|
Nut Bunnies posted:What did he say That Kevin Steen's really loving good in every aspect of pro wrestling, but is also really loving fat, and that sucks because he'll never become the big star he deserves to be because of his fatness.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Lloyd Boner posted:That Kevin Steen's really loving good in every aspect of pro wrestling, but is also really loving fat, and that sucks because he'll never become the big star he deserves to be because of his fatness. This, plus that he's probably going to be completely physically wrecked without ever earning the big paychecks by age 40 due to his high impact style and extra weight on his joints. Meltzer claimed he could be be a millionaire main event heel if he'd just get his fat rear end into shape. Unfortunatley, even if he got himself into reasonable shape I don't think the WWE would ever push him to the top at his height. He could and probably should lose some weight, but I can't see the guy ever having a body that Vince and Triple H would approve of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
e:f;b
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Kevin Steen being fat is not Kevin Steen's problem. It's the WWE's problem. They got Bray Wyatt in their system right now who also has a Dusty Rhodes physique and if the WWE wants draws who contrast their pretty boys they'd be smart to sign Steen. This all said with the assumption that Steen even wants to goto the WWE. He seems to see his kid a lot. People tend to assume everyone wants to work for the WWE. Steen might be perfectly fine with what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Kevin Steen being fat is not Kevin Steen's problem. It's the WWE's problem. They got Bray Wyatt in their system right now who also has a Dusty Rhodes physique and if the WWE wants draws who contrast their pretty boys they'd be smart to sign Steen. Steen has talked about that before, actually. He kicks himself a lot for not getting in shape early on in his career because indy wrestling money can't feed a family long-term, but he's having so much fun in ROH and elsewhere that he doesn't really know how to stop or change direction in his career. I'm not sure if WWE is a goal of his (probably not, given their road schedule), but he definitely wants to earn more and he knows that his physique is an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
The Art of Wrestling Facebook posted:Tomorrow's Podcast is a good one! Is this going to be the long awaited Cena episode?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
CombineThresher posted:Steen has talked about that before, actually. He kicks himself a lot for not getting in shape early on in his career because indy wrestling money can't feed a family long-term, but he's having so much fun in ROH and elsewhere that he doesn't really know how to stop or change direction in his career. I'm not sure if WWE is a goal of his (probably not, given their road schedule), but he definitely wants to earn more and he knows that his physique is an issue. You need a few fat fucks who are athletic as hell to help your fans realize that anyone can be a pro wrestler through hard work and dedication. Prince Fielder might look like some fat kid with bad dreds who is baseball royalty but watching him in action you see exactly why he is where he is and why people love him so much. You won't find a faster man at 5'11", 275lbs and he's born to play baseball. If baseball was pro wrestling, Fielder would be in Bray Wyatt's position, toiling in AAA because he supposedly isn't "TV Ready". It's a company flushing potential money down the drain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
The fatness is conflicting, because as awful for your health as it is, and as limiting as it is, it IS a differentiator. WWE lacks big fat dudes that brawled and wrecked poo poo that were more prevalent 20-30 years ago, and they go for guys with The Look and only The Look. Additionally, Steen's athleticism is more eye-catching because of his weight. But with that said, "wow that fat dude is athletic" doesn't really take you far, and Steen is certainly great both in and out of the ring to not need to have some visual differentiator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Nut Bunnies posted:But with that said, "wow that fat dude is athletic" doesn't really take you far, and Steen is certainly great both in and out of the ring to not need to have some visual differentiator. Do you recall Kevin Steen before he started getting fat back in the IWS days? He looked generic as generic could be. Removing Kevin Steen's fatness is like removing CM Punk's tattoos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
"This match was only ****3/4 stars." *five minutes later* "Actually, you know what, this match was *****" *five minutes later* "This match was AWESOME. FIVE STARS."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Well, sometimes you have to reflect a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
What match was that in reference to? Steen/Elgin?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Suzuki/Tanahashi
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
New AOW is the Brooklyn Brawler, which is a bit of a disappointment given how hard Colt was hyping it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
