's just matches it's based on, there is no way Miz should be on the list and Cena not.

 

That's the thing - I'm not exactly sure what it's based on, but no matter what it is based on, Cena should be in there ahead of most WWE wrestlers.

 

I can understand that Fin Martin loved the Christian vs Orton series, and I enjoyed it too, but in terms of matches in WWE that I've enjoyed this year, it ranks below the likes of Undertaker vs Triple H and Cena vs Punk and not much higher than some of the matches that were given time on Superstars.

 

That's just my opinion though, and mine does differ from Fin's in that I can't abide Alberto del Rio or Edge.

[King Pitcos]

There are about 48 full-time wrestlers on the WWE roster. By your logic the vast majority of those should be in a "World's Best 50 Wrestlers" list. Are those guys all the very best wrestlers in the world? Or is it possible that some of them are just guys who managed to live on the $500 a week developmental deal, hoping for a chance for long enough. Could some of them be people who have made friends backstage or acted humble enough in the back to be given a chance. My point is, not everyone on the WWE roster is there because they are stand-out, main-event potential talents. Some just fill a role, the likes of Tyler Recks and the other lower-card guys are just bodies to put people over, how are they better wrestlers than people working in front of thousands in Japan, winning belts and putting on amazing matches?

If the PowerSlam list gave two shits about working in front of thousands, winning belts and putting on amazing matches, John Cena would be very close to the top of it. He can do it in more than one country as well.

 

Does the PS50 count promo's or is it just bell-to-bell action?

It does, but pretends not to. Usually in the intro it says it's only based on matches, then goes on to include promos in the write-ups for wrestlers who do promos Fin likes.

[Dirty Eddie]

There are about 48 full-time wrestlers on the WWE roster. By your logic the vast majority of those should be in a "World's Best 50 Wrestlers" list. Are those guys all the very best wrestlers in the world? Or is it possible that some of them are just guys who managed to live on the $500 a week developmental deal, hoping for a chance for long enough. Could some of them be people who have made friends backstage or acted humble enough in the back to be given a chance. My point is, not everyone on the WWE roster is there because they are stand-out, main-event potential talents. Some just fill a role, the likes of Tyler Recks and the other lower-card guys are just bodies to put people over, how are they better wrestlers than people working in front of thousands in Japan, winning belts and putting on amazing matches?

 

If the PowerSlam list gave two shits about working in front of thousands, winning belts and putting on amazing matches, John Cena would be very close to the top of it. He can do it in more than one country as well.

 

 

At no point have I tried to defend Fin's omission of Cena. I agree with you.

 

But do you no think that (considering at least half of the WWE roster is made up of relative nobodies like Titus O Neil and Hunico) a fair few wrestlers working for major promotions in Japan, working 25 minute main event matches, are likely to be having better matches than a lot of WWE wrestlers?

 

Just because you don't watch them, doesn't make them poor quality.

[sgmilne]

At no point have I tried to defend Fin's omission of Cena. I agree with you.

 

But do you no think that (considering at least half of the WWE roster is made up of relative nobodies like Titus O Neil and Hunico) a fair few wrestlers working for major promotions in Japan, working 25 minute main event matches, are likely to be having better matches than a lot of WWE wrestlers?

 

Just because you don't watch them, doesn't make them poor quality.

 

I think that's fair. But it's also fair to say that most WWE wrestlers would probably do very well if they were given the opportunity to wrestle long matches. So it just makes the whole thing a waste of time to do in 2011 in my opinion.

[Dirty Eddie]

At no point have I tried to defend Fin's omission of Cena. I agree with you.

 

But do you no think that (considering at least half of the WWE roster is made up of relative nobodies like Titus O Neil and Hunico) a fair few wrestlers working for major promotions in Japan, working 25 minute main event matches, are likely to be having better matches than a lot of WWE wrestlers?

 

Just because you don't watch them, doesn't make them poor quality.

 

I think that's fair. But it's also fair to say that most WWE wrestlers would probably do very well if they were given the opportunity to wrestle long matches. So it just makes the whole thing a waste of time to do in 2011 in my opinion.

 

 

I don't know about "most". I imagine there are a fair number that would be more than capable, but also a fair few who would be totally exposed as the sub-par workers they are. It reminds me of what happened with Crime Time; they got a decent run on TV as a face tag team, then after the split, they aborted a push for big Shad as they felt he wasn't ready for the push and he was sent off for more training. So they though he was good enough to get by in tag matches for a year, but they didn't trust him enough for a singles run. He clearly only got called up in the first place because someone had an idea for a Hoodlum tag team, and he fit the bill. I think there is a lot of that in WWE, and that strongly affects who gets a shot on TV and who doesn't. It's not always about talent.

[LEGIT]

Hahaha, there's pity crying again.

 

With all the attention he gives them, I swear he must secretly love internet fans, ROH, Powerslam and the likes.

[King Pitcos]

At no point have I tried to defend Fin's omission of Cena. I agree with you.

 

But do you no think that (considering at least half of the WWE roster is made up of relative nobodies like Titus O Neil and Hunico) a fair few wrestlers working for major promotions in Japan, working 25 minute main event matches, are likely to be having better matches than a lot of WWE wrestlers?

For all I know, some fuckers in Mexico could be having "better" matches than CM Punk and John Cena, but you wouldn't know it from PowerSlam's list -- judging by Sin Cara's actual ability and how highly the Mexipervs rate him, I doubt there's much of note going on over there, but he was getting similar rave reviews to the Japan and ROH boys in a lot of Internet corners. If Fin can play the "too foreign/niche to bother with" card, so can I. I've worked with people I'd consider better actors than [insert Hollywood name everyone thinks is shit, Keanu Reeves or someone like that], but I wouldn't expect them to turn up on a worldwide list ahead of 'em.

 

Plus, "better matches" is subjective as fuck. I've avoided NXT for ages, but I'd rather watch a three-minute match from that than a twenty-minute Japanese head-drop extravaganza. Unless a wrestler has commanded my attention, the shorter they're on screen, the better. I don't want to see two lads I've never heard of brainbustering each other to a Musawa-esque early grave.