MPDTT Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, TildeGuy~! said: They’re freelancers. Well HUGE signings if true. Will really hurt what is left of Impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtrickio Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) Love these two. Still gutted at the last minute cancellation of the lucha forever 'fight forever' show in London. Travelled down pretty much to see them. Recall Vampiro having a dig at Ospreay and Smile on twitter but don't really know what happened. Edited February 2, 2019 by mrtrickio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted February 2, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 2, 2019 Yeah I remember only finding out about the cancellation when I was on my way to the venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snitsky's back acne Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 3 hours ago, MPDTT said: Well HUGE signings if true. Will really hurt what is left of Impact. I could be wrong but I think Impact are currently of the 'we won't stop anyone who wants to go elsewhere and get a better deal' mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPDTT Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 Seems @Bohan was right. Jericho seems to have confirmed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 19 hours ago, David said: You seriously think that? The swearing, the violence, the beer and all that shit is exactly what Austin was all about. It's what set him apart. When I think of Stone Cold I immediately think of him cursing, I think of his backstage violence and getting arrested, of him drinking beer. I don't really recall much of what he did in the ring. Yep, I seriously think that. The swearing, etc., was just one way they conveyed what Austin was all about, which, IMO, was actually about rebellion and being your own person - and sticking it to the boss. There've been other wrestlers who swore or did extreme violence, and who were nowhere near as cool. I'm not saying all the adult stuff wasn't effective, I'm just saying it was merely a quicker route to putting across the Austin character, which was the guy who didn't put up with any shit, and would stomp a mudhole in you for crossing him the wrong way. 19 hours ago, David said: I've read this discussion with interest, and find it ironic that in an era where we don't need our stars to be "non-PG," whatever that means, the single biggest star in all of combat sports is anything but PG. The swearing, the bullying, the asking an African American to "dance for me, boy," the calling other fighters "faggots" and "bitches," the calling a Muslim a "backwards c*nt," all of it is what makes him the star he is today. I've long said that I don't like it, but I'm usually reminded that it's what sells. His press conferences get more eyeballs than many actual fights do. This here is seemingly a million dollar "promo" of the type that helps land you a $100 million paycheck. Yeah, but we know that trash-talking in general sells fights, and not all fighters swear or resort to unpleasant shit to do so. Whilst this place isn't an indicator of the wider world of combat sports fans and audiences as a whole, whenever we've discussed McGregor with you in recent months, several of us have pointed out that we don't like him much either for exactly this kind of behaviour, and that actually he's pretty much put us off him (well, I can definitely say that for me, anyway - the McGregor/Nurmagomedov fight didn't interest me because I think both guys are fuckheads). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 you can swear, cuss and be as violent as you like but if you haven't for the charisma and confidence to back it up its not worth a shit, thats why Stone Cold Steve Austin made it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTXRussomark Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Zero chance Austin gets over to the same degree without the swearing, middle fingers etc, IMO. The freedom to express himself so openly and come across as a real person was absolutely key to that character. "Austin 3:16 says I just kicked your butt" isn't selling a million T-shirts. That's not an argument for or against PG though. Pretty sure a lot of that stuff started way before they moved to TV14 anyway but they just bleeped/blurred a lot of it. To me that had just as much impact as airing it unedited. Maybe even moreso in the early days as it made Austin feel even more of a rebel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Carbomb said: Yep, I seriously think that. The swearing, etc., was just one way they conveyed what Austin was all about, which, IMO, was actually about rebellion and being your own person - and sticking it to the boss. How else would he have gone about it though? If not through violence and being a foul-mouthed lout? "If you want to see me kick Vince in the rear end, give me a gosh-darn-diggity-do-loud-as-you-can-affirmitato!" At which point he climbs the turnbuckle and gives everyone the double thumbs-up Hacksaw Duggan style, and some schmuck at ringside tosses him cans of Dr Pepper that he cracks open and pours all over himself? I don't think that would work as well as the original. Instead of cutting backstage to see Austin unleash violence upon unassuming staff members or other wrestlers it cuts back stage to him walking along a corridor and Lawler asking "Wait a minute JR, is he headed where I think he's headed?!?" "I think you could be right King! He's casually strolling in the direction of....HR! And bah God, what's that in his hand?!? It's an H-738 form! He's got a complaint form with Vince's name all over it!! "Man! Tune in next week to see exclusive footage of Vince having a mandatory sit-down with the Head of HR to address the work-related issues that Austin is complaining about!" In all seriousness, the Austin gimmick would never have worked without everything that went into it. Including the cursing and the violence. You take that out and he's just a whiny prick who lacks the capabilities to be a team player. 