Jump to content

Who WOULDNT be a top guy if they came along today...


Drfunke

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

I think Rock would have just gone with it. I seem to recall when he got booed against Hogan at Mania 18 he just went with it and started heeling it up a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

And yet another thing to add about Goldberg is that crowds these days don't have the same patience for a build like that, partly down to the simple fact that the sheer volume of TV and PPV output is so high compared to back then. I think people would get sick of seeing the same unbeaten guy every weekly show, every PPV, doing the same thing of beating someone, without any new developments. They'd probably end up thinking "when's this bloke going to go after the big guns now?"

I'm not convinced this is true. It worked with Ryback five years ago and with Strowman for the last year. People ate always into a big dude killing people if he's got some charisma and good looking offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
8 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

I'm not convinced this is true. It worked with Ryback five years ago and with Strowman for the last year. People ate always into a big dude killing people if he's got some charisma and good looking offence.

If the spectacle is there, you can just keep slowly building it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
35 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

I'm not convinced this is true. It worked with Ryback five years ago and with Strowman for the last year. People ate always into a big dude killing people if he's got some charisma and good looking offence.

Yeah, but Ryback's and Strowman's undefeated streaks didn't last more than a few months, whereas, IIRC, Goldberg's lasted over a year. I don't doubt people like the squash match monsters, but I do doubt that they could have a streak as long as Goldberg's before the crowd got sick of them, purely through the sheer volume of programming and no fault of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
20 hours ago, PSF said:

Again irrelevant to the topic. An already established and massively over guy using it is one thing. Rocky Maivia pulling out that move in his early days and it wouldn't have been over at all. 

I don't think it's particularly relevant. Any move can get over as a finish. Scotty Too Hotty got the Worm over huge, and there's not much of an argument for him as an established star beforehand - and not only is the Worm ridiculous, I was once told a story by a wrestler who asked Scotty what the move actually is - is it a chop, a forward-facing elbow drop, a fist drop, or whatever - and Scotty replied, "I've no idea". He didn't even know what his own finisher was, and it's single-handedly set him up for life.

The idea that someone can't get over because their finisher isn't big and flashy and impressive enough is nonsense. Followed to its logical conclusion, you'd have to assume that everyone who does have a big, flashy finish does get it over - and that's demonstrably false. The most over finishes are consistently the simplest - because they're the most adaptable, the easiest to understand, and the easiest to work into the story of a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Just now, BomberPat said:

See also (though, admittedly, this falls under the "established star" remit), but Brock Lesnar got a glorified hammerlock over as the most brutal submission finish in the company.

For an example of a less established star, Chris Masters got over a full nelson as a legit, near-inescapable finish that only John Cena was strong enough to get out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Worm was all about the fan interaction at time where fans didn't sit on there hands. He wasn't a top guy though.

Umaga's finish was down to the character getting it over too. Personally I always argued that the Samoan spike was a legitimate move, that would keep most people down if hit correctly anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 1:36 PM, BomberPat said:

As for Cena's STF - for years I was one of the crowd screaming that he didn't do it "properly" and it didn't look like it hurt, but now I look at it and realise that the way he locks in the STF allows far more freedom for the opponent to move, to reach the ropes, and it means that their face isn't obscured, so they can sell the pain to the cameras. I would say with 90% certainty that it's applied the way it is by design, because telling the story clearly to the audience is more important than doing wrestling "properly" ninety nine times out of a hundred.

I don't know about that. You can still tell the story and show their face and selling whilst making it snug.

One of the first results for an STFU on Google I found is this one:

 

08.jpg

There's nowt wrong with applying it like that. It doesn't have to be locked against the guy's face.

 

STFU+A+MIZ.jpg

It's more when it looks like this that it looks shit.

My initial thought was that it may be because WWE don't want Cena applying it too tightly as it will look too vicious.

Just an aside, I understand WWE stopped Rollins from using his stomp because kids could emulate it and hurt each other. Which one is easier to emulate and do damage? Jumping and standing a foot on someone's head whilst their bent over and making them fall head first to the ground or choking someone whilst their laid on the floor? I'd definitely go for Cena's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
20 hours ago, Sphinx said:

I don't know about that. You can still tell the story and show their face and selling whilst making it snug.

One of the first results for an STFU on Google I found is this one:

  Hide contents

08.jpg

There's nowt wrong with applying it like that. It doesn't have to be locked against the guy's face.

  Reveal hidden contents

STFU+A+MIZ.jpg

It's more when it looks like this that it looks shit.

My initial thought was that it may be because WWE don't want Cena applying it too tightly as it will look too vicious.

Just an aside, I understand WWE stopped Rollins from using his stomp because kids could emulate it and hurt each other. Which one is easier to emulate and do damage? Jumping and standing a foot on someone's head whilst their bent over and making them fall head first to the ground or choking someone whilst their laid on the floor? I'd definitely go for Cena's.

In practical terms, you're right - it still looks painful without the hands against the face, although I'd argue that it isn't really necessary to see the face; the Crippler Crossface always looked painful and could be sold as a nasty finisher.

Semantically/pedantically (sedantically?), you're wrong: the hands do have to be locked against the face, as it is a Spinning Toehold Face-Lock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I think the Crippler still looked deadly but if the point being made is that it covers the face too much I think that the first photo is a fair compromise. As for semantics, no one cares for it with Cena's move. No one calls it a Spinning Toehold Facelock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, Sphinx said:

Well yeah, I think the Crippler still looked deadly but if the point being made is that it covers the face too much I think that the first photo is a fair compromise. As for semantics, no one cares for it with Cena's move. No one calls it a Spinning Toehold Facelock.

No-one calls it the STFU any more either. :p Like I say, was just being pedantic.

Either way, I think either the way done in the picture you posted, or with the hand across the face in the original fashion, looks best. In the case of the latter, I don't think it's imperative for people to see the whole face, because anyone looking at that will be likely to think with empathy: "ouch, knuckles across the middle of the face, looks painful".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

It's not just about it looking painful - Vince McMahon really likes facial reactions, and they're a good go-to in wrestling. It's why holds like the Sharpshooter and the Boston Crab are such a staple - the guy performing the hold and the guy in it can both lift their head to the crowd and sell. Something like Steve Austin bleeding in the Sharpshooter wouldn't have been such an iconic, defining image if it were a crossface, because you lose that emotional connection you get from seeing the guy's face as he sells the pain.

This is all blind speculation on my part, in fairness, I've never heard anything to confirm that this plays into how John Cena applies the STF, it's just what I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...