|
Pneub posted:Who's HBK burying? Judakel posted:I don't know why I bother replying though. You probably interpreted this post as supporting the free market or something. All I'm saying is that I disagree with the notion that having a back-and-forth match with somebody is "putting them over" so much as it's "not instantly burying them".
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Jack Krauser posted:Not really a question so much but did this logo ever confuse anyone else? It looks like some X-TREME MONSTER ROCKSTAR ENERGY NOW WITH 64,000% MORE GUARANA energy drink logo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
Putting a guy over with a back and forth match is a really difficult thing to achieve. It happens, when Angle and Edge met at Backlash and Edge clearly wasn't at Angle's level, but coming close to beating him in a great match made Edge look like more than just a mid carder. Recently we had TNA try to do this with Matt Morgan and WWE do this on ECW. I think the Matt Morgan thing was an utter failure. A. He had two losses to Angle already in singles matches. But I think another factor is important: B. He had just been in two title matches. Two title matches he really didn't earn. So, the fans aren't going to see him as a hungry young up and comer, he's more like a big goof who is getting over pushed and loses alot. You can't come down from title matches and lose in a match that is supposed to elevate you. It doesn't work that way. Now with ECW, they've had varying success. I think the first Christian/Ryder match helped. The second probably helped too, but the third did not. It made it clear that the story is Regal vs Christian, not Ryder vs Christian. So if Ryder is losing to Christian, he's losing to a guy who isn't really even that concerned with him, because his main nemesis seems to be Regal. With Yoshi Tatsu, the match with Christian probably helped him a lot, because Christian had a lot of focus on him, although as more of a mentor than as a rival, which helps in this case. Because Christian built up his mentee, and said he was the worthy challenger, not Regal, and he beat Regal. Then by having a competitive match with Christian, he seems to justify what Christian is saying and he seems like the real deal. Now, they have to follow up on this and keep giving him wins. He can't go and start losing to Zeke, Koslov and anyone else regularly. With ECW's small roster, that is going to be tough. But the main thing with this formula is, the up and comer needs to be clearly below the other guy's level, and he can't be treated as just another guy afterwards. If you do that, he actually gets elevated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:I'm in, but I don't really want to run it. If someone wants to step up and start a thread, go for it. If someone with Archives could bump up the old thread, just so I could see how it's run, I might go for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Jack Krauser posted:Not really a question so much but did this logo ever confuse anyone else? Is this the infamous birdshit logo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 01:16
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Is this the infamous birdshit logo? Yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
Do you think Rey Mysterio would have ever gotten over if he never had a mask?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:25
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Michaels gave Masters, Shelton, and Legacy their best matches to date. That's just off the top of my head. If those guys can't make use of the exposure of an even-sided match with a main event star to get themselves over then that is another matter entirely. In my opinion, Legacy are two of the most generic, boring guys on the main event/near-main event level. The fact they are now feuding with Kofi Kingston (per FishBulb) is not necessarily a "bad" thing, but it seems a hell of a lot more appropriate than most would like to admit. Just giving someone a good match doesn't really do much of anything if that match occurs in a vacuum, like the Masters and Shelton matches were. We can both agree that Shelton has taken a big steaming dump on most of his chances to elevate to the main event (if beating HHH multiple times in a row doesn't put him on a main-event level, nothing will) and Michaels wins the feud, does next to nothing with Masters once it's over, and come Taboo Tuesday 2 months later Masters is in a throwaway match teaming with Snitsky while Michaels is in another main event and I guess should be best known for his big honkin' grin when Cena introduced the STFU. In regards to Legacy, if they had dominated or even just won the blowoff HIAC match against DX, they'd be in a much better position to be fresh faces in the main event (or even just a dominant force in the upper midcard.) You didn't mention a guy like Kozlov, either, who had a back-and-forth, fairly even match with Michaels earlier this year. If just being competitive with HBK was enough to elevate someone you'd see him in the running for one of the main titles instead of being a Regal lackey on ECW. You can blame that on the writers for not elevating Michaels' opponents or that nobody deserves to dominate him in a feud or whatever, but saying 'welp he didn't squash the guy and stuff him in a crate labeled TO: FCW so he put 'em over' is pretty absurd. Michaels doesn't really help elevate new talent - he just makes current main event talent more credible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:32
|
|
|