3 hours ago, Carbomb said: There've been other wrestlers who swore or did extreme violence, and who were nowhere near as cool. Obviously the actual person carrying out the violence and swearing matters though. No one is saying "well, Austin swore and was really violent and it got over, so it'll surely work if you stick the same gimmick on Barry Horowitz or Aldo Montoya!" As Ebb says, the wrestler involved needs to have charisma and the ability to pull it off, and that should really go without saying in any discussion like this. Austin was a charismatic fellow to begin with, but the swearing and the violence was an important part of Austin's character. He railed against the corporate environment by swearing, drinking, and being violent. 3 hours ago, Carbomb said: Yeah, but we know that trash-talking in general sells fights, and not all fighters swear or resort to unpleasant shit to do so. Well, that's true. But for the most part it's the unpleasant types who sell the most fights, isn't it? The only real exception I can think of is GSP, and having spent time in Canada and seen how fucking huge the dude was there I still think that aspect played a big part. No one was tuning in to the McGregor vs Mayweather press conference (or any of McGregor's pressers, actually) to see him talk about how competitive the fight will be, and how much he respects his opponent. They want to see him carry out his "mental warfare," which is essentially bullying and using questionable language to upset his opponent. 3 hours ago, Carbomb said: Whilst this place isn't an indicator of the wider world of combat sports fans and audiences as a whole, whenever we've discussed McGregor with you in recent months, several of us have pointed out that we don't like him much either for exactly this kind of behaviour, and that actually he's pretty much put us off him (well, I can definitely say that for me, anyway - the McGregor/Nurmagomedov fight didn't interest me because I think both guys are fuckheads). The bolded part is possibly the biggest understatement of the day. How many wrestling or UFC fans do you know who could be considered liberal/left-wing types who discuss the intricacies of Brexit and global politics over a vegan meal lovingly cooked for them by a jetsetting CM Punk fan tattoo artist who doesn't own any pots or pans? Wrestling fans, especially the majority who still watch after childhood, are weird, smelly, socially awkward individuals with questionable views on politics and even more questionable facial hair. There are a few of them on here for sure, but this place is like a weird anomaly of sorts in that regard. You don't expect to see in-depth discussions on wrestling forums about cooking and languages, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Didn't the nWo get over as rebels on a PG rated show? Pretty sure you could say "oh hell yeah" on a PG show too. Plus filling in forms to hand to HR is infinitely more adult than middle fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, David said: How else would he have gone about it though? If not through violence and being a foul-mouthed lout? "If you want to see me kick Vince in the rear end, give me a gosh-darn-diggity-do-loud-as-you-can-affirmitato!" At which point he climbs the turnbuckle and gives everyone the double thumbs-up Hacksaw Duggan style, and some schmuck at ringside tosses him cans of Dr Pepper that he cracks open and pours all over himself? I don't think that would work as well as the original. Instead of cutting backstage to see Austin unleash violence upon unassuming staff members or other wrestlers it cuts back stage to him walking along a corridor and Lawler asking "Wait a minute JR, is he headed where I think he's headed?!?" "I think you could be right King! He's casually strolling in the direction of....HR! And bah God, what's that in his hand?!? It's an H-738 form! He's got a complaint form with Vince's name all over it!! "Man! Tune in next week to see exclusive footage of Vince having a mandatory sit-down with the Head of HR to address the work-related issues that Austin is complaining about!" In all seriousness, the Austin gimmick would never have worked without everything that went into it. Including the cursing and the violence. You take that out and he's just a whiny prick who lacks the capabilities to be a team player. Firstly, not swearing doesn't mean you turn into Ned Flanders. As Vamp pointed out, the nWo got over as cool rebel heels and didn't swear. Secondly, where