|
Pretty sure Miz and Maryse were dating before that storyline came about, just like the Cena/Mickie thing from a couple of years ago.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
DMPunk posted:Who was this guy? Oh my god this guy owns. It's like Ken Jeong before Ken Jeong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
tzirean posted:In a lot of ways, Bret Hart was defined by Shawn Michaels. Shawn was even smaller than Bret, so there's a good argument that Shawn couldn't have become the star he was without Bret to blaze a trail. But there's also a good argument that Shawn was better than Bret in pretty much every way except "not being a drugged-out mess," so Bret was doing all this trail-blazing and yet constantly finding himself one-upped by HBK. Christ, Bret had a five-star classic with Owen at WrestleMania X, but thanks to Shawn, it wasn't even the best match of the night. I won't lie that I'm a Bret mark, but watch the Owen/Bret match and Shawn/Razor match again. Bret/Owen is the much better match in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
DMPunk posted:Who was this guy? Charlie Minn. They should have got the Micro Machines guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:I won't lie that I'm a Bret mark, but watch the Owen/Bret match and Shawn/Razor match again. Bret/Owen is the much better match in hindsight. It holds up better because it's just a great pure wrestling match that tells an awesome story though excellent wrestling. Shawn/Razor is great, but it's a gimmick match with a gimmick that has been elaborated on and in certain ways improved upon over the years. At the time it was so amazing and different that it blew everything away, but it certainly doesn't hold up as well as Owen/Bret years later. Still a great match, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
El Duke posted:It holds up better because it's just a great pure wrestling match that tells an awesome story though excellent wrestling. Shawn/Razor is great, but it's a gimmick match with a gimmick that has been elaborated on and in certain ways improved upon over the years. At the time it was so amazing and different that it blew everything away, but it certainly doesn't hold up as well as Owen/Bret years later. The interesting thing is comparing that ladder match to ladder matches of today. The psychology has completely changed and for the worse. Bret likes to whine about Shawn using the ladder match for Wrestlemania X like it was his special match, even though the first ladder match in the WWF was... Bret and Shawn. It might have been a Stampede gimmick but Bret held no license to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:29
|
|
|
Savage and Elizabeth stayed together in real life after the split on TV in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:29
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Savage and Elizabeth stayed together in real life after the split on TV in the 80s. And then they wound up getting back together on TV after being split in real life in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
When did Smackdown referees stop wearing blue shirts? I only just noticed that they wear the black and white stripes now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Warrior's match where he beat the dastardly HTM was super because it was the end of Honky Tonk's all-time great run, and didn't Rick Rude carry Warrior to some completely watchable matches? Saying Warrior only had two good matches isn't right. Warrior/Honky Tonk wasn't a match. Warrior had four major matches with Rude, a singles match at Mania V that kinda sucked and went like nine minutes where Rude won the IC title, a rematch at SummerSlam 89 which was fairly good although restholdy that Warrior won (their only match that went significant length), a bad countout finish on a Saturday Night's Main Event that was mostly setup for the next match, and a WWF title cage match at SummerSlam 90 that sucked pretty bad with the crowd completely not giving a poo poo after Hogan/Earthquake, the real main event. DannoMack posted:By Kevin Nash's standards, Warrior was far better than Dean Malenko. It's probably worth noting somewhere in here that Warrior completely tanked as champion and was never any sort of draw except on B house shows against Andre The Giant in 1989, which probably had a lot more to do with Andre than Warrior. Even WrestleMania VI did what was at the time a terribly disappointing number. He's remembered much more fondly than he should be because of the Mania VI match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
For those that don't know the famous Kevin Nash quote. "The greatest worker of all time is Hulk Hogan, he made the most money, this is all fake".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
Well, Nash has a bit of a point. At the end of the day, only the paychecks matter. Of course workrate is a part of that, but it's not the end all be all. Though that does make a bro think: Even by Nash's standard, Hogan might not be the best of all time. What about Austin or Rock? Or if we count Vince McMahon as a "worker."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
Nash only rattles off those comments because even he knows he sucks in the ring and its his defense mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Warrior/Honky Tonk wasn't a match. Sure it was. It was under a minute and had like two and a half moves in it, but it was the perfect way to end Honky Tonk's super long heel IC title run. I guess I am in the minority in the IWC because I don't necessarily think workrate is the deciding factor for a great wrestler/match. I think that was one of the better title changes WWE has ever done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with Nash's view of the business. Its just a different conversation. But him dismissing the entire workrate debate is the same thing as people calling him an idiot for his view. They both have perfectly valid approaches but their stubbornness and refusal to even consider the alternative makes debate pointless. And ultimately we're just debating to amuse ourselves since even if we all came to a conclusion on who the best worker of all time was it would mean absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
e:gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Sure it was. It was under a minute and had like two and a half moves in it, but it was the perfect way to end Honky Tonk's super long heel IC title run. I guess I am in the minority in the IWC because I don't necessarily think workrate is the deciding factor for a great wrestler/match. I think that was one of the better title changes WWE has ever done. Crediting Ultimate Warrior for a great match in that situation is a joke. The dude sucked in the ring and he didn't draw poo poo to the arena. I'm sorry if that ruins some people's childhood memories or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
It was a fantastic moment and I loved every second of it, but yeah I wouldn't call it a great match by any stretch of the imagination - that has nothing to do with workrate or anything, or change the fact it was a brilliant way to end Honky's reign (finally he puts himself into a position he can't escape from where a loving force of nature just tears through him), but the match itself was a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:There's nothing wrong with Nash's view of the business. Its just a different conversation. But him dismissing the entire workrate debate is the same thing as people calling him an idiot for his view. They both have perfectly valid approaches but their stubbornness and refusal to even consider the alternative makes debate pointless. And ultimately we're just debating to amuse ourselves since even if we all came to a conclusion on who the best worker of all time was it would mean absolutely nothing. There's absolutely something wrong with the viewpoint more money=better than. Nobody actually thinks the highest grossing film, best selling record, or highest rated tv show is the greatest of all time. Wrestling's just another artform, and being comercially successful has nothing to do with the quality of art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:There's absolutely something wrong with the viewpoint more money=better than. Nobody actually thinks the highest grossing film, best selling record, or highest rated tv show is the greatest of all time. Wrestling's just another artform, and being comercially successful has nothing to do with the quality of art. Nobody thinks Avatar is the best movie, Thriller is the best album or that MASH was the best TV show?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:Nobody actually thinks the highest grossing film, best selling record, or highest rated tv show is the greatest of all time. People making films, records or TV shows often do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
Exactly, its a matter of perspective. Its art and business. If your main concern is the art then you debate on quality and success is meaningless. But to deny that a film, musician, TV show, book, or wrestler didn't do everything they set out to do by being the highest grossing of its time is silly. Again, its just people who refuse to see the point that its two completely different meaningless discussions, not a right one and a wrong one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Nobody thinks Avatar is the best movie, Thriller is the best album or that MASH was the best TV show? Because they like it, not because it made the most money. The concept of anyone going, "Avatar is the best movie ever because it made the most money" is ridiculous. DannoMack posted:People making films, records or TV shows often do. Nope, they just want to duplicate the success. Even the most jaded, capitalist studio head would rather watch a Citizen Kane (or whatever they like) over a Madea Goes To Jail, though they'd rather their studio make the latter. STAC Goat posted:Exactly, its a matter of perspective. Its art and business. If your main concern is the art then you debate on quality and success is meaningless. But to deny that a film, musician, TV show, book, or wrestler didn't do everything they set out to do by being the highest grossing of its time is silly. Again, its just people who refuse to see the point that its two completely different meaningless discussions, not a right one and a wrong one. Nobody good has ever gone into any art form to primarily make the most money. If your goal is to make a ton of money, art, ESPECIALLY wrestling, is a dumb idea. Talking about business has no place in a discussion about the quality of art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:Because they like it, not because it made the most money. The concept of anyone going, "Avatar is the best movie ever because it made the most money" is ridiculous. Which begs the question, if we adjust for inflation I wonder which wrestler made the most money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Which begs the question, if we adjust for inflation I wonder which wrestler made the most money. I'd suspect the answer is Jim Londos but I'm not even sure how you'd get reliable enough records to calculate this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Avatar is only like, the seventeenth highest-grossing movie when adjusted for inflation. I think Casablanca's still the highest. Gone With The Wind, although they were able to tour the movie from city to city to keep it fresh for a very long time, whereas today movies like The Dark Knight and Avatar have a month or two of earth-shattering business and then peter out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Gone With The Wind, although they were able to tour the movie from city to city to keep it fresh for a very long time, whereas today movies like The Dark Knight and Avatar have a month or two of earth-shattering business and then peter out. Much like wrestling
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:Much like wrestling Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer killed the territories! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
So I just found out that Sandman is actually my dad. Does anyone know a way I could get in contact with him? Thief fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Apr 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
Thief posted:So I just found out that Sandman is actually my dad. Put out a six-pack on the porch and play Metallica on loop. It'll lure him to you eventually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:41
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:Much like wrestling Yeah, that was exactly what I thought. Although the big studios still make good movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
Thief posted:So I just found out that Sandman is actually my dad. Ever have an occassion when you hope something is real?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Crediting Ultimate Warrior for a great match in that situation is a joke. The dude sucked in the ring and he didn't draw poo poo to the arena. I'm sorry if that ruins some people's childhood memories or whatever. I honestly can't quote the numbers but I'm sure Warrior was disappointing compared to Hogan... however the lowest drawing champion during a period where the company was heading for bankruptcy in terms of buyrates was Shawn Michaels. The matches were good, the buyrates weren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
Giedroyc posted:I honestly can't quote the numbers but I'm sure Warrior was disappointing compared to Hogan... however the lowest drawing champion during a period where the company was heading for bankruptcy in terms of buyrates was Shawn Michaels. The matches were good, the buyrates weren't. Actually, Diesel was the worst. That's when the company almost went bankrupt. Warrior might not have drawn so poorly if they actually paired him up with Earthquake, who they had been building up as a monster for a long time, as opposed to Rick Rude, career midcarder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
And Ted Dibiase who Hogan had spent the last 2 years beating the credibility out of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Warrior drew poorly at the houses - relative to the era - in spring and summer 1990 against Curt Hennig and Rick Rude. At that, point he was basically removed back to the secondary/B-tour face role that he had held since Savage turned heel in winter 1989. Warrior's reign in general was a rather distant afterthought to the Hogan/Earthquake feud, and the planned Warrior/Hogan II megamatch at the LA Coliseum eventually turned into Slaughter/Hogan at the LA Sports Arena. It is true that Warrior is not the worst drawing champion in the history of the promotion; the promotion was still too hot in that period for it to be true. He's probably the most disappointing drawing champion in the history of the promotion, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:11
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Years later I am still not sure how that and the crossface parts never became part of the mainstream story, other than that Vince McMahon has some sort of divine power from his Backlash victory over Shawn Michaels and God. STAC Goat posted:Rather I thought those videos were a bunch of people who knew Benoit well enough that when told his family died a violent death and he had disappeared for days before that were able to put the pieces together and feared the worst. Hence them being all weirdly stone faced, talking about him as a wrestler and less as a person, and having those awkwardly cold and seemingly restrained opinions. Maybe Regal knew more or maybe he just was more confident in his theory. Point is I don't think those videos are really necessarily evidence that they knew as they could be easily explained by acknowledging that everyone knew Benoit was crazy and didn't doubt that he could have done it. There's heaps of stuff that doesn't add up and probably won't ever be explained and a lot of theories have been thrown around by various people, in Chris Benoit 'the Aftermath' by RF video there's even a guy that suggests the situation was a result of Benoit finding out his son was conceived by Vince, although I'm highly sceptical about this. On a much happier note can someone please recommend me some defining Shawn Michaels matches? He was all ready out of action for the first time when I began watching wrestling and when he returned I'd stopped watching the product. So my sum knowledge of Shawn Michaels is all from his last run that started with reforming DX with Hunter, so I've no doubt missed many essentials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:35
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:On a much happier note can someone please recommend me some defining Shawn Michaels matches? Can't speak for his first run but his matches against Jericho and Angle at Wrestlemanias 19 and 21 immediately come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Thief posted:So I just found out that Sandman is actually my dad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 11:43
|
|