I dunno, Legacy was pretty well put over by the third match. They thought intelligently, used a strategy that worked before, and then just (in their youth) beat the hell out of Michaels until they theirselves were worn out. They took their time, were cocky, and an entirely fresh Triple H took them out due to this. They came out of that feud fairly even with DX.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Do you think Rey Mysterio would have ever gotten over if he never had a mask? Wasn't he pretty over in WCW without the mask? He was always going to have a mask with his lucha heritage, so it's a bit pointless to ask if he never had the mask. Matlock posted:I dunno, Legacy was pretty well put over by the third match. They thought intelligently, used a strategy that worked before, and then just (in their youth) beat the hell out of Michaels until they theirselves were worn out. They took their time, were cocky, and an entirely fresh Triple H took them out due to this. The day after hell in a cell, DX had a match. Legacy didn't appear at all. Legacy aren't treated any different, are now pushed less and don't matter. Although if you read the triple h interview, he believes in people getting to the main event in 5 years plus, so it was never going to happen magically. Wazzu fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Nov 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
Sorry for the double post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Wasn't he pretty over in WCW without the mask? He was always going to have a mask with his lucha heritage, so it's a bit pointless to ask if he never had the mask. Not all Mexican wrestlers have masks. There isn't a specific answer to this question, but I would like to hear other opinions on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Wasn't he pretty over in WCW without the mask? He was always going to have a mask with his lucha heritage, so it's a bit pointless to ask if he never had the mask. I don't remember him being over at all once he took the mask off but I could be wrong because at that point no one in WCW was over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Not all Mexican wrestlers have masks. There isn't a specific answer to this question, but I would like to hear other opinions on the subject. I think he would have gotten over at some point due to pure talent, but I don't think he wolud have been as big with kids or casual fans without the mask. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/Pretty much this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Not all Mexican wrestlers have masks. There isn't a specific answer to this question, but I would like to hear other opinions on the subject. His Lucha heritage of his uncle, a huge influence in his life, being the original rey mysterio. He got over due to his flips originally, and became a good wrestler over time. Look at his stuff in japan, nobody gives a poo poo about how he looks, but they pop huge over his west coast pop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Wasn't he pretty over in WCW without the mask? No. While he wasn't ignored by any means, because his work was good, looking like a 12 year old killed a good chunk of his heat. Beef Jerky Robot posted:I think he would have gotten over at some point due to pure talent, but I don't think he wolud have been as big with kids or casual fans without the mask. I disagree. Rey was almost relegated to the minis in Mexico, but someone (Rey Sr? Konnan?) supported giving him a chance and he got over. Without a mask I don't think he would ever have gotten a chance in the US, and he barely got a chance in WWE with the mask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 03:00
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:No. While he wasn't ignored by any means, because his work was good, looking like a 12 year old killed a good chunk of his heat. Right. He went from the face of the cruiserweight division, so to speak, to just another cruiser by and large. And the stupid failed heel turn didn't help anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
WeaselWeaz posted:No. While he wasn't ignored by any means, because his work was good, looking like a 12 year old killed a good chunk of his heat. Well thats another thing as well. If the question was "Would he have gotten as over without connections," then no, probably not. But he did have them, so he did get his foot in the door. Everyone has a mask in mexico, (I know, not everyone, bear with me) but it's in the minority in America. Thus people in masks look more interesting, and capture the imagination of the crowd, sell a bunch of replica masks, and will be pushed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:What in the blue hell is this? It is referring to the fact that I never claimed having a match that wasn't a complete squash was putting someone over and yet you still replied with: LividLiquid posted:So in your eyes, having a match with somebody that isn't a complete squash is "putting someone over?" because Hogan didn't squash Kidman and still buried the guy. If that's what you got from the post you were replying to then you may very well assume just about anything from my posts. It is not a matter of how much much of an upper hand one wrestler is allowed to get on the other. It is about how the psychology of the match reflects on both men. A match could have one wrestler clearly out-wrestling the other and both can still come out on top due to the overall quality of the match and what it did for their characters. Case in point: Savage vs. Steamboat at Wrestlemania 3. Steamboat dominates Savage any time that the match comes down to actual ability and Savage is made to look "weak" on that front. He never even gets the upper hand as far as outsmarting Steamboat. Yet both man walked out with one of the best matches ever and both men benefited from the attention. It is not a matter of squash, not-quite-a-squash, or an even-handed affair. While clearly a squash match will never make the wrestler getting squashed look great, the point I was making was that whether Michaels puts someone over can't be judge on how much offense he let the other get and how weak he looked. It should instead be judged on how the psychology of the match makes both men look and the overall quality of the match. Does it contribute to their character in any clear way? The matches cited as examples of Michaels putting someone over are largely accurate because of this and are not rendered inaccurate simply because the bigger star won after an even match. Who wins and how much clean offense they get is largely irrelevant to