at any point did I say that Austin wouldn't beat anyone up at all? It's wrestling - of course he's going to wreck someone. You deleted the bit in my previous post where I said Austin "would stomp a mudhole in you for crossing him the wrong way." (Of course, just realised I should've put either "for crossing him", or "for looking at him the wrong way", not both.) Anyway, my point isn't that there shouldn't be any swearing or adult stuff at all, just that it isn't absolutely necessary as the "PG SUX" people make out, that usually when such people call for an end to PG they tend to mean a load of adolescent-conceived crap like we saw in the Atttitude Era, and completely missed the point that these were only the trappings and not the essence of what got Austin over in the first place. Doesn't need to be TV-14 to hose a bunch of people in beer. Also, I personally prefer more adult-orientated products, and I don't really care whether people swear or not, but I've come to realise I don't want to see these things in wrestling, because, as I said earlier in the thread, most of the time wrestling goes "adult", it's usually cringeworthy at best and offensive at worst. The nearest I've ever seen it done well is in Japan, with the sports-style presentation that isn't overdone, but they don't get gratuitous or stupid with it. Quote Obviously the actual person carrying out the violence and swearing matters though. No one is saying "well, Austin swore and was really violent and it got over, so it'll surely work if you stick the same gimmick on Barry Horowitz or Aldo Montoya!" As Ebb says, the wrestler involved needs to have charisma and the ability to pull it off, and that should really go without saying in any discussion like this. Austin was a charismatic fellow to begin with, but the swearing and the violence was an important part of Austin's character. He railed against the corporate environment by swearing, drinking, and being violent. They kind of are, though. Every time this discussion comes up, it's always a vague statement about the product in general, with no reference to any particular wrestlers and whether or not they're the one to pull it off. Think we're going to need to determine what's meant by "violence" though, because it's getting a bit nebulous here; I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect a wrestling product to feature no violence, and that isn't what I mean when I talk about Austin - I'm talking about things like giving women Stunners and the like. Beating up Vince didn't factor into that, largely because Vince was a large man who played an evil boss that invited getting smashed up by the guy he was constantly trying to fuck over. It's not part of what we're discussing, really. Quote Well, that's true. But for the most part it's the unpleasant types who sell the most fights, isn't it? The only real exception I can think of is GSP, and having spent time in Canada and seen how fucking huge the dude was there I still think that aspect played a big part. No one was tuning in to the McGregor vs Mayweather press conference (or any of McGregor's pressers, actually) to see him talk about how competitive the fight will be, and how much he respects his opponent. They want to see him carry out his "mental warfare," which is essentially bullying and using questionable language to upset his opponent. I don't know. I know you're not a fan of him, but Ali also sold a lot of fights - don't remember him swearing. Thing about McGregor is, in his earlier fights, he was good at being funny and entertaining without being the total growler he turned into. Sure, he swore, but it's a different environment now, and loads of people swear in MMA. MMA isn't PG, and nobody's calling for it not to be. Quote The bolded part is possibly the biggest understatement of the day. How many wrestling or UFC fans do you know who could be considered liberal/left-wing types who discuss the intricacies of Brexit and global politics over a vegan meal lovingly cooked for them by a jetsetting CM Punk fan tattoo artist who doesn't own any pots or pans? Wrestling fans, especially the majority who still watch after childhood, are weird, smelly, socially awkward individuals with questionable views on politics and even more questionable facial hair. There are a few of them on here for sure, but this place is like a weird anomaly of sorts in that regard. You don't expect to see in-depth discussions on wrestling forums about cooking and languages, for example. Bear in mind I raised this point as an addendum, because I was pointing out that we're having this discussion on here, about opinions on here about the whole PG/TV-14 in wrestling debate, not anywhere else, and that your raising McGregor as an example of unpleasantness is sort of preaching to the choir, as most of the people who actively post on here now have him down as a complete and utter roaster for hoovering up half of Colombia with his face, chucking out racist and homophobic statements with the awareness of a spaniel with diarrhoea, and behaving like a Poundshop gangster. I can't say for absolutely certain, but you won't find that many McG defenders on here. Edited February 3, 2019 by Carbomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Firstly, not swearing doesn't mean you turn into