King Pitcos Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I'll go Sheamus and Randy Orton. Can appreciate that they're both really good, but they bore me to tears most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Pepper Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I always wanted to like Mick Foley when I got back into Wrestling in 1999 but I just couldn't. I just found him to be a annoying goof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I always wanted to like Mick Foley when I got back into Wrestling in 1999 but I just couldn't. I just found him to be a annoying goof.  How old were you in 1999? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronSheik Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Dean Ambrose, I want to hate him because most new talent of the past 15 years has fuckin sucked ass. But this kid can go, and he's cool, and he's got a great persona. If anyone of this dismal current generation is gonna change my opinion that it's all a bunch of un-entertaining, non-psychology marks, it's Dean Ambrose. Â Also like the overweight bearded guy who done well in the Rumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 14, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 14, 2015 Also like the overweight bearded guy who done well in the Rumble. Â Reigns is bigger than a lot of the roster, but I wouldn't call him overweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted February 14, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 14, 2015 Edge for me. Everything about him screams midcarder and I couldn't understand what anyone saw in him to be so high up the card. He genuinely seems like a good bloke though, but I just couldn't take him seriously. Its like he belonged in the brood and that's that.   This one might get me in trouble:  Shawn Michaels  I want to like him but I just don't. I appreciate completely that he is fantastic and probably the best wrestler ever. But I just don't fucking like him. As a heel he made me want to turn the TV off and as a babyface he made me want to watch the heel beat him up. I usually zone out during his matches and I don't even compeltely know why. I suspect it's because I've always liked cool badass wrestlers (HBK has never been this) or goofy funny ones (HBK has never been funny). I've loved quite a few of his matches (Jericho ladder match, the first Undertaker WM match, Flair retirement, return against Triple H, Hell In A Cell 7 casket with Undertaker) and obviously he was incredible in the month long build up to his retirement match but for the most part I don't give a fuck. I just really dislike the man. I wouldn't never rewatch anything he's done.  I would have agreed with you up until a few years before he finally retired, he had well and truly won me over by then. In 1995/96 when Vince and the WWF machine was sucking his cock, I couldn't stand him even as an 11 year old kid. His act was a bit effeminate for my liking. But by 2010 he was the only thing keeping me watching and I kind of gave up watching Raw since then. In fairness a lot of it was probably nostalgia though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 16, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'll go Sheamus and Randy Orton. Can appreciate that they're both really good, but they bore me to tears most of the time. Both good shouts. Orton in particular. He has shown in bits every possible facet you need to be a massive star but it's so occassional that it's frustrating. He looks a guy who realised a long time ago that he'd never be a Steve Austin and decided he'd just do enough to get by forever and a day. Apart from working out to ensure he looks great, I don't think he puts any effort in. He just does what he does because it comes easily to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted February 16, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 The Orton shout probably wins this thread. He's shown glimpses of true greatness but, as tiger rick says, he can never seem to have an extended run of good form. Â He should have been amazing being the chosen one of The Authority, but bar the Summer Slam angle and that one good promo (where he slagged off all the fat lads and said he could have their missus, if he was arsed) it was all pretty average and forgettable. Â I think Orton lacks the old fire and intensity. He's shown glimpses of it, but it's frustrating because you know he can be so much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 16, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 I think Orton lacks the old fire and intensity. He's shown glimpses of it, but it's frustrating because you know he can be so much better. Â Yeah. "IED" Orton was my favourite, when he kicked Vince's head in then escaped the sack by winning the Royal Rumble. I mean sure, he was castrated by having to sell for Shane McMahon's feeble offence even with help from Legacy and then Triple H lamped him at Mania 25, but 2009 still gave us some great moments. The near-psychotic Orton we saw in the match with Cena at Breaking Point was my favourite performance of his and by a country mile my favourite match of theirs, and it really felt like both men had settled into what they wanted their characters to be, and they were threatening to deliver the amazing rivalry that WWE always wanted them to be able to have. Orton was so good at the time that there was one SmackDown where he came out to interrupt a promo from the just-returned Batista and his music essentially elicits a babyface pop because people were getting into the character he was bringing into his performances. Sadly into the new year when they actually turned him in the Legacy split story, he seemed to lose a lot of that vicious edge which was the reason people had initially started to cheer for him in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanny Pack Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Orton lost me completely in early 2010 when he had a heel v heel title match vs Sheamus at the Rumble. Â A heel vs heel match when a heel interupted the match causing a heel to win and a heel to lose, as Orton himself would say, STUPID!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 16, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 Just to follow up on this :  I nearly mentioned Bret in my original post ; loving a guy with such a massively over-inflated ego who takes himself far too seriously gets me constant ribbing  Just seen a clip of Bret on Kayfabe Commentaries where he mentions his idea of the 30 point scale for how good a wrestler is - three facets, look, promo and how good a wrestler you are bell-to-bell. He says he thinks Hogan was a 9 for look at promo but only a 1 as a wrestler. He then says Dynamite Kid was a 0 promo but a 9 wrestler and maybe a 7/8 look. He then declares that HE was a 7/8 promo "on my best day," though that since had a fairly original set of tights that he had a 7/8 look, and that as a wrestler he was "as close to a 10 as you're gonna get." So in Bret's mind :  Dynamite, who he always says was one of the best ever, is a 16/17. Hogan, the biggest name in wrestling history, is a 19. Bret himself is a 24-26. Remember - two thirds of that is look/promo.  It's shit like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 16, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 I commented on that a while back. Bret's funny. In fairness, I don't think he's that far off in his assessment of himself. His promos are probably a 4/5 if you take his whole body of work but I'd have him down as a solid 9 for his ring work and a 7/8 for the look. He was ungracious about Hogan of course but I don't think that's a surprise. He was pretty fair on Dynamite though really. Â I think Bret's system works. I'd have Austin as a 10 for promos, 10 for the look and 8 for the ring work. Rocky gets a 10 for promos, 10 for the look and 7 for he ring work. 28 & 27 respectively. Can't think of anyone I'd go higher on. Bret at 20/22 in comparison seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted February 16, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 This could make for a really interesting discussion or thread on it's own. Apply it to guys from different generations etc. Someone good should set it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted February 16, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 16, 2015 To be honest I don't think you can simplify wrestlers abilities to a simple numerical system. There's far too many factors and variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted February 16, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted February 16, 2015 To be honest I don't think you can simplify wrestlers abilities to a simple numerical system. There's far too many factors and variables. True but I do think the categories work well as a simple but pretty accurate measure. A lot of variances in what makes up the numbers though. Not sure a lot of numbers would make for a great thread tho. I thought about starting one after I saw the Bret timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.