Terje Rindal Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Gimmick posters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 If Monty doesn't stop with the Gangrel hate...... And Herbert Dangle prefers Bret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheMontyMan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Who's the gimmick poster? Me? I don't hate Gangrel, who could? Just look at them eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Masked Avenger Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Gimmick posters Have to agree with that, Montymans gimmick is far from amusing as is edgecrushers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Edwards Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 MoChatra called BR's Mum a Fuck Off. BR declared that "I know you are but what am I". To which Mo replied "I know you are but what am I". BR came right back though with "I know you are but what am I". Then Mo stunned the gathered crowd with his dry witty quip "Takes one to no one". At this point BR ran to the teacher to tell.Gangrel was unavailable for comment.Was this supposed to be funny? Seriously, I'd like to know. Ahhh.... teen angst.Those hormones getting to you? Hair in new places? Confused about that girl you like?In the words of RVD's piss poor WWE writing staff..."Take a chill-pill." In the words of me "Don't add to the thread if you have nothing of relevance to say"The 'you only like so-and-so because so-and-so says he's great' argument has been used many times to beat down people who side with Shawn over these mythical better workers who are really just in the same leagueShawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did Austin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Zeus Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 (edited) Shawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did AustinBut to people who don't notice or don't care about those 'deficiencies' that side of the argument is null and void.I, for example, have never had a problem with HBK's selling so that's one side of HBK's matches that I never knock him for and that's one reason why I will rate his matches as being better than someone like yourself who does notice and care about those apparent 'deficiencies'. Edited October 13, 2003 by Lower Occipital Proturbance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Have to agree with that, Montymans gimmick is far from amusing as is edgecrushers. No way. Edgecrusher - the only good gimmick poster, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Edwards Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Shawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did AustinBut to people who don't notice or don't care about those 'deficiencies' that side of the argument is null and void.I, for example, have never had a problem with HBK's selling so that's one side of HBK's matches that I never knock him for and that's one reason why I will rate his matches as being better than someone like yourself who does notice and care about those apparent 'deficiencies'. lol we'll have to revisit the old enjoyment factor here I think Steve :)bottom line for me is Shawn matches entertain the masses but there are large sections of hardcore fans that don't like them (I'm personally somewhere inbetween, I really like Shawn but I find him frustrating as hell sometimes) Bret and Austin worked matches that pleased both fanbases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Zeus Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Shawn has clear selling deficencies, Bret never did, neither did AustinBut to people who don't notice or don't care about those 'deficiencies' that side of the argument is null and void.I, for example, have never had a problem with HBK's selling so that's one side of HBK's matches that I never knock him for and that's one reason why I will rate his matches as being better than someone like yourself who does notice and care about those apparent 'deficiencies'. lol we'll have to revisit the old enjoyment factor here I think Steve Noooooooo - not again! I posted to death about the enjoyment/quality issue in this thread: http://www.ukff.com/index.php?showtopic=32643 - give me at least a seven day break before we have another round!The thing we are forgetting is that no matter how many people argue for and againsh Michaels, Hart, Austin or whoever, Zeus is without a doubt the greatest professional wrestler to ever enter a wrestling ring - now you can't have a problem with his selling, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terje Rindal Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 This could be a very fun debate actually -- opinion vs fact. Personally I believe most wrestling based stuff is opinion, but I'm not going to say it's 100%. For instance, if I'm not in the mood for a 45 minute All Japan psychological thriller, I might pop in a tape of squash matches instead. If I enjoy them on par with the AJPW match, are they equally as good ? Going by all opinion, they are. But I can't possibly see how anyone can claim them to be. But then again; who's to decide ? When it comes to wrestling, I'm very passionate, and I know what I like. If something doesn't fit my likings, I won't like it. It's that simple. I've said on RIM today that I think the X-Division is a bunch of shit. That's opinion rather than fact, as I know that many fans like it, and doesn't look at wrestling as deep as I do. That's totally