Ned Flanders. As Vamp pointed out, the nWo got over as cool rebel heels and didn't swear. Secondly, where at any point did I say that Austin wouldn't beat anyone up at all? It's wrestling - of course he's going to wreck someone. You deleted the bit in my previous post where I said Austin "would stomp a mudhole in you for crossing him the wrong way." (Of course, just realised I should've put either "for crossing him", or "for looking at him the wrong way", not both.) Anyway, my point isn't that there shouldn't be any swearing or adult stuff at all, just that it isn't absolutely necessary as the "PG SUX" people make out, that usually when such people call for an end to PG they tend to mean a load of adolescent-conceived crap like we saw in the Atttitude Era, and completely missed the point that these were only the trappings and not the essence of what got Austin over in the first place. Doesn't need to be TV-14 to hose a bunch of people in beer. Also, I personally prefer more adult-orientated products, and I don't really care whether people swear or not, but I've come to realise I don't want to see these things in wrestling, because, as I said earlier in the thread, most of the time wrestling goes "adult", it's usually cringeworthy at best and offensive at worst. The nearest I've ever seen it done well is in Japan, with the sports-style presentation that isn't overdone, but they don't get gratuitous or stupid with it. Understand that I'm not jumping into this conversation to claim that there shouldn't be a PG-rated element to any particular product, I was drawn in by your comment that Austin could have been just as effective without the swearing and violence. I simply don't agree with that. The gimmick to the whole storyline was that Vince wanted him to "tone it down" and be more the kind of guy you're talking about. I even remember watching episodes of Raw where Vince would specifically pinpoint Austin's language as "a problem," so it was definitely a huge part of his character. You take away the questionable language and the over the top violence that he meted out and you lose a huge part of the Austin character and the storyline I think. 9 minutes ago, Carbomb said: They kind of are, though. Every time this discussion comes up, it's always a vague statement about the product in general, with no reference to any particular wrestlers and whether or not they're the one to pull it off. Well, those people are just plain dumb and can't really be taken seriously in a proper discussion on the topic. One thing that gets me is that it's either a case of PG meaning that it's all John Cena and guys throwing pancakes into the crowd and talking about cereal, or non-PG meaning a return to the days of characters giving birth to hands or porn stars getting their dicks chopped off. Why can't we have it somewhere in the middle? Couldn't we see a non-PG product (and to clarify I mean non-PG in the sense that it's not written entirely for children, not in the technical sense of what qualifies as PG and non-PG to any given TV company) that allows certain talents to push the envelope if it's something that would benefit their character (as it did with Austin) along with some well thought-out storylines that appeal to an older audience mixed in with the best of what they have going on at the moment? Essentially, take the best of what we saw in the Attitude era (the Mick Foley's, the Austin's, the Rock's etc) and instead of featuring them alongside the tripe that we got back then, have it feature alongside the best of the current stuff? Such as the burgeoning female division, the acrobatic antics of some of the smaller wrestlers and so on? Why does it need to be one or the other? Can't we hope for an "Attitude era 2.0" that learns from its past and provides a cutting edge product that is more in-tune with today's audience and values? Let's face it, the current wrestling landscape is pretty poor. I'm no expert, but it reminds me of the wrestling industry before the Attitude Era and Monday Night Wars kicked off. 17 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Think we're going to need to determine what's meant by "violence" though, because it's getting a bit nebulous here; I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect a wrestling product to feature no violence, and that isn't what I mean when I talk about Austin - I'm talking about things like giving women Stunners and the like. Beating up Vince didn't factor into that, largely because Vince was a large man who played an evil boss that invited getting smashed up by the guy he was constantly trying to fuck over. It's not part of what we're discussing, really. I'm talking about Austin's violence against backstage help (which we saw a fair bit of early in his run, not so much as he progressed), against security and even against police. The women thing is a grey area for me, because I'm of the belief that they're painting a picture where the women talent are on a par with their male colleagues, and that we could believe that some of the top female talent could at least hold their own against some of the men. Would it be a good look to see a Braun Strowman laying a beating on Bailey? Absolutely not. If we had a storyline that saw, for example, someone like Rousey involve herself in a heelish fashion to cause someone like Ambrose a match, would I be against seeing him deliver a stunner? I'm not so sure, because I'm being told on a weekly basis that Rousey is the baddest female on the planet. It would have to be careful done, but that crossover could work fine in some instances, especially if we were given and could believe that the female wrestler could lay a beating on the male just as easily. 22 minutes ago, Carbomb said: I don't know. I know you're not a fan of him, but Ali also sold a lot of fights - don't remember him swearing. This isn't really wrestling discussion, but you have to look at context. Ali was around during an era when hardly any public figures swore. It wasn't a thing back then. But like it nor not, he was considered a bit of a villain in those days by most. The way he went after Joe Frazier is largely airbrushed these days (Frazier held a lot of animosity from that stuff right up until the day he died) but Ali basically "McGregor-ed" Frazier back then with the uncle Tom chat. He eventually managed to turn a lot of African Americans against the guy for no reason other than Frazier not being political and being happy to just box and be a family man. This is maybe part of a bigger discussion we could have down the line some day. 25 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Thing about McGregor is, in his earlier fights, he was good at being funny and entertaining without being the total growler he turned into. Sure, he swore, but it's a different environment now, and loads of people swear in MMA. MMA isn't PG, and nobody's calling for it not to be. You're right, MMA isn't PG. There's a lot of swearing, a lot of very questionable language. You know what though? It's far more popular than WWE is at the moment, isn't it? This brings us back to having to ask about the type of person who enjoys this kind of entertainment. Be it fake fighting, real fighting, whatever. If anything, the success of MMA, the success of McGregor, it adds credence to the argument that having a product that isn't PG is the way to go. Not because it allows for the Jerry Springer stuff we saw in the 90's, but because the real world isn't PG. I rarely tune into wrestling these days unless it's Wrestlemania or Royal Rumble time. The product is the drizzling shits as far as I'm concerned. I'm an adult, I prefer my entertainment to have an edge to it. I don't want to see fake rape scenes, lesbian mud-wrestling or any of the stuff that caught the attention of people back in the 90's though. I had a little nostalgia trip when the Network first launched, but I skipped most of the crap and focused on the well thought-out stuff like the Austin/McMahon angle and so on. It isn't the 90's anymore. Times have changed, but I still like my entertainment with a bit of a pulse. I don't see why WWE, or this new company being discussed here, can't try to go "non-PG" in a way that will appeal to the mature audiences of 2019. It doesn't have to be a rerun of the 90's. 33 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Bear in mind I raised this point as an addendum, because I was pointing out that we're having this discussion on here, about opinions on here about the whole PG/TV-14 in wrestling debate, not anywhere else, and that your raising McGregor as an example of unpleasantness is sort of preaching to the choir, as most of the people who actively post on here now have him down as a complete and utter roaster for hoovering up half of Colombia with his face, chucking out racist and homophobic statements with the awareness of a spaniel with diarrhoea, and behaving like a Poundshop gangster. I can't say for absolutely certain, but you won't find that many McG defenders on here. Defend him or not, like him or not. you know as well as I do that when his next fight is announced the thread discussing it in the MMA section of the forum will explode. And those who don't like him will tune in regardless. They always do, be it to see him get tapped out like last time, or see him lay a beating on someone. And, as always, we'll have to rely on @Keith Houchen to remind us that live chat during a press conference at 11pm on a Thursday night isn't allowed. As a wrestling fan you should know that it's not a case of people having to like a wrestler, it's about them caring enough to tune in. And McGregor, for all his faults, has people tuning in. Vince would probably give his right nut to have a character half as popular at McGregor on his roster right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wordsfromlee Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Hasn't Smackdown always been PG since it first started in 1999? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, David said: Understand that I'm not jumping into this conversation to claim that there shouldn't be a PG-rated element to any particular product, I was drawn in by your comment that Austin could have been just as effective without the swearing and violence. I simply don't agree with that. The gimmick to the whole storyline was that Vince wanted him to "tone it down" and be more the kind of guy you're talking about. I even remember watching episodes of Raw where Vince would specifically pinpoint Austin's language as "a problem," so it was definitely a huge part of his character. You take away the questionable language and the over the top violence that he meted out and you lose a huge part of the Austin character and the storyline I think. Fair enough if you don't agree with it. I just don't think the swearing is at the heart of what made Stone Cold popular. His swearing wasn't really all that much either - "ass", "sum'bitch" and the odd "shit", but if he said "fuck" or "cunt", I might have missed it. Like I say, for me it's the rebelliousness - not just that he wouldn't do what the boss told him, but that he'd actively make the boss pay for messing with him, and not "through the usual channels", like so many people wish they could do in real life. Wish fulfilment. 7 minutes ago, David said: Well, those people are just plain dumb and can't really be taken seriously in a proper discussion on the topic. One thing that gets me is that it's either a case of PG meaning that it's all John Cena and guys throwing pancakes into the crowd and talking about cereal, or non-PG meaning a return to the days of characters giving birth to hands or porn stars getting their dicks chopped off. Why can't we have it somewhere in the middle? Couldn't we see a non-PG product (and to clarify I mean non-PG in the sense that it's not written entirely for children, not in the technical sense of what qualifies as PG and non-PG to any given TV company) that allows certain talents to push the envelope if it's something that would benefit their character (as it did with Austin) along with some well thought-out storylines that appeal to an older audience mixed in with the best of what they have going on at the moment? Essentially, take the best of what we saw in the Attitude era (the Mick Foley's, the Austin's, the Rock's etc) and instead of featuring them alongside the tripe that we got back then, have it feature alongside the best of the current stuff? Such as the burgeoning female division, the acrobatic antics of some of the smaller wrestlers and so on? Why does it need to be one or the other? Can't we hope for an "Attitude era 2.0" that learns from its past and provides a cutting edge product that is more in-tune with today's audience and values? Let's face it, the current wrestling landscape is pretty poor. I'm no expert, but it reminds me of the wrestling industry before the Attitude Era and Monday Night Wars kicked off. I absolutely, 100% agree with this, which is why the nWo is such a good example. Thing about Cena is that, at various points, he has been edgy without resorting to swearing, and I strongly believe one of the reasons he started getting booed originally was exactly because of the whole "JBL is poopy" thing. His promos against The Rock showed he didn't have to resort to either end of the spectrum. It was a few years ago when Cena first turned into Poopy Gayness Man that I was arguing that WWE wasn't going PG, they were going U. The bit in italics is kind of what I was getting at, in that when people call for a return to the Attitude Era, they're usually citing all the keech, and not the stuff that made it good, which, in my opinion, would fit into any era, because it was about good wrestlers, being booked in good angles and storylines, doing good matches that drew people in and made them care. For me, in internet fan terms, "Attitude" has just come to mean "licence to do adolescent bollocks". 7 minutes ago, David said: I'm talking about Austin's violence against backstage help (which we saw a fair bit of early in his run, not so much as he progressed), against security and even against police. The women thing is a grey area for me, because I'm of the belief that they're painting a picture where the women talent are on a par with their male colleagues, and that we could believe that some of the top female talent could at least hold their own against some of the men. Would it be a good look to see a Braun Strowman laying a beating on Bailey? Absolutely not. If we had a storyline that saw, for example, someone like Rousey involve herself in a heelish fashion to cause someone like Ambrose a match, would I be against seeing him deliver a stunner? I'm not so sure, because I'm being told on a weekly basis that Rousey is the baddest female on the planet. It would have to be careful done, but that crossover could work fine in some instances, especially if we were given and could believe that the female wrestler could lay a beating on the male just as easily. I guess, but giving Stunners to Mae Young and Moolah (alright, we're told that IRL they were able to handle themselves, but it wasn't how they were portrayed) and beating up female wrestlers who weren't Chyna, especially in the context of how they were portrayed, was very questionable indeed, to my mind. 7 minutes ago, David said: This isn't really wrestling discussion, but you have to look at context. Ali was around during an era when hardly any public figures swore. It wasn't a thing back then. But like it nor not, he was considered a bit of a villain in those days by most. The way he went after Joe Frazier is largely airbrushed these days (Frazier held a lot of animosity from that stuff right up until the day he died) but Ali basically "McGregor-ed" Frazier back then with the uncle Tom chat. He eventually managed to turn a lot of African Americans against the guy for no reason other than Frazier not being political and being happy to just box and be a family man. This is maybe part of a bigger discussion we could have down the line some day. Certainly. I'm a big fan of Ali, and I'll defend him on a lot of things, but the Frazier/Thrilla In Manila build-up was a bad mis-step on his part in my opinion. He weaponised something politically sensitive and used it to make money, making life dangerous for another person, especially a guy who'd lent him money when he was banned from boxing. At the very least, he really should have let Frazier in on the fact he was doing it purely for promotion, but the subject material he used was damaging. As to Ali being a villain, though - let's be honest: as a black man in the 60s, a big chunk of that wasn't intentional, and Ali just ran with "being an uppity Negro". He held up a mirror to white society, and they didn't like it. 7 minutes ago, David said: You're right, MMA isn't PG. There's a lot of swearing, a lot of very questionable language. You know what though? It's far more popular than WWE is at the moment, isn't it? This brings us back to having to ask about the type of person who enjoys this kind of entertainment. Be it fake fighting, real fighting, whatever. If anything, the success of MMA, the success of McGregor, it adds credence to the argument that having a product that isn't PG is the way to go. Not because it allows for the Jerry Springer stuff we saw in the 90's, but because the real world isn't PG. Yeah, but then I could just as easily argue that that's a reason for wrestling to not be like the real world - it's got a much broader appeal to those who would follow it, to both kids and adults, which is why I say your earlier point about the middle ground is spot-on, especially when you take into account the kind of fans MMA attracts. I don't know you all that well, but you've given me the distinct impression you wouldn't want to be sat amongst a bunch of Sherdoggers, Just Bleeders, Bloody Elbowers, Two-Can Van Dammes, Affliction or Tap-Out T-shirters, or Gareth A. Davies. 7 minutes ago, David said: I rarely tune into wrestling these days unless it's Wrestlemania or Royal Rumble time. The product is the drizzling shits as far as I'm concerned. I'm an adult, I prefer my entertainment to have an edge to it. I don't want to see fake rape scenes, lesbian mud-wrestling or any of the stuff that caught the attention of people back in the 90's though. I had a little nostalgia trip when the Network first launched, but I skipped most of the crap and focused on the well thought-out stuff like the Austin/McMahon angle and so on. 7 minutes ago, David said: It isn't the 90's anymore. Times have changed, but I still like my entertainment with a bit of a pulse. I don't see why WWE, or this new company being discussed here, can't try to go "non-PG" in a way that will appeal to the mature audiences of 2019. It doesn't have to be a rerun of the 90's. That's exactly what I was discussing before with tiger_rick, and above. All that stuff you detailed you don't want to see is exactly what I don't want to see, and I don't think the product needs it, nor is the wrestling industry able to deal with any adult topics any more more maturely than what it's shown during that period. It's not the medium for them, and it's not run by people who are willing or able to address them with the sensitivity or skill they require. 7 minutes ago, David said: Defend him or not, like him or not. you know as well as I do that when his next fight is announced the thread discussing it in the MMA section of the forum will explode. And those who don't like him will tune in regardless. They always do, be it to see him get tapped out like last time, or see him lay a beating on someone. And, as always, we'll have to rely on @Keith Houchen to remind us that live chat during a press conference at 11pm on a Thursday night isn't allowed. As a wrestling fan you should know that it's not a case of people having to like a wrestler, it's about them caring enough to tune in. And McGregor, for all his faults, has people tuning in. Vince would probably give his right nut to have a character half as popular at McGregor on his roster right now. I can't speak for anyone else, but I really am not bothered about McG these days. Didn't even bother with the Nurmagomedov fight - just caught highlights on YouTube. It is a shame there are so many people who'll pay to see him when he's been such a ringpiece, because even if they're paying to see him beaten up, they're still paying him, and he doesn't really lose in the end. As to the last bit - the way McG's going, McMahon is probably preparing to book his semi-castration as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Fair enough if you don't agree with it. I just don't think the swearing is at the heart of what made Stone Cold popular. His swearing wasn't really all that much either - "ass", "sum'bitch" and the odd "shit", but if he said "fuck" or "cunt", I might have missed it. Like I say, for me it's the rebelliousness - not just that he wouldn't do what the boss told him, but that he'd actively make the boss pay for messing with him, and not "through the usual channels", like so many people wish they could do in real life. Wish fulfilment. It was an intangible part of his character though, in my opinion. It's hard to put into words, but he was portrayed as a loose cannon redneck from Texas, going up against the corporate machine in New York. The swearing and violence was required to make it believable. He was supposed to be unpredictable, a wild man who'd drink beer and brawl for fun. It was certainly a case of lightning in a bottle, but I honestly think that removing any of the characteristics that made the feud what it was, or from the Austin character would have harmed it greatly. We can disagree there though if you feel differently. It's all about opinions. 