today's fans. Don't blame Michaels simply because creative didn't know what to do with some of these wrestlers after they had a wonderful match with Michaels. He "put them over" as much as an established star can put someone over. He made them look good by putting himself on even ground with them and having a great match that looked like it was (and probably really was) the product of both men working their asses off. That is putting someone over. The Hogan example is absolutely horrible example because it is the epitome of "if I let him get enough offense it counts as a push" mentality and that is what YOU were thinking about but not what I was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Case in point: Savage vs. Steamboat at Wrestlemania 3. Steamboat dominates Savage any time that the match comes down to actual ability and Savage is made to look "weak" on that front. He never even gets the upper hand as far as outsmarting Steamboat. Yet both man walked out with one of the best matches ever and both men benefited from the attention. Were either of them long-standing main event talent in the WWF? No, not really. quote:He "put them over" as much as an established star can put someone over. Except the whole 'but he won in the end' part. I mean, we can go back to Legacy as an example. Coming out of Summerslam, because they make Michaels tap out, they looked menacing. They looked like they could, as a team, had finally figured out and could beat DX. Legacy showed a spark of being true main-event talent because they weren't just hanging with elite stars, they were winning. Then in between SS and HIAC they lost a few singles matches to HHH and HBK, have essentially the same plan they used at SummerSlam not work, lose their main-event match, and stay off TV for a week while DX comes back the next night, looking just fine, and win a match against the tag team champions. I'm not sure DX even mentioned Legacy. You don't get over by having even matches with an upper-card star while losing. You become a jobber to the stars. DX had nothing to lose and Legacy had everything to gain from being able to say 'we/I killed DX.' Would Randy Orton have been as over if he were the "Legend Had-A-Good-Match-With-But-Ultimately-Lost-Guy?" Probably not!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 11:26
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Were either of them long-standing main event talent in the WWF? No, not really. This is all really pretty simple. If a wrestler is given real time against a guy who is high up on the card, in order to get his spots in and do his thing, while the top guy sells for him, it puts him over. This happened in all three of those tag matches. It barely matters who won. The whole point is that Legacy isn't packaged like characters that can be laughed off, like the Highlanders or the Spirit Squad. They are being given real time on cards in order to get them over as wrestlers and heels, so that people care when they are on TV, so they can write more angles for them and sell more tickets. Not really sure when going over became the standard for getting put over around here, since that's never been the case in the entire history of wrestling. There are more hideous historical fuckups in wrestling from pushing people too hard than there are from pushing them too little. You can methodically list HBK/HHH's win/loss record if you want, but the only things that really matters is exposure, and the questions of who needs it and how much. Name Change fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Nov 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 11:49
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:Is this the infamous birdshit logo? It didn't exist. Judakel posted:It is referring to the fact that I never claimed having a match that wasn't a complete squash was putting someone over and yet you still replied with: It doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:10
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This is all really pretty simple. If a wrestler is given real time against a guy who is high up on the card, in order to get his spots in and do his thing, while the top guy sells for him, it puts him over. This happened in all three of those tag matches. It barely matters who won. The whole point is that Legacy isn't packaged like characters that can be laughed off, like the Highlanders or the Spirit Squad. They are being given real time on cards in order to get them over as wrestlers and heels, so that people care when they are on TV, so they can write more angles for them and sell more tickets. And after 3 months of feuding with DX I don't think too many people see them as anything more than when they started: Orton's lackeys and a middle-tier tag team. An afterthought to DX and aside from teasing a split (which will be death to both of them) having little direction creatively to go from here. Can you really say that a definitive win over DX at HIAC to end the feud and making Legacy look like the kings of Raw wouldn't have opened up more creative possibilities for them to be in angles and sell tickets? quote:There are more hideous historical fuckups in wrestling from pushing people too hard than there are from pushing them too little. I'll agree with this, but there also comes a time where you've run out of chances to push someone over the top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:39
|
|
|
I really cant see where you'd go with Legacy if they'd decidedly beat DX. Cant challenge for the tag titles as they're held by heels. No other teams near that level. A feud with Mark Henry/MVP? Would still be a massive step down from beating DX.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:46
|
|
|
Did you hear the crowd go bonkers for Ted pushing Randy down in that match?? A split would be hot hot fire
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:46
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:I'll agree with this, but there also comes a time where you've run out of chances to push someone over the top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:51
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Were either of them long-standing main event talent in the WWF? No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:51
|
|
|
Yeah I think a split would be good for Ted. Maybe not Cody. But I was asking CubsWoo because he said CubsWoo posted:aside from teasing a split (which will be death to both of them) and I really cant see where Legacy would have gone after beating DX.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:52
|
|
|
TaffMaster posted:Yeah I think a split would be good for Ted. Maybe not Cody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:55
|
|
|
TaffMaster posted:I really cant see where you'd go with Legacy if they'd decidedly beat DX. - Name themselves Raw captains for Bragging Rights; force HBK/HHH to go through hell to qualify for Team Raw - Tease split with Orton (have Randy lose HIAC to Cena): "We're dominating DX while you can't beat Cena, some leader you are," sow same seeds of jealousy that HHH had for Orton in Evolution but this time execute it better - No reason they couldn't compete for the tag titles, wasn't Night of Champions Jericho/Show vs. Legacy? - Possible Fatal 4-Way for the title (Cena, Orton, Legacy) or something, I don't know, I'm not a booker
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 12:56
|
|
|
Dragging Iron Feet posted:Did you just say Randy Savage WASN'T a long-standing main-event talent in WWF? I normally don't get this uncouth with my replies, but I have to simply ask you this: Are you loving retarded? I'd say the 5 or so years he was in the main or semi-main event was pretty loving long...especially since Austin's run at the top was around the same length of time. I'll clarify. Were they main-event talents at WrestleMania III, when the match took place? I don't believe so. Savage wasn't firmly in the main event until about WM4 and beyond. Steamboat wasn't really ever a main-event guy in the WWF. They were two great workers putting on a great match at WM3 but I don't think either of them got over as a benefit of beating a top-level established guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 13:00
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:I'll clarify. Were they main-event talents at WrestleMania III, when the match took place? I don't believe so. Savage wasn't firmly in the main event until about WM4 and beyond. Steamboat wasn't really ever a main-event guy in the WWF. They were two great workers putting on a great match at WM3 but I don't think either of them got over as a benefit of beating a top-level established guy. Defeated Ted Dibiase in the MAIN EVENT of WM 4 Lost to Hulk Hogan in the MAIN-EVENT of WM5 Lost to Dusty Rhodes at WM 6 (I'll give you that one) Lost to Ultimate Warrior in the SEMI-MAIN EVENT at WM7 Defeated Ric Flair for the WWF Heavyweight Championship at WM 8 in the SEMI-MAIN EVENT Compare that to the main event run of "Stone Cold Steve Austin" (one of, if not THE biggest names in wrestling history) in around the same timeframe: Defeated Shawn MIchaels in the MAIN EVENT (guess I'll keep that capitalisation going) of WM14 Defeated The Rock for the WWF Championship in the MAIN EVENT of WM 15 Was injured when WM16 happened (doesn't count) Defeated the Rock in the MAIN EVENT of WM 17 Defeated Scott Hall at WM 18 (useless midcard match like Savage vs Rhodes) Lost to The Rock in the SEMI-MAIN EVENT of Wrestlemania 19.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 13:32
|
|
|
Dragging Iron Feet posted:I wasn't talking about Wrestlemania 3, I was talking about WM 4-8 when Savage did the following: I'm not going to argue that Savage became a main-event guy, I totally agree with that. At WrestleMania III, though, nobody would say that either got a rub from the other being considered higher up on the card or being able to beat a long-standing top guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 13:38
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:I'm not going to argue that Savage became a main-event guy, I totally agree with that. At WrestleMania III, though, nobody would say that either got a rub from the other being considered higher up on the card or being able to beat a long-standing top guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 13:42
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:This was in that book and supposedly in the Observer, but I've never seen that ad and I'm calling bullshit until I do. Somebody would've scanned it and uploaded it. It's another lie in a book filled with lies and misremembered truths. What book are you talking about and what is the ad you're referring to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 15:11
|
|
|
Karmine posted:What book are you talking about and what is the ad you're referring to? The book is the WCW book that Alvarez and R.D. Reynolds wrote. The ad is a supposed USA Today ad with the new WCW logo, with the ad saying the logo "looks like something a bird left on my car".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
TL posted:The book is the WCW book that Alvarez and R.D. Reynolds wrote. The ad is a supposed USA Today ad with the new WCW logo, with the ad saying the logo "looks like something a bird left on my car". I've read that book a bunch of times and I don't remember this part. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 17:38
|
|
|
Karmine posted:I've read that book a bunch of times and I don't remember this part. Weird. Neither do I, and I don't believe it's in Death of WCW. The book's in Google Books, and searches for USA Today, logo, or bird return nothing relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Neither do I, and I don't believe it's in Death of WCW. The book's in Google Books, and searches for USA Today, logo, or bird return nothing relevant. http://books.google.com/books?id=uf...ay%20ad&f=false Shows up for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Professor Icepick posted:http://books.google.com/books?id=uf...ay%20ad&f=false International version...that's why it didn't show up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 20:35
|
|