fine. Compare wrestling to movies. I've always thought Die Hard 3 is the coolest movie ever, but a few days ago someone took the piss out of me in the O/T board saying it wasn't that good, as it lacked in special effects and original storyline. To me, watching that movie, that's all un-noticed. Just like HBK's shortcomings are to the people who claim him to be the best ever. Are they wrong in their thinking ? I certainly don't think I'm wrong in my opinion that Die Hard 3 is my favourite movie ever, so the obvious question to that would be no, they're not wrong. In their opinion HBK is the best ever. But on the other side of the coin; if they were talking about (say) Big John Studd instead of HBK. Could anyone claim him to be the best wrestler to ever live ? Based on the fact that they enjoyed his matches the most ? Personally I don't think so, as he had too many shortcomings to even be considered. To me, Michaels also do, but he's a lot closer. Which basically mean I'm contradicting myself in saying that it's OK to have an opinion that wrestler A (HBK) is the best ever, but not wrestler B (Studd). Where does opinion end and facts begin ? And vice versa ? A few months back, one poster on here claimed Harley Race had no talent, and was only a legend because he is old. Naturally people took the piss out of him, and he threw a fit, saying it was HIS opinion. For those in this thread who argues for Michaels, is this an OK statement to make ? The guy generally considered to be the best of the entire decade of the 70's -- did he have no talent, because you personally didn't enjoy watching him ? To me that's complete bullshit, but I'd like to hear others take on it too. To come to some kind of conclusion here, I believe that wrestling should be viewed with mostly opinion, but a significant percentage of fact thrown in as well. Some might argue that there is no such thing as facts in wrestling, but I would strongly disagree. Sorry for the long rant, but at least there was no name calling in here "Thoughts ? Feedback ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Edwards Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Personally I believe most wrestling based stuff is opinion, but I'm not going to say it's 100%. For instance, if I'm not in the mood for a 45 minute All Japan psychological thriller, I might pop in a tape of squash matches instead. If I enjoy them on par with the AJPW match, are they equally as good ? Going by all opinion, they are. But I can't possibly see how anyone can claim them to be. But then again; who's to decide ? When it comes to wrestling, I'm very passionate, and I know what I like. If something doesn't fit my likings, I won't like it. It's that simple. I've said on RIM today that I think the X-Division is a bunch of shit. That's opinion rather than fact, as I know that many fans like it, and doesn't look at wrestling as deep as I do. That's totally fine. Compare wrestling to movies. I've always thought Die Hard 3 is the coolest movie ever, but a few days ago someone took the piss out of me in the O/T board saying it wasn't that good, as it lacked in special effects and original storyline. To me, watching that movie, that's all un-noticed. Just like HBK's shortcomings are to the people who claim him to be the best ever. Indeed Terje, For me it comes down to having the humility to know that something isn't the best thing in the world just because you like it, you love Opro but I don't see you running round claiming Ebessan is the greatest worker in history because you know that although you love him there are clearly better workers out there, I'd be the same with LCO for example, I've loved them more than any other tag team in history but I'm not about to go and claim that they worked matches that made more sense than Kawada/Taue did because they didn'tIt seems to be a problem for fans of the following wrestlers, HBK, Angle, AJ Styles, RVD, Red and maybe Lance Storm, I know it seems weird that I'm pidgeonholing so much but hear me out!, Those guys are extremes of a style in that they go all out to work a specific style, if thats the style people like then it stands to reason that it may well be their favourite match ever, but they need to step back a second and actually think about how much sense the match makes, I'm not advocating people abandoning the wrestlers that they like just that people stop blind marking because they like people. Everyone's entitled to favourites of course but if they don't please a huge portion of the IWC then it stands to reason theyre not the bestA rambling Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porn Baron Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 as great as HBK vs taker hell in cell was ill always remeber BAD Blood 97 has the day Brain Pillman died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Zeus Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 It's all incredibly subjective to what makes a person tick - if a person doesn't see the shortcomings of a wrestler that others do see then that person ca rate them as the best without a second thought.You can take me as an example - I have been watching HBK for 15 years and I think he is the best ever - I don't see any of the shortcomings people come up with and because of that I see him as the best. I also think Zeus was one of the best heels ever - 99.9% of people would say that Zeus was pants and had bad matches but his act as the unstoppable monster pushed the right buttons with me I loved every second of his time in the WWF. Now to me he's better than someone like RVD who has never connected with me at all.I think I'm getting into the enjoyment/quality issue here even though I didn't want to! It all comes down to the fact that for me enjoyment = quality. The more I enjoy a wrestler or a match the higher quality I think it is. The one think I look for in wrestling is entertainment/enjoyment - the more I am entertained/gain enjoyment from a match or a wrestler the higher quality I rate him or that match.For example, I think the Hart Foundation v Bolsheviks from Wrestlemania VI was better than Shane McMahon v Kane from the last WWE PPV. Why?