njsykora posted:New AOW is the Brooklyn Brawler, which is a bit of a disappointment given how hard Colt was hyping it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
Bryan has a match he talks about all the time (sort of) that he got from Dave who told him it was the best match ever, it started slow and he thought it was nothing special, and then twenty minutes later he thought it was the best match ever. I think it was one of the early Noah main events? Can someone remember what it was?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Bryan has a match he talks about all the time (sort of) that he got from Dave who told him it was the best match ever, it started slow and he thought it was nothing special, and then twenty minutes later he thought it was the best match ever. I think I remember him saying it about big NOAH matches in general during its heyday, in the way they would build and build and build until it just became perfect. I don't remember if it was a specific one. If it was, maybe the Misawa vs Kobashi match from 2003?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
LordPants posted:"This match was only ****3/4 stars." That reminds me about how in one of the Observers this week, Bryan says the announcing in Elgin vs Steen added an extra star to the rating, and Dave just HAD to softly say half a star
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:That reminds me about how in one of the Observers this week, Bryan says the announcing in Elgin vs Steen added an extra star to the rating, and Dave just HAD to softly say half a star I want Matlock on the post-WM show next year just to hear Dave rage about his ratings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
I don't understand star ratings at all. I get having a 5 point system, maybe. But then they start breaking it down into half stars and quarter stars, and actually having arguments about quarter star and half star differences. How on earth can you possibly grade a wrestling match finely enough to use a 20 point scale? And even if you could, would it even mean anything to have scores that fine grained?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:I don't understand star ratings at all. I get having a 5 point system, maybe. But then they start breaking it down into half stars and quarter stars, and actually having arguments about quarter star and half star differences. How on earth can you possibly grade a wrestling match finely enough to use a 20 point scale? And even if you could, would it even mean anything to have scores that fine grained? It used to be a five point scale. Then it turned into a 20 point scale. Then they added the negatives to the scale. People wanted Meltzer to get more specific and he used the star system because it was easier to place in a newsletter. The real reason for the fraction snowflakes (well, this is an assumption example) is to explain to someone why certain AJPW tag matches are better than others. When all of the matches are 40+ minute epics it's best to just be able to say, "This **** match is not as good as this ****1/4 match, but that match isn't as good as the ****1/2 match." The less thought the better, honestly. Also, just because a match is a ***** in 1989 doesn't mean it would be a ***** in 2012. People seem to forget this at times (myself included).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:That reminds me about how in one of the Observers this week, Bryan says the announcing in Elgin vs Steen added an extra star to the rating, and Dave just HAD to softly say half a star I actually had to pause at that point because I couldn't stop laughing
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:I don't understand star ratings at all. I get having a 5 point system, maybe. But then they start breaking it down into half stars and quarter stars, and actually having arguments about quarter star and half star differences. How on earth can you possibly grade a wrestling match finely enough to use a 20 point scale? And even if you could, would it even mean anything to have scores that fine grained? People argue about the star ratings, and argue at Dave about them. He doesn't really argue about it. He just assigns the ratings and leaves it up to people to care too much about them. How isn't a 20 point system fine enough? Academic performance for an entire semester or year is graded on a 12 or 13 point scale (depending on if A+s are given) and that is a bit more nuanced than pro wrestling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:People argue about the star ratings, and argue at Dave about them. He doesn't really argue about it. He just assigns the ratings and leaves it up to people to care too much about them. My point was that I thought 20 points was too fine. If I asked Dave, I wonder if he'd be able to tell me what the criteria separating a 3.5 star match from a 3.75 star match would be, or if anyone could. If not then it's a pointless metric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
How about "I thought it was better than 3 1/2 but really didn't feel it was 4 stars"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
HulkaMatt posted:How about "I thought it was better than 3 1/2 but really didn't feel it was 4 stars" Then why stop at quarter stars? I'm probably sounding madder about this than I actually am, but it's something that bothers me about a lot of arts/entertainment criticism. Once you start grading things with a 20 or in some cases a 100 point scale, the level of granularity strikes me as meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
I think when Bryan (or maybe it was Dave? I can't remember) gave that one match from Heroes of Wrestling "Negative more stars than there are in the universe" it pretty well established that the "rules" of star ratings are up to the individual reviewer, if you wanna give a match 3.14159 stars go right the gently caress ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
It's Dave's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
I always felt it was * - Bad ** - Average *** - Good **** - Great ***** - Excellent And that the half and quarter stars were like a "tilt". Ie "it was really great" or "pretty great" or "better than average great" and then "great" Strenuous Manflurry posted:I think I remember him saying it about big NOAH matches in general during its heyday, in the way they would build and build and build until it just became perfect. I don't remember if it was a specific one. If it was, maybe the Misawa vs Kobashi match from 2003? It took me ages trawling through the F4W archive. quote:Dave Meltzer said he had a tape for me to watch, the July 10th NOAH show, the company’s first ever from the Tokyo Dome. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:Then why stop at quarter stars? I'm probably sounding madder about this than I actually am, but it's something that bothers me about a lot of arts/entertainment criticism. Once you start grading things with a 20 or in some cases a 100 point scale, the level of granularity strikes me as meaningless. Because it seems to work? There's enough wrestling matches per year that 20+ ranks works well to differentiate between the qualify of different matches. There's too many for just five or ten, and too few for 100.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I always felt it was NOAH 10.07.2004 - Kenta Kobashi vs Jun Akiyama
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Grant Eff posted:This is really great. Mostly because of Dolph, but also because the dude who jumps in is how I imagine any goon would act in the situation. Holy moly. Just listened to this. I thought you guys were referring to the phone call but then he gets into studio and  edit: I was really enjoying this interview as well. She was really falling for Dolph. I just realized who Max Landis is. He's the guy who made the Death and Return of Superman video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwDbSYicM TLM fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:My point was that I thought 20 points was too fine. If I asked Dave, I wonder if he'd be able to tell me what the criteria separating a 3.5 star match from a 3.75 star match would be, or if anyone could. If not then it's a pointless metric. Sure. ***1/2 Match: A little better than a ***1/4 match. ***3/4 Match: A little better than a ***1/2 match.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
I usually agree with these guys about their opinions, but I think they were dead wrong about BFG. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRJ1wvIDV7M
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Decided to listen to the Todd show to hear the discussion on The Ryback and actually did not regret my decision. Bryan declaring that David Otunga could spend 24 hours at the zoo thanks to his WWE schedule and not knowing if zoos were open 24 hours was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pJs1vevNAg Well that was awesome. I can't believe I hadn't seen it before. Ranking it in symbols instead of conventional stars in definitely the way to go because ho-ly crap. Also, AOW was pretty solid this week. Brawler was a fun guest. Would have liked it if they would have gone a little more in depth on the early days of the WWF's national expansion, but I guess that's not really what Cabana's podcast is for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
"Get out of the bubble for a minute Todd" - Bryan Alvarez
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Price Check posted:Also, AOW was pretty solid this week. Brawler was a fun guest. Would have liked it if they would have gone a little more in depth on the early days of the WWF's national expansion, but I guess that's not really what Cabana's podcast is for. I don't know how much he would have been able to say about that since he was a job guy when all that was happening. I wouldn't have minded them talking more about Brawler (as Kim Chee) managing Kamala, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
CombineThresher posted:I don't know how much he would have been able to say about that since he was a job guy when all that was happening. I wouldn't have minded them talking more about Brawler (as Kim Chee) managing Kamala, though. Yeah, but he still talks about traveling with Hogan and putting over guys as they entered from other territories. And really, he's one of the few guys left who was around for the transition from WWF as a regional Northeast promotion to a national/global phenomenon. I didn't exactly expect a shoot interview, but I think they could have talked about that a little more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Woops
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 08:50
|
|
