Jump to content

Royal Rumble 2019 discussion


HarmonicGenerator

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

This is going on in the Random Thoughts thread too, but I'll try and carry it on here;

Basically, intergender wrestling is good when it's booked well, and bad when it isn't. The same as all wrestling. Leave out the misogyny and the sexualised spots and keep it as two great wrestlers competing against each other, and why would it be inherently bad?

One of the criticisms always raised against it is that it glorifies domestic violence, which I've always found absurd, as in a wrestling match both participants are consenting equal partners, and in domestic violence, by its nature, that is not the case. One reason I admittedly hadn't consciously considered as to why I find it absurd was mentioned on Twitter, and I think is a solid argument - it's heteronormative; a woman fighting a man only looks like domestic violence if you assume a woman and a man is the only thing a couple can look like. Why doesn't two men, or two women resemble domestic violence?

The other consistent argument is "men are bigger and stronger than women" - well, Nia Jax wrestled in the same match as Rey Mysterio on Sunday night, and there's a good seven inches in height and 80lbs in weight difference between them, yet somehow the argument there isn't that it's unrealistic for Rey to have had a chance against Nia. 

 

Ultimately, it's wrestling. If you see two people of different sizes, shapes and skillsets, and ask yourself, "how could X possibly beat Y?", that's good. That's the story, right there. It only becomes bad if the company fails to tell that story in a satisfactory way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members
26 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

One reason I admittedly hadn't consciously considered as to why I find it absurd was mentioned on Twitter, and I think is a solid argument - it's heteronormative; a woman fighting a man only looks like domestic violence if you assume a woman and a man is the only thing a couple can look like. Why doesn't two men, or two women resemble domestic violence?

This has blown my mind. Great counter-point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Sorry Pat but I think you’re way off the mark there. In the current climate, with the rise of #MeToo and other movements, public perception is white hot on male aggression and violence towards women.

WWE, which we often forget, is a product aimed at children and I’m not sure there’s a way in which a guy beating up a women for entertainment could ever be acceptable for their viewing, or anyone’s for that matter. 

I get the point you’re trying to make re: male on female compared to same sex violence but conventionally, domestic abuse has been a male on female problem. In an era where we’re trying to undo a history violent oppression towards women, I’m not sure having kids pop at a male competitor putting a chair over a women’s back is the way to go.

Yes, it’s wrestling but we’re supposed to buy in to the threat of real, physical danger for the competitors while they’re in the ring. The comparison isn’t perfect but I’m not sure there would be many in a rush to watch male vs female UFC, boxing or any other combat sport.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Hoping this gets split out into its own thread, but don't want to lose what's here already.

I saw the clip of Nia Jax in the Rumble on Twitter, and while I'm not entirely against intergender wrestling, I'm not sure the way to reintroduce it is to have a crowd-pleasing segment where a bunch of well-known names perform their finishers on a woman who's dared to step into their world. It's cool that Nia can hang easily enough with the men, and that she has that kind of heat, but the 619 and RKO in particular just felt kind of overeager. It was a weird 'going from zero to a hundred' approach.

If it had just been handled differently, with it just being Rey dealing with her, or something like that, it may have been a totally different kettle of fish. At the very least, while reintroducing it, it should be handled carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The only reason I don't particularly want to see intergender wrestling in WWE is that I don't think WWE will book it well. I don't think there's a single thing inherent about it.

Again, I find it odd that people view it as "violence towards women". No one ever talks about WWE being "violent" any more, until this particular issue. Why does it only become "violent" when it's a man and a woman? Again - both consenting, both professional fighters, both equal partners within this fight? Why is it not "violent" when it's two men or two women? And why is the assumption that the match will be "a man beating up a woman" and not "a woman beating up a man" or, better yet, "two competitors competing as equals regardless of gender"?

I'm not asking for a return of the early '00s, where Steve Austin beating up Stacy Keibler for no discernible reason warranted a babyface pop, or where The Rock was a hero for hitting his finisher on a defenceless Stephanie McMahon. I'm talking about two wrestlers, presented as equals, competing as equals. Nor am I talking the over-sexualised Joey Ryan brand of intergender wrestling (as an aside, I hate that Joey Ryan is the self-appointed defender of all things intergender wrestling on Twitter).

Would you look at a competitive match between, for example, Pete Dunne and Shayna Baszler as resembling domestic violence, or as a contest between two fighters of similar skillsets, and closer in weight than many matches between male fighters that wouldn't raise any criticism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Awards Moderator

Just got finished with the show. Balor vs Lesnar was my favourite match, really surprised me with how enjoyable it was and how close Finn came to winning. There’s few better than Lesnar when he can be arsed.

I didn’t care for the Men’s Rumble at all, surprised to see the reaction on here is as positive as it was. I’d rank it as one of the weakest Rumbles this decade, easily - an over-reliance on comedy, terrible non-commentary and far too many inconsequential or insignificant-feeling eliminations following runs in the match where a lot of people didn’t really do much. One thing I really liked in the Women’s Match was eliminations during the countdown - who knows if they were meant to happen then but at least it didn’t feel like everyone just stopped to hang out in the corners for 10 seconds like the men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my hatred of intergender matches is that it invites this type of debate to begin with. Wrestling is implausible enough as it is, and despite the "well it's all a big circus show anyway" mentality WWE insists on that makes me puke in my soup, there is even less chance of me getting into anything where a 100lb woman is wrestling rings around a guy, usually while the work is sloppy as balls, in what is supposed to be a competitive fight situation like you'll sometimes see on indy shows while Johnny Neckbeard in the front row marks out. That stuff sucks. I think having seen that done badly makes me more inclined to dislike the idea on paper.