9 minutes ago, Carbomb said: The bit in italics is kind of what I was getting at, in that when people call for a return to the Attitude Era, they're usually citing all the keech, and not the stuff that made it good, which, in my opinion, would fit into any era, because it was about good wrestlers, being booked in good angles and storylines, doing good matches that drew people in and made them care. For me, in internet fan terms, "Attitude" has just come to mean "licence to do adolescent bollocks". Do you really think so though? Whenever I see people talking about the Attitude Era and how it was better then compared to now, they usually talk about Austin, the Hardcore title matches, Mankind, The Rock, The Dudley Boys etc. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they wish for a return to non-PG product so we can relive the glory days of Val Venis or that time Big Boss Man gatecrashed Big Show's fathers funeral. In fact, it's usually those who are fighting the corner of the PG product who raise those skits, using them as a reason to not return to non-PG days. 14 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Yeah, but then I could just as easily argue that that's a reason for wrestling to not be like the real world - it's got a much broader appeal to those who would follow it, to both kids and adults, which is why I say your earlier point about the middle ground is spot-on, especially when you take into account the kind of fans MMA attracts. I honestly don't know. There'll be those who are more up to speed with the numbers, but hasn't wrestling usually dipped when it chooses to ignore the influences of the real world? I mean, even the 80's era that most people bring up to back their case for wrestling not being "real life" actually was a reflection of real life back then in certain ways, wasn't it? Look at the movie stars, the "everything bigger than everything else" culture in that era. From the bits and bobs that I've been able to sit through of todays product it seems incredibly sanitised and over-produced to within an inch of its life. The "promos" are by the numbers and bollocks for the most part, the talent either don't have the charisma to get the job done or aren't being given the freedom that their predecessors were. The company don't seem to be listening to what the fans actually want. How many times have we seen Roman Reigns positioned as a main event guy? The fans don't buy it. I'm sure he's a great guy and hopefully he beats his health problems, but he has the charisma of a paper cup of tepid tea. Unless the company are happy to coast on as they have been, they really need to change things up a bit, don't they? Then again, maybe I'm not the audience they're looking for. But that brings me to the point some have made about this new company. Maybe they've seen that there's people like me who would watch if the product was interesting to me? If they take a kind of "non-PG for intelligent people" approach then I'd certainly be interested in giving them a look. 23 minutes ago, Carbomb said: I don't know you all that well, but you've given me the distinct impression you wouldn't want to be sat amongst a bunch of Sherdoggers, Just Bleeders, Bloody Elbowers, Two-Can Van Dammes, Affliction or Tap-Out T-shirters, or Gareth A. Davies. Yeah, going to an MMA show with @Egg Shen isn't high on my list to be honest, you're right. Just kidding, Ebb. You know we all "f'n" love you 😁 25 minutes ago, Carbomb said: That's exactly what I was discussing before with tiger_rick, and above. All that stuff you detailed you don't want to see is exactly what I don't want to see, and I don't think the product needs it, nor is the wrestling industry able to deal with any adult topics any more more maturely than what it's shown during that period. It's not the medium for them, and it's not run by people who are willing or able to address them with the sensitivity or skill they require. Again, I'm not so sure. I've watched a bit of NXT over the past year or two and I think that is the direction the product should be going in. Isn't it Triple H who's more hands-on when it comes to that brand? Maybe he can eventually shift the direction of the company altogether? I mean, we can't expect Vince to do it really. He's a 73 year old white billionaire from North Carolina who probably should have retired years ago. He's as out of touch with what's going on in the modern world as Donald Trump is. I guess we'll see what happens in the long-run, but it'll be interesting to see where this new company goes. But back on topic, what about the idea of weigh-ins? 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts