The Smackers Thread

[d-d-d-dAz]

38 minutes ago, air_raid said:

I get what you’re saying but even in triple threat matches with a title, the personal enmity can be a story device within that explains the reason why there’s one match rather than three separate singles matches, without having to do anything about “challengers can’t be separated.” Rock vs HHH vs Angle happens not just merely because Angle wants the title and Hunter wants the title, but that simultaneously they want to beat each other up over Steph.

Would that not be true of two wrestlers taking a cage match (for instance) without a prize for winning? Or is that different because the very nature of the singles gimmick match is that it’s (usually) going to give you definitive bragging rights. Where a triple threat by its very nature is only going to resolve one out of three feuds with the decision and leave one party neither winning nor beaten. I think this is why (funnily enough) Paul E used to prefer booking three or four-way dances to be elimination affairs.

I dunno, maybe there’s a point there. Doesn’t help that the last “personal issues” triple threat I can recall before Penta vs Dunne vs Kaiser was Crush vs Savio vs Farooq from 97, which was far from memorable. But I still like Punk vs Reigns vs Rollins on the marquee, even if it means fuck all if Punk nor Roman beat the other or lose to Seth.

I think the gimmick match comparison is interesting, but I think you can buy one on one enmity a lot easier and see why someone would work themselves into going 'I'm not just going to hurt you, I'm going to make you quit... or be the last man standing... or do it in a cage' or whatever.

A triple threat just feels like something where you're watering down your chances of winning or settling a score, so why take it without either being forced or something being on the line to make it worth your while.

It's why actually, as much as I wish it wasn't a triple threat match and #fuckrollins4lyf, they've done a pretty good job with it in explaining to me why it makes sense these three would take the match and why it means something. It's not terribly booked, they just hamstrung themselves at the start by going with the triple threat in the first place and have struggled to make the ground back.

Edited April 6, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[HarmonicGenerator]

1 hour ago, RedTwoster said:

One of my favourite stories that didn’t get the chance to progress to its full potential was when William Regal won King of the Ring, and was a GM who was also wrestling, and quite dangerous as a result. I believe the plan was for him to wrestle Triple H for the title, but it never came to be as Regal failed a drug test.

I think that idea still has a lot of potential- someone who is essentially a ‘player manager’ and very dangerous as a result. 

That’s a storyline for the “short lived but good” thread - I can’t recall it lasting more than a few weeks! Did he not have the lights turned off at the end of Raw before the show had finished because he didn’t get what he wanted, or something like that?

[RedTwoster]

2 hours ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

That’s a storyline for the “short lived but good” thread - I can’t recall it lasting more than a few weeks! Did he not have the lights turned off at the end of Raw before the show had finished because he didn’t get what he wanted, or something like that?

He did! It was a Randy Orton/Triple H title match, and it was such a cool, unique angle. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

6 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

He did! It was a Randy Orton/Triple H title match, and it was such a cool, unique angle. 

Did anyone make a shocking debut when the lights came back on?

[RedTwoster]

8 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Did anyone make a shocking debut when the lights came back on?

He cut Raw off the air rather than turned off the lights - so the live crowd saw how the match ended, even if the viewers at home did not 

[SwayWays]

4 hours ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

That’s a storyline for the “short lived but good” thread - I can’t recall it lasting more than a few weeks! Did he not have the lights turned off at the end of Raw before the show had finished because he didn’t get what he wanted, or something like that?

This is something I must think about quite often, from time to time when ever "what ifs" in wrestling or Regal comes up. Man what could have been. He'd have be a great, corrupt, power drunk, bastard, heel. 

Edited April 6, 2025 by SwayWays

[Devon Malcolm]

Imagine how good that final segment could have been without Rollins fannying about with his fake laughing. I was just dying for Roman Reigns to call him an idiot and to tell him he looks like an idiot and that he's a spare prick in the wind.

I didn't watch the rest of it. Sounds great!

[SwayWays]

1 hour ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Imagine how good  ANYTHING could  BE without Rollins.. 

I'm reading between the lines, but I wholeheartedly agree with what I believe is your statement. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

This is an awful tweet by an idiot.

1) Playing the personal trauma card, suggesting that this is actually a serious issue (not necessarily a problem in itself, but stay tuned for point 4)

2) Suggesting that somehow she stayed professional whilst Tiffy took the legs out from under her.

3) Referring to 'my character', so we're actually in the real world and she clearly believes point 2 

4) This whole thing was a set up for a cheap joke?

She's the worst. The absolute worst. Cancel the match.

[air_raid]

18 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Cancel the match.

Definitely. Trish can still go!

I think this just captures perfectly the problem with wrestlers’ Twitters though in a way actors never have to go through - it’s simultaneously their “character” and their own personal account, veering wildly between what the real them is really doing, or working themselves into a shoot by having their character tweet barbs at another character to build the next fake fight.

It’s no wonder they get confused as to whether they’re being a heel or a twat at any given moment.

[Gooner]

I'm looking forward to more of Charlotte Flair and Tiffany Staratton tonight, no doubt their match at Wrestlemania will be very good, hopefully The Rock may show up on this show, see what goes on with Punk/Reigns/Rollins and where they go with Orton/Aldis.

Edited April 11, 2025 by Gooner

[mim731]

1 hour ago, Gooner said:

I'm looking forward to more of Charlotte Flair and Tiffany Staratton tonight, no doubt their match at Wrestlemania will be very good, hopefully The Rock may show up on this show, see what goes on with Punk/Reigns/Rollins and where they go with Orton/Aldis.

I say this very sincerely @Gooner but my word I wish I had your optimism about this product. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

We are truly back in the dark days.

I skimmed the results in 30 seconds and went 'nah, not for me'. I haven't been this not arsed in a while.

I did read they announced Tiffy/Charlotte had been fined for what happened in their segment last week. Which is just... fuck me. Given they didn't put hands on each other, what's the storyline justification there? Their battle promo became too battle-y?

Apologies if by not watching I missed a good reason for it, but when I read it I was utterly baffled why they'd put that on the show.

[The King of Old School]

Take back what I said about Orton/Aldis if the alternative is Orton/Solo

[FLips]

19 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

We are truly back in the dark days.

I skimmed the results in 30 seconds and went 'nah, not for me'. I haven't been this not arsed in a while.

I did read they announced Tiffy/Charlotte had been fined for what happened in their segment last week. Which is just... fuck me. Given they didn't put hands on each other, what's the storyline justification there? Their battle promo became too battle-y?

Apologies if by not watching I missed a good reason for it, but when I read it I was utterly baffled why they'd put that on the show.

At this stage I’m not even planning on watching Wrestlemania. It looks shocking.