Can you pull it off with a special character like Nia or Chyna? Sure, and it can work. So fundamentally, in the right situation, in the right spot, there's nothing wrong with it. Like everything else in wrestling, it's in the execution. When Lita would hurricanrana guys it was awesome. Her match with Dean Malenko was really well done. But there is a fine line to walk, and a big difference between could and should with intergender stuff, mostly dependent on who you do it with. For example, when Awesome Kong was at her peak early on in TNA during the Gail Kim series, I totally would have bought her in a one-off situation, done carefully, like the Rumble on Sunday. Hell, she was in the Rumble and it kind of worked. Don't think it helped Ziggler to get his ass kicked by her, mind, but it was what it was.

The Nia spot was fine, really, but it probably would have been twenty times better if she was a viable badass monster, instead of the women who tapped out to little Sasha Banks a couple of weeks back and eliminated by the women in their own Rumble earlier in the same show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
54 minutes ago, stumobir said:

I get the point you’re trying to make re: male on female compared to same sex violence but conventionally, domestic abuse has been a male on female problem. In an era where we’re trying to undo a history violent oppression towards women, I’m not sure having kids pop at a male competitor putting a chair over a women’s back is the way to go.

 

Again, it's all in the presentation. You've leapt to a massive extreme again there. Yes, a man throttling a woman with a weapon will look terrible and will come off poorly to the mainstream audience. But with context and and build, it's all welcome in my book.

I don't buy into the "Won't somebody please think of the children!" way of thinking either. It's a lazy argument. If little Timmy goes out and hits a girl because he saw someone do it on TV, chances are he was hitting other boys too because of what he saw on TV. That's where the discussion of parenting and your own social-make up comes into play, and is whole different kettle of fish.

And I agree with Liam in that this topic always brings out a bad vibe during it's discussion, and it won't be long before each side is labeling each other as sexist and evil.

Now excuse me, I'm off to watch Nick Jackson superkick Candice LeRea with a thumbtack covered boot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had time to think about the event now after watching it in full yesterday. I really enjoyed all the pre-Rumble matches and particularly enjoyed both women's matches. I said it my post earlier that Ronda's selling was exceptional and it really was, and the post-match confrontation was very good. It almost felt awkward and off the cuff, which I felt added to it.

I liked the tag match, too. Shane looked positively knackered after it, which he genuinely seemed to be. Maybe I'm just picky, but I would have liked the announcers to be drumming in all in afterwards, "look at Shane O'Mac, he's been through a WAR to achieve his dream of being tag champ, he cant hardly stand." He should have been getting scraped off the mat and handed his belt. I just thought they could have sold it more.

Yeah, so I enjoyed the full show until the men's Rumble. Honestly, I thought it was garbage. Here's my best way of putting it, you get ridiculous comedy in WWE. It's always gonna be there. But as far as I'm aware it's kept away from the main-event matches. And, maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but the Rumble match is akin to any major PPV main-event. The comedy with Jarrett and Elias should be reserved for a RAW or even just one of they WWE old school specials. Not opening the Rumble. You had all the New Day foolery, Hawkins and O'Neil foolery, No Way Jose fannying about. There was loads more. To me in just made it a comedy Rumble.

Overall a good show in my book, but when it finishes on something bad you're always left feeling disappointed in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LEGIT said:

I've had time to think about the event now after watching it in full yesterday. I really enjoyed all the pre-Rumble matches and particularly enjoyed both women's matches. I said it my post earlier that Ronda's selling was exceptional and it really was, and the post-match confrontation was very good. It almost felt awkward and off the cuff, which I felt added to it.

I liked the tag match, too. Shane looked positively knackered after it, which he genuinely seemed to be. Maybe I'm just picky, but I would have liked the announcers to be drumming in all in afterwards, "look at Shane O'Mac, he's been through a WAR to achieve his dream of being tag champ, he cant hardly stand." He should have been getting scraped off the mat and handed his belt. I just thought they could have sold it more.

Yeah, so I enjoyed the full show until the men's Rumble. Honestly, I thought it was garbage. Here's my best way of putting it, you get ridiculous comedy in WWE. It's always gonna be there. But as far as I'm aware it's kept away from the main-event matches. And, maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but the Rumble match is akin to any major PPV main-event. The comedy with Jarrett and Elias should be reserved for a RAW or even just one of they WWE old school specials. Not opening the Rumble. You had all the New Day foolery, Hawkins and O'Neil foolery, No Way Jose fannying about. There was loads more. To me in just made it a comedy Rumble.

Overall a good show in my book, but when it finishes on something bad you're always left feeling disappointed in it.

There are comedy spots in the rumble every year. It’s a long old match to go through without some levity.

Drew Carey

Honky Tonk and Kane

Hornswoggle

Jerry Lalwer being eliminated and acting like nothing happens on commentary.

Pretty odd complaint to throw at this rumble in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

To start the Rumble with a comedy spot was mental. The PPV had to be a bout 12 hours in by that point. You could have had Elias be the last man in during the middle and then get his guitar out and then the next man is Jarrett. When I saw Elias in the ring with his guitar at the start of the Rumble, I was genuinely tempted to just go to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sheffbag said:

loved JBL showing how relevant to todays audience he is with his reference to Tony St Clair when Dunne was doing the finger bending

At least Tony St Claire is still alive. JBL was waffling on about Sonny & Cher at the start during Elias/Jarrett, Sonny Bono has been dead over 20 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...