- I don't care for either Shane McMahon or Kane but I did like the Hart Foundation. - The feud between Shane and Kane doesn't interest me because of who is involved and the sillyness of the angle.- I did care about the tag scene around Wrestlemania VI and this match progressed the Hart Foundation as the #1 contenders.- The Bolsheviks easy to dislike as they were effectove heels so I liked seeing them get beaten in 30 seconds or however short it was.There is nothing in the Kane v Shane match that appealed to me - not the performers, not the storyline, not the style of match - nothing! That is why in my mind I rate the Hart Foundation v Bolsheviks as a better match.Now I understand that's very subjective to my own personal tastes but that's how I believe wrestling reaches out to people - probably no 2 people in the world see exactly the same match when they watch wrestling.The big determining factor for me is that I put a much much much bigger weighting on a wrestler's positives than his negatives. That's how I personally can rate certain matches and wrestlers above other matches and wrestlers that no doubt make people think I am two sandwiches short of a picnic! However, to me that substantiation makes perfect sense and I stand 100% behind it.Hey, as bizarre as the way I watch wrestling and my beliefs and idiologies - you can't accuse me of not substantiating my opinions - however strange the reasoning may be!!I think I have rambled way too much now and I can't even remember what the question was or the first 75% of what I have just written! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgecrusher Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Have to agree with that, Montymans gimmick is far from amusing as is edgecrushers. No way. Edgecrusher - the only good gimmick poster, ever.So, the question is, is this a matter of opinion vs. fact, or is my psychology too deep for some posters to understand? -in my pants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members MoChatra Posted October 13, 2003 Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2003 (edited) Is Bionic Redneck a fan of wrestling? Yes.Nice to see you paying zero attention, as usual.So what if he 'picks holes'.The hierarchy of fans bullshit is ridiculous, as are the accusations of being 'smart'. Firstly, only in wrestling is it an insult to be smart apparently (just enjoy it!!!11), and secondly, there's no smart in wrestling because it's men in spandex pretending to fight.If there's no smart in wrestling, why do you often talk about matches or angles in the such an overly articulated, philosophical and generally pretentious way. If it's just 'men in spandex pretending to fight', why would you post something like this at the RIM board?:Lucha is pure psyche, and the best stories are those which don't need lots of explanation, they just connect on an obvious, subconscious level straight away. The characters are clear, the stories are clear, and what they do in the match is clear. Lucha is very pure wrestling; there are good guys and bad guys and they fight each other. Plus lucha has the crazy and cool unique cultural significance which is very evident in the wrestling, the symbolism and la mascara and la familia and all that funky stuff.Some analyze, some don'tEVERYONE analyses wrestling. To form any kind of an opinion on what you're watching, some degree of analysis takes place. The problem is that some overanalyse it to a ridiculous degree, and then find 'flaws' that in most cases aren't a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. A good example of such a fan is Jack Halewood. He's notorious for analysing wrestling like some kind of exact science. Early last year, I'd re-watched Misawa/Kawada from June 1994, and I was having an MSN chat with him. We got into a discussion about five-star matches, and how matches at that level are perfect. He was raving about how that match is 'perfect', so I then gave him a taste of his own medicine, running off a number of 'flaws' in the match to which he had no response to. As I said before, if you tried you can find 'flaws' in any match ever and it's knowing where to draw the line that some people have a problem with.don't be arrogant enough to think that you're the 'right' kind of fan when you're all sitting there reading your ObserversDon't patronise me with that kind of bullshit. So what if I read the Observer. The generalisation that if you read the Observer you can't think for yourself is as lame as the view that all RIMmers think alike. The people who label others do so ONLY because they don't agree with their opinions.Yes, because you never label and categorise fans of promotions or wrestlers you're not keen on. No, of course you don't. Edited October 13, 2003 by MoChatra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts