Wrestling Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread - "ASK THEM! >:("

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Hammer House: Stinger Splash Zone > Wrestling Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread - "ASK THEM! >:("

«‹›21 »

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Super Dan posted:

I'm a little late on this, but the Brian Pillman gun angle could be considered, although that might count as self defense instead of straight up murder.

Also, the WCW Hummer angle (sorry for reminding everyone about that.)

There've been tons of car-wreck storylines. Hogan crushed Rock with a semi truck, then was his buddy the next week and Rock was fine. Cena just got run over by JBL recently.

The car thing happens a lot.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2009 22:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 23:34

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Nope. The whole thing was part of the lawsuit beteen WCW and WWF over Hall and Nash defecting. If Vince used the characters on television, it lent more credence to his claim that he owned the characters and they coudn't act like them on WCW television. This is why Hall stopped talking like Razor.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2009 22:07

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:

I know that this was gone over earlier in the thread, but what about the period of time that the Dudley's were in the WWF wile ECW was still open? I was going to post what someone told me earlier, but I forget.

The only reason anybody's ever given is that it was fine with Paul E., so he didn't press it legally.

WWE and ECW had a working business relationship. ECW owned the rights until the buyout.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2009 13:47

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

FishBulb posted:

The name.

Pretty much, yeah. Since Bischoff started the trend of puting actual title matches on free TV, there's been no reason to have a Television title. Furthermore, there's no reason anybody should defend one on anything but television, such as when ECW had RVD only defend his TV title on Pay-per-view.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2009 05:32

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

The FCC has absolutely nothing to do with cable television.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2009 00:03

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

when it was actually a case of having no one available that they'd rather put it on.

I can't even count how many title changes have happened this way.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2009 02:07

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Chilly McFreeze posted:

If WWE crowds don't sing along with Zack Ryder's song, they won't sing along with anything.

You don't feel me, so sit down and don't say "What's up."

# ¿ Oct 20, 2009 02:19

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Iskanderson posted:

I think the concept of "drawing" has long been dead and buried, at least as far as WWE is concerned. Considering that the WWE itself IS the draw, it's really irrelevant.

I really don't think anybody's been a draw since Stone Cold and The Rock retired. They were the last two guys I can think of who people would buy a ticket specifically to see.

"gently caress the rest of this bullshit. As long as Stone Cold stuns somebody, I'm going home happy."

# ¿ Oct 20, 2009 12:14

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Jerusalem posted:

I went to a show specifically because Undertaker was going to be there and I'd never seen him live (and holy God was it worth it). I'd do the same to see Ric Flair or Hogan, both guys I've never seen at a live show before (Hogan was supposed to be at one I went to back about 6-7 years ago but hosed up his back and had to pull out).

Right, but he was around before both Rock and Stone Cold. I guess I should have phrased it differently as it is a bit misleading. What I mean is that Rock and Stone Cold were the last two large-caliber single-person draws created that I can remember. People would still buy a ticket just for Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Undertaker, etc. and you'll always have weirdos like me who'll spend the money just to see Lance Storm, but on the whole, the main-event players of this generation couldn't fill an arena by themselves if it wasn't labled "WWE". See also: TNA.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2009 23:36

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

I guess I'm just out of touch with the youth of today.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2009 00:00

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

The refs also throw up the X for fake injuries, though. Like when they didn't want to put RVD over Lashley so they faked an injury.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2009 09:42

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Moose Bigelow posted:

Snapmare

Snapmare takeovers are a standing opponent flipping a guy over by twisting his neck and are usually the setup move for the one you're talking about.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2009 00:49

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

MrBling posted:

Wouldn't a somersault neck breaker be a buff blockbuster?

If it was from the top rope on a standing opponent.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2009 22:44

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Judakel posted:

I just hard to address the stupidity in this post: You don't have to maintain a long feud with someone to put them over. HBK has worked with guys well below his main event level and made them look drat good. The problem is that to smarks if he ain't losing or running long feuds with them then it doesn't count.

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.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2009 10:32

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Pneub posted:

Who's HBK burying?

Maybe I should have been more clear. I was taking exception to the definition of "putting over" and offering a fairly extreme example of it not being true. In any case, my counter question is "Who's he making a star?"

Judakel posted:

I don't know why I bother replying though. You probably interpreted this post as supporting the free market or something.

What in the blue hell is this?

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

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Wazzu posted:

Is this the infamous birdshit logo?

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.

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:

A question. I replied with a question. I was asking you to clarify and asking if that's what you meant.

It doesn't matter.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2009 12:10

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

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.

I used to agree with this without exception until Edge.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2009 12:51

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

tzirean posted:

That's a different ad.

Well, I guess I'm wrong that the ad doesn't exist because it wasn't mentioned in RD Reynolds' book.

Seriously, guys? Really?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2009 00:19

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Fair enough. Just seemed like all the discussion about it not being in the book and no discussion or comments on the fully made-up nature of the ad were pointing in the direction I went. Nevermind.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2009 01:02

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Rush Hour Renegade posted:

I've never seen the ad but it was in the Observer. DVDVR had a thread with Observer quotes for WCW from 1998-2001. It's number 98 in their thread.

I'm well aware. And I'm calling bullshit. This ad doesn't exist and never happened. Nobody's ever seen a picture of it. Nobody remembers it. The only evidence that it ever happened is not even Meltzer, but a thread full of quotes ATTRIBUTED to Meltzer. It's reached legend status and I've never seen anybody question its authenticity before.

The thing doesn't exist. It never happened.

Not unless somebody has pictures that aren't 'shopped.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2009 04:11

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Dragging Iron Feet posted:

Was this the same Ricky Rachmann of Headbangers Hall/The Cathouse fame?

It was. But take those quotes with a bowl of salt. Many of them are straight-up made-up.

The A-Team Van posted:

This is now something I must see. I see your post has words in place of a gif, what the hell?

How DARE the man who brings us all of our GIFs not deliver? How loving DARE he?!

# ¿ Nov 4, 2009 11:13

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

MassRayPer posted:

Your evidence being?

That there is no evidence that many of them actually happened, or actually appeared in the observer, or that they weren't taken entirely out of context or were a joke.

Meltzer had sources in WCW, but those sources were within a company that fostered an environment filled with bullshit rumors. The ones passed off to him made print. We have no way of knowing which are true and which aren't, but I'm pretty confident that a lot of that list is made-up. In some cases, I remember the incidents he spoke of and they didn't go that way at all.

It's really not a big deal, but only on Something Awful could I get poo poo on for saying, "Don't trust that list compiled by some random internet dude that's allegedly full of quotes from a publication whose journalistic integrity is questionable."

The bird ad doesn't exist until somebody finds it. Until then, it's a rumor that possibly appeared in a newsletter, was read by a fan who transcribed it, then passed it around the internet. I'm sorry, but that's not evidence.

By all means, read it. It's loving funny. I'm just saying it's not gospel.

MassRayPer posted:

Especially involving a 10 year old ad that was printed in a periodical most Attitude era fans weren't reading in a time period where far less people had scanners or digital cameras and the IWC was MUCH smaller than it is today.

This isn't true. Any given Monday's traffic would crush a shitload of the wrestling websites. The internet was huge back then.

As far as the misremembrances in "Death of WCW", I only really get angry enough to call them "Bullshit" when somebody sources it as some kind of official document. It's an opinion piece filled with glaring omissions, revisionist history, and slightly-off versions of actual events. It's a fantastic book, but it's not without its problems. It also got much of the story correct.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2009 00:27

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

grody but still def posted:

Post some examples please. And you are insane if you think the IWC was just as big or bigger in late 99-00. Do you have any idea how much lower percentage of people even had home computers back then?

How does one post examples of things that have no proof? You allege that these things actually happened? Burden of proof is on you. I can't prove the absence of something.

Matlock posted:

Former guys who worked for the company during the period say most of the stuff in the book is right. One guy with a mullet says it's all bullshit.

Seems rational to take the skeptical side.

LividLiquid posted:

It also got much of the story correct.

Please read before posting.

I will say this again, as so many are having problems comprehending it and would rather nitpick my posts and be intentionally and deliberately obtuse.

I think the list is funny. I think it probably has a lot of truth in it. I think the same about the book.

I also think neither should be taken as gospel.

If somebody wants to find the image of the bird-poo poo advertisement, go right ahead. Until then, it never loving happened and was made up or was just a joke.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2009 04:20

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Jerusalem posted:

Didn't NWA actually choose to disassociate themselves from TNA? I think I recall them doing a kayfabe thing where they stripped Christian of the belt for "not meeting his challenge obligations" or something?

The story has always been that Russo was hotshotting the belt too much. NWA took off. No idea what actually happened. I thought it was lame, since TNA Champion sounds like a title you'd win at a Hooters. Plus having Christian as the NWA champion and talking to Muta about how the've both been NWA Champ was a pretty big markout moment for me.

I'm sort of glad Russo didn't get to ruin the history of another long-running title.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2009 12:59

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

I wouldn't say ruined. One black mark on your belt's lineage isn't nearly as bad as half of your title changes taking place in a two-year span. Oh, WCW title. Poor, poor, WCW title.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2009 14:09

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Carlton Banks posted:

I get to claim the WH2K record for worst Wrestlemania seat; I had 2nd to last row in the top deck at WM17.

well, unless someone here had a seat behind a pillar or in the bathroom or something

My seat was many hundreds of miles away. :colbert:

# ¿ Nov 6, 2009 02:43

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Beef Jerky Robot posted:

What's the deal with Cena fart juice and hogan's meat shoes?

Cena, for serious and no bullshit, asked Edge why anybody would by his t-shirts, considering they were covered with fart juice.

How is this worse than Mean Gene telling WCW fans that their cologne stank, exactly?

# ¿ Nov 11, 2009 13:18

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

FishBulb posted:

I don't understand your question

The comparison was retarded and best forgotten. I was confusing an argument from a different board with this one. I'm just saying telling the audience that you wiped your rear end with another dude's T-shirts is bound to have some kind of hit on sales from children.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2009 02:19

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Matt Cruea posted:

In fact, to ask a semi-related question, has anyone else really fallen from main event to jobber status? Jeff Hardy WWE Champion to TNA Champion doesn't count

Jeff never won the title in TNA. He was kind of a glorified jobber to the stars.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2009 01:36

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

CombineThresher posted:

I think it's safe to say that most of us hated it; Hogan's reign was symptomatic of WCW's good undercard/lovely main event problem, not to mention the backstage pull Hogan had and freely abused.

It was OUTSTANDING for heel heat. People hated Hogan and they wanted to see him lose the belt. They also didn't tune out in droves as people have since during HHH and JBL's reigns of terror.

It worked AND people hated it.

BigRed0427 posted:

I did hear about how he was advertised for an indy show in canada, his secduled oppenet could not go on for some reason so Storm just decided to go home without wrestling.

This sounds nothing like Lance. Where'd you hear it?

Jagtpanther posted:

I dunno, I know I asked why Austin hated Hogan - but to me this is coming entirely from a dirt sheet writer. I mean, we poo-poo "CM PUNK DOGHOUSE!" crap, but we take whatever dirt sheet writers say that anonymous insiders say from the late 90's because it's been repeated so many times it's gospel.

And anything negative about WCW or TNA.

oldpainless posted:

I think it the book The Death of WCW that listed 150,000.

Did RJ Reynolds call Vince McMahon and ask him, then? Don't believe everything you read. The story most people tell is that Jarrett didn't want any ties with the company. The money he made that night was money he was owed by WWE and just wanted it in a lump sum.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2009 06:51

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Captain Strange posted:

CM Punk

Lance Storm

Similarities?

Differences?

Smarks. That's it. Lance Storm is the greatest wrestler in the world and gave fantastic promos. I said it. :colbert:

I LOVE Lance Storm.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2009 12:18

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

iamsosmrt posted:

He even made "Calgary... Alberta, Canada!" into a pretty entertaining phrase. I'd like to think that if WCW lasted another 2-3 years, Storm would've been a former World champion.

Storm had a credible shot at the belt. He won three championships in three weeks, then challenged for the world belt in one of the best loving matches I've ever seen. Ever. The whole crowd actually believed he could beat Booker T. It was probably the best Nitro post '98.

I'll never be able to totally hate Johnny Ace because he and Ferrarra were covering for Russo those couple months when Lance Storm was awesome. Then Russo came back and booked New Blood Rising and neutered Storm.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2009 03:45

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

The Croc posted:

Everytime I see him now I can only think of Blazing Saddles Botchamania has ruined that film for me!

Well you should forget about that poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2009 01:44

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

ABOUT DRUGS posted:

If he wanted some Hogan poo poo, you should feel bad because Hogan is an awful wrestler and an rear end in a top hat, but Cena spends half his life making dying children happy, so padding his wallet isn't such a bad thing.

Did you type the wrong name? Hogan's the one who spends all his time with Make a Wish. It's the only thing that's unquestioningly decent of him.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2009 03:32

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

So did Rock. I wonder if it's something Vince turns guys on to. Goldberg did it all the time too. It's pretty big in Wrestling.

Make a Wish doesn't pay people, right? Because that would make it way less cool.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2009 05:04

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

oldpainless posted:

Goldberg's jackhammer finisher must be one of the most protected finishers of the last 10 years. All of the biggest finishers always had someone kick out, but I can't remember anyone kicking out of the Jackhammer. Ever.

Note: This does not apply to TNA, as no-one watches TNA.

Goldberg has never wrestled for TNA.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2009 12:45

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Chunky Delight posted:

To be honest it was signing Christian that made me watch TNA and I stopped caring about TNA after he left.

Hi, there!

# ¿ Dec 8, 2009 01:50

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

dusty udder smoker posted:

for someone who doesn't care you sure defend tna a lot

I suppose the qualifier being that I only stopped watching. I still want the company to succeed and can't stand the double standard used to judge it. When they're actively loving up, there's no reason to make poo poo up. That's about it.

ColeM posted:

Seriously, could Sting ever do this and make it really funny:

Could The Undertaker?

# ¿ Dec 8, 2009 02:09

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

dusty udder smoker posted:

here is the main difference: when wwe fucks up or has a bad skit, they usually correct themselves later on and turn a negative into a positive and they capitalize. tna never does this. there's a reason wwe is still doing well today while tna is in the spot its in. there is no double standard.

Well, you'll nearly never hear me defending things of that nature, so that's not really what I was talking about. It's really not worth discussing.

All I meant was that I started religiously watching iMPACT! when Christian arrived, and ordering PPVs. Russo came in and I stopped ordering PPVs after that lovely one where Sting and Abyss fought with cardboard. Then I stopped watching iMPACT! when Christian left.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2009 03:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 23:34

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

Wrestlemania 19 did a 1.4 with a month of buildup using a new face in the business, and was awesome. Starrcade '97 did a 1.9 after a year of buildup, featuring the NWO, and sucked.

Wrestlemania 19 was also a hell of a lot bigger of a deal than the Manias that Sid and Yokozuna headlined.

That's pretty much it.

So your opinion of who's a bigger star is more conclusive evidence than numbers.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2009 12:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Hammer House: Stinger Splash Zone > Wrestling Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread - "ASK THEM! >:("

